There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Anti-Americanism in the UK
From: "yahoo" <yahooboxx@ntlworld.com>
2. Israel Says US Should Take Lead in Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Program
From: "yahoo" <yahooboxx@ntlworld.com>
3. Powell: Iraq NEVER was a nuclear threat! tvnl news
From: "reggie501" <reggie501@optonline.net>
4. RE: CENSORING EMAILS So what are you doing about it??
From: John Perna <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
5. Re: articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next
From: Naveed <flanker12k@yahoo.com>
6. Confused
From: "kenny318east3" <kenny318east3@yahoo.com>
7. Confused
From: "kenny318east3" <kenny318east3@yahoo.com>
8. 9 items: Smear and Fear -- That's how Israel's lobby operates -=- Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You bet it does.
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
9. The Death of British Freedom by John Pilger
From: James Patton <james_patton@yahoo.com>
10. Fw: Rumsfeld 'personally involved' in 'harsh' interrogation
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
11. Re: articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
12. Blame, who said anything about blame? Espionage Act Trial of AIPAC Operatives Unnerves Some U.S. Jewish Leaders
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
13. Fw: Six Retired Generals Clamor for Rumsfeld's Ouster
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
14. Leslie, can you explain this message from qmail-sent programe at yahoo that you forwarded?
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
15. Re: Confused
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
16. Charlie Sheen on Ellen DeGeneres show Friday afternoon 4/14/06 9/11
From: ranger116@webtv.net
17. Debate Revives as 9/11 Dust Is Called Fatal
From: "angiesept11" <angiesept11@yahoo.com>
18. Dark Times - The evidence is in, the analyses have been made
From: APFN <apfn@apfn.org>
19. Re: Charlie Sheen on Ellen DeGeneres show Friday afternoon 4/14/06 9/11
From: "angiesept11" <angiesept11@yahoo.com>
20. US business ban on Hamas-led PA
From: "yahoo" <yahooboxx@ntlworld.com>
21. Amazing -- force fields around tanks? -=- Alan Dershowitz derides "paranoid claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy" -=- My Name is Rachel Corrie
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
22. Astounding: Lessons of the Opium Wars -=- Austrailia becoming Chinese quarry/colony? -=- Shanghai has 4,000 skyscrapers, turns its back on low-income residents
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
23. Fw: U.S. Allies Are Behind The Death Squads And Ethic Cleansing.
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
24. Fw: The Israel Lobby is the Prime Mover Behind the Campaign to Attack Iran
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
25. Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe? -- Behind the Campaign to Attack Iran
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:17:39 +0100
From: "yahoo" <yahooboxx@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Anti-Americanism in the UK
This is why Americans are regarded as crazy psychos almost everywhere in the world. They believe they live in a democracy !
"Bush is our leader and I respect that. It's a bit like the way you feel about your father. You don't always agree with him, but you would defend him."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4881474.stm
Anti-Americanism 'feels like racism'
Ms Cox says she lowers her voice on the Tube to avoid confrontation
As a US citizen living in London, Christian Cox says she is shocked at the amount of abuse she receives because of her nationality.
She says the level of anti-Americanism she has experienced "feels like a kind of racism".
"I don't want anyone to feel sorry for Americans, or me, I just want people to realise that we are dealing with hatred too," she says.
If you have had similar experiences or have an opinion on this story send your comments to the BBC using the form at the bottom of this page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical British pub banter is one thing, says Christian Cox, but the "pure hatred" she says is directed at her for being American is really starting to wear her down.
The former model moved to London a year ago, where she is setting up her own business, and has been surprised at how some people have reacted to her nationality.
Ms Cox, 29, says she has been called, among other things, "terrorist", "scum", "low life", and feels that she is constantly being held to account for the actions of President Bush and for US foreign policy.
This is despite the fact that she doesn't agree with the war in Iraq and didn't vote for Bush.
I think you are the poorest people I have ever met in my life
American critic
However she adds: "Bush is our leader and I respect that. It's a bit like the way you feel about your father. You don't always agree with him, but you would defend him."
She has travelled widely in other parts of Europe, Mexico, Canada and Australia but says this is the first time her pride in her country has been challenged in such a vitriolic way.
"People would make jokes about Americans but I didn't experience the pure hatred I have had since I came to live here.
"I appreciate that British people often don't understand why I have so much pride, they think it's brainwashing.
"And I do think some people in the US need to be more educated about what's going on in the world.
"But some people just fly off the handle without even talking to me - it's as if they had been waiting to run into an American all day to let their feelings out," she says.
To avoid confrontations she says she lowers her voice on the Underground and in pubs.
But in one incident an older man asked her directly if she was American.
"When I said yes he said: 'I just want you to know that I think you are the poorest people I have ever met in my life' - meaning we were low-life.
"I said I was sorry he felt that way, but that I disagreed."
The man started shouting obscenities at her group. The row developed into a brawl and Ms Cox suffered a black eye as she tried to pull two people apart.
"After that I cried for two days, then booked a flight back to the States. I felt so hated, I needed to be with people who loved me."
Some friends now advise her to tell people she is Canadian, to deflect potential abuse, an option she calls "sad".
'Culture shock'
However it is advice that teacher Francesca Terry, 28, who grew up in Seattle, recognises.
She has lived in London for four years and is married with a daughter.
"I was aware before I moved here that when you travelled abroad it was always better to say you were Canadian if you could get away with it. But we treated it more like a joke."
She was subjected to verbal abuse in the first year or so in Britain, but things calmed down particularly when she had her daughter and stopped going out to pubs so much.
"When I first came here it was part of the culture shock. I felt really naive, I had thought I would go unnoticed here.
"I would go out and I'd just get picked on by people taking pot shots. I just didn't speak when we went out. What shocked me was that people would just say the rudest comments."
But she adds that she has a close group of girlfriends from the US, many of whom say they have not had similar experiences.
She says she is still cautious when she's out and about: "If people ask where I'm from I say 'the States, but the part near Canada'."
"I feel bad about saying that, but it is out of a kind of guilt, I just don't want to get into it with people. When I do, I tell them these are not my choices. I understand my president makes bad decisions, but that's not me."
The US embassy in London declined to comment on the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4881474.stm
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:12:43 +0100
From: "yahoo" <yahooboxx@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Israel Says US Should Take Lead in Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Program
Israel Says US Should Take Lead in Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Program
By Sonja Pace - Voice of America April 12, 2006
Israel has reacted cautiously to Iran's announcement that it has successfully enriched uranium. Israeli officials say the international community and especially the United States must take the lead in pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
Israel has for some time warned of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the danger they pose.
Tuesday's announcement from Tehran raised the level of concern.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proudly announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium - the essential building block to produce both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.
That development comes as no surprise, says Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, who heads the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
"I said three or four months ago that I assume this spring the Iranians will make such an achievement and such an announcement and now it should be clear and obvious that the Iranians are running to [toward developing] nuclear bombs if there will be no serious obstacles," said Steinitz.
Israeli officials dismiss Iran's assurances that it seeks only peaceful nuclear power and not weapons. Some have indicated that if the international community does not take a tougher approach toward Tehran, Israel might consider a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
But Israel's military chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, cautioned against reaching, what he called "foregone conclusions." He said it will take some time before Iran achieves real nuclear capability and much can change in the meantime.
Israeli political leader and elder statesman Shimon Peres called for patience and diplomacy.
Peres told Israel Radio the United States is already taking the lead on this issue and he said Israel should hold back even in its rhetoric.
So far, international diplomacy has not succeeded in stopping Iran's nuclear plans and recent American news reports have said that the Bush administration is studying military strike options against Iran's nuclear facilities.
U.S. officials were quick to describe those reports as mere speculation.
"The United States of America is on a diplomatic track. That is the president's decision. That's where our European allies are," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz doubts that diplomacy or even tough sanctions will be effective against Iran.
"They're so close to their goal to threaten not just the Middle East and Israel, but the entire world because now they're building missiles with the range of Europe already and the next generation [of missiles] will reach the east coast of the United States," he said. "I'm skeptical if they will give up due to pressure. Let's hope so."
Israel's own nuclear capability is often described as an "open secret." Israel will neither confirm nor deny that it has nuclear weapons, but outside experts believe it has 100 to 200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.
Steinitz says the threat of a nuclear Iran is serious enough to consider other options.
"I think the West, under the leadership of the United States, will have to consider also brute force in order to pre-empt and prevent a devastating threat to world peace - nuclear weapons in the hands of fundamentalist ayatollahs that are ready to sacrifice millions," he added.
But, says Steinitz, military force might not be necessary if Iran is convinced that such an option is under serious consideration. He says that could be the "big stick" that might make Tehran think twice.
www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060412-voa02.htm
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:41:49 -0000
From: "reggie501" <reggie501@optonline.net>
Subject: Powell: Iraq NEVER was a nuclear threat! tvnl news
HEADLINES and NEWS LINKS Courtesy of TvNewsLies.org
http://tvnewslies.org/news
________________________________________________________________
Apr.14-2006
WAR : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#war
**Now Powell Tells Us - On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin
Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never
believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that
the President followed the misleading advice of Vice President
Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
· Spending Lags for Training of Iraqi Police
· 6 Iraqi Policemen Killed by Insurgents - At least six Iraqi
policemen were dead and dozens were missing Friday
· US marines offer Babylon apology - A senior US marine officer
says he is willing to apologise for the damage caused by his
troops to the ancient Iraqi site of Babylon.
· On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelli-
gence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say - in order
to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack
POLITICS : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news#politics
· Government Spending Hits Record in March
ECONOMY : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news#economy
· Interest Rates Set to Rise as Treasury Note Tops 5%
· Oil man's half a billion dollar bye-bye
9/11 News : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#911
· Autopsy Spurs Calls for 9/11 Health Care
· Corporate Media Willfully Ignores Charlie Sheen's Challenge
DOMESTIC : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#domestic
· AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs - AT&T is seeking the return of
technical documents presented in a lawsuit that allegedly detail
how the telecom giant helped the government set up a massive
internet wiretap operation in its San Francisco facilities.
ENVIRONMENT : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#environment
· Scientist silenced; 15 Kyoto programs axed - A scientist with
Environment Canada was ordered not to launch his global warming-
themed novel Thursday at the same time the Conservative
government was quietly axing a number of Kyoto programs.
INTERNATIONAL : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#international
· Development in defiance of the Washington consensus - China
has carried off the world's largest reduction in poverty by
grasping that market economies cannot be left on autopilot
· Bush, Blair silent on Italian vote
MILITARY & VETERANS : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#military
· More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation
· Terror watch list trips up Marines' homecoming
EDITORIAL : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#editorial
· Blumner: Pathological lies in the name of national security -
· 'What have they done to our dear America?'
JOURNALISM & MEDIA : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#media
· McClellan: Media Should "Publicly Apologize" For Reporting On
Mobile Weapons Lab Story -
· N.Y. TIMES LEADS NEWSPAPER $HORTFALLS
· Intelligence Manipulation at the Washington Post - Paper's
editorial page ignores facts to back Bush
HEALTH & SCIENCE : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#health
· Fossil connects human evolution dots - The latest fossil
unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows
scientists to link together the most complete chain of human
evolution so far.
OF INTEREST : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#interest
· Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
- Live Vote
____________________________________________________________
Email the Oprah Winfrey today for a program to reopen 9/11!!
http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_truth_calling_oprah.html
1
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Perna <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: CENSORING EMAILS So what are you doing about it??
RE: CENSORING EMAILS So what are you doing about it??
Sample Letter on preventing internet censorship
Dear Congressman:
I am writing to you to request your assistance in preventing internet censorship. Please cut funds to every agency which engages in censorship of the internet, and block any legislation which would allow any type of internet censorship.
The excuses for censorship of the internet are quite different from what is actually being done. We are told that the goal is to prevent spam, pornography, fraud, sexual predation, and terrorism etc.
With the news of a Department of Homeland Security official having been arrested for internet solicitation of a minor, the idea of allowing DHS to censor the internet under the guise of preventing such activity is a little like sending the fox to guard the henhouse.
Anyone can test internet censorship for themselves, if they have one example of a censored message. There are certain email messages (most of which are critical of internet censorship, the Department of Homeland Security, or of violations of civil liberties) which will CONSISTENTLY be treated as spam, and blocked from normal delivery.
"Filters" are being installed by individual internet service providers.
The censorship is NOT private.
These filters are being installed as a result of GOVERNMENT PRESSURE.
The Internet Service Provider is now being told that they are now regulated by the Federal Communications Commission;
which in turn, receives guidelines from the
Department of Homeland Security.
The protocols for these "filters" were developed from guidelines from The Department of Homeland Security.
OF COURSE there is no legitimate
justification for Federal Communications Commission regulation of the
internet; since it does not use shared air ways.
The summation of all of this is clandestine censorship of the internet.
The ISP's are being FORCED to install the Department of Homeland Security's "filter", web pages are being shut done, and search engines are being required to limit certain types of searches.
These programs are purported to stop spam, but it truth, are used to halt political dissent.
One such program is called the “Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University. The program is installed on the Yahoo main email server. It is my belief that funds for the program may be budgeted through the FCC, now under the Department of Homeland Security. Certain specific messages as described above, are stopped from normal delivery by this program regardless of whether the message is sent to one individual, several email addresses, or to a group, which would clearly indicate that the program is not about spam, but is a sinister form of political censorship.
Please do not allow our first amendment rights to be taken from us in the name of security. Again, please cut funds to all censorship of the internets (such as the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University), and block any attempt at internet censorship.
See letter to Yahoo below this message
preppert@peoplepc.com wrote: So what are you doing about it??
----- Original Message -----
From: John Perna
To: JBirch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:20 PM
Subject: [BootcampLiving] RE: CENSORING EMAILS
RE: CENSORING EMAILS
AMEN!!!!!!
The CAPCHA censorship window is installed on the main Yahoo mail server.
It means nothing that you can post from somewhere else, EXCEPT that the CAPCHA censorship is not there YET.
The Department of Home land INSecurity's "filter" is in Yahoo, Google, AOL, and many ISP's.
It comes from the protocols that were developed from guidelines from
The Department of Home land INSecurity.
The Internet Service Provider is now being told that they are now regulated by the Federal Communications Commission; which in turn, receives guidelines from the
Department of Homeland Security. OF COURSE there is no legitimate
justification for Federal Communications Commission regulation of the
internet; since it does not use shared air ways.
The summation of all of this is clandestine censorship of the internet.
IF WE DO NOTHING IT WILL BE EXPANDED UNTIL IT CENSORS EVERYTHING.
The most important thing that I have learned from dealing with it is that
every message which has ever triggered this CAPCHA censorship window once ; almost always triggers this "glitch" every time that it is sent. Even a REPLY to such a message will trigger the CAPCHA censorship window UNLESS the censored message is trimmed out. ALMOST ALL of these messages were critical of something that the Department of Homeland Security had done, or failed to do.
Marci <tymetobattle2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yahoo Customer care,
It is getting very frustrating trying to send email from our yahoo email account.
I am requesting, when we try to send group emails, that you stop censoring our email.
These messages that we get (posted below) are not acceptable. We should not have to go through this crap over and over trying to get messages posted to our groups.
If this censoring continues, I will drop all my yahoo groups and move to MSN groups. And will encourage all other yahoo group owners to do like wise.
Your immediate attention to this matter is requested.
Marci
Marci <tymetobattle2@verizon.net> I found this message in my "bulk mail folder", treated as spam,
but this is actually political censorship.
EVEN A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE,
FROM THE MAIN YAHOO SERVER,
WILL TRIGGER THE CAPCHA CENSORSHIP WINDOW.
The message has been trimmed out to avoid the key word censorship.
CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDER AND THE ARCHIVES OF THIS GROUP.
The URLS FOR THIS MESSAGE ARE:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericansforMassDeportation/message/5066
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFIRDallasForum/message/3104
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/citizensagainstillegalaliens/message/9776
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CloseTheBorders/message/4400
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IllegalAliensInCalifornia/message/4290
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationrevolt/message/4106
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michael-Savage/message/7606
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutemencalifornia/message/2786
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/patriots/message/21187
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stop_illegals_now/message/4785
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txminutemen/message/3881
SEE NOTES ON Censorship tactics on THE INTERNET
When you are a member of an egroup,
you can watch the censorship happen before your very own eyes.
HERE IS What is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:
You send a message to the group, and you get your own message back,
because you are one of the members of the group.
HERE IS what SOMETIMES DOES HAPPEN:
I sent a message to the group, and did NOT get that message back.
I checked to see if it was a moderated group,
and the message HAD not yet been approved.
Sometimes I sent a test message, and the test message was delivered.
Then I found that the censored message had been marked as "spam",
and put into the "spam" folder.
Interestingly enough, there are only three messages that I have ever sent;
which almost always triggered this "glitch".
ALL of these messages were critical of something that the Department of Homeland Security had done.
Now what about the strange problems in just getting the message OUT?
FIRST I sent a message ANNOUNCING that the censored message was
about to be sent, within five minutes.
THEN I sent the censored message.
I got LOTS of emails back from people;
who got the announcement,
but did NOT get the censored message.
Below you will see a few of the problems,
that I encountered trying to sent the censored message
NONE of the things, that you see below, EVER happened,
while sending the ANNOUNCEMENT.
THESE THINGS HAPPENED ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME,
THAT I TRIED TO SEND
THE CENSORED MESSAGE.
Just a few of the censorship tactics that I saw
1. AFTER SENDING A FEW OF THESE MESSAGES, WHILE TRYING TO GO BACK TO
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
I GOT THIS:
We're Sorry... The database is unavailable at the moment.
Please try again in a few minutes. If you continue to experience trouble, please contact our Customer Care team. We apologize for this inconvenience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEN AFTER I GOT BACK IN I RUN INTO TO NUMEROUS OTHER
DELAYS, AND FRUSTRATIONS.
Here are a few examples:
Send - Verify To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character String Verification Error You need to pass the verification test to send any more email.
Your message has not been sent and will not be saved.
Back to Mail Home
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Viewing Error Sorry, but we can't display the message you are trying to view. This error usually occurs when you are trying to access a message that has been moved or deleted.
Please return to the appropriate folder view (Inbox, a personal folder, etc.) and try to select the message from there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send - Verify
To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Administrator@hcm-pg.com.my>
To: <savefreed0m2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Symantec Mail Security detected prohibited content in a message sent from your address (SYM:11260357340999701084)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send - Verify
To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Send - Verify To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a problem: There was a temporary problem in sending your message. Please try again.
Your message has not been sent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.
---------------------------------
Please try the following:
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
If your Network Administrator has enabled it, Microsoft Windows can examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings.
If you would like Windows to try and discover them,
click Detect Network Settings
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Connection Refused The attempt to connect to the remote server has been refused by the remote server. This may occur if the remote server is too busy at this time or if you are not authorized to access the remote server.
---------------------------------------
Send - Verify
To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continue
Send - Verify To finish sending this message and help us fight spam, please enter the character string as it is shown in the box below.
Trouble seeing this image? Character string shown: [input]
Why do I have to do this? This step helps Yahoo! prevent spammers from using Yahoo! Mail, and helps to ensure that your email will be delivered.
Character string verification technology developed in collaboration with the Captcha Project at Carnegie Mellon University.
__________________________________________________
YOUR ISP might not have YET installed the Department of Home land INSecurity's "filter".
Also, the filter is installed on
the main Yahoo Mail Server. For the time being, it does not block messages posted for other locations, including posts from the groups web page, although these messages often still go into the spam folder.
It is too late to argue that it does not exist. Hundreds of people have tested this by tryng to post CERTAIN specific messages from the main Yahoo Mail Server.
These are a few of the URLS for a few of these CERTAIN specific messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/2
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/3
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/6
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/8
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/48
Freedom of speech - Use it or lose it
When they took away the 4th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we didn't deal drugs.
When they took away the 6th Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we were innocent.
When they took away the 2nd Amendment,
we were quiet,
because we don't own guns.
Now they have taking away the 1st Amendment,
and very soon,
if we continue to be quiet,
we will have no choice,
but to be continue to be quiet.
"mad as hell and not going to take it anymore"
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Naveed <flanker12k@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next
tell that rothschild stooge to grab his favorite pair of boots and a rifle and ship out!
this is the same bastard that helped confiscate guns in austrailia!
Dick Eastman <olfriend@nwinfo.net> wrote: Ron Paul is doing his job.
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
April 13, 2006
(1) Soros backs Iran war - " I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided"
(2) Iran: The Next Neocon Target - HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS to U.S. House of Reps
(1) Soros backs Iran war - " I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can
be avoided"
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:41:56 -0400 From: "David Chiang"
<sino.economics@verizon.net>
Ready for $262 a barrel oil? Two of the world's most successful investors say
oil will be in short supply in the coming months. By Nelson Schwartz, FORTUNE
senior writer April 11, 2006: 2:31 PM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
The other, billionaire investor George Soros, wouldn't make any specific
predictions about prices. But as a legendary commodities player, it's worth
paying heed to the words of the man who once took on the Bank of England -- and
won. "I'm very worried about the supply-demand balance, which is very tight,"
Soros says.
"U.S. power and influence has declined precipitously because of Iraq and the war
on terror and that creates an incentive for anyone who wants to make trouble to
go ahead and make it." As an example, Soros pointed to the regime in Iran, which
is heading towards a confrontation with the West over its nuclear power program
and doesn't show any signs of compromising. "Iran is on a collision course and I
have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided," he says.
{What about Israel, India and Pakistan? Soros is revealng himself as a Zionist -
Peter M.}
Another emboldened troublemaker is Russian president Vladimir Putin, Soros said,
citing Putin's recent decision to briefly shut the supply of natural gas to
Ukraine. The only bit of optimism Soros could offer was that the next 12 months
would be most dangerous in terms of any price shocks, because beginning in 2007
he predicts new oil supplies will come online.
Hermitage's Bill Browder doesn't yet have the stature of George Soros. But his
$4 billion Moscow-based Hermitage fund rose 81.5 percent last year and is up a
whopping 1780 percent since its inception a decade ago. A veteran of Salomon
Bros. and Boston Consulting Group, the 41-year old Browder has been especially
successful because of his contrarian take; for example, he continued to invest
in Russia when others fled following the Kremlin's assault on Yukos.
Doomsdays 1 through 6
To come up with some likely scenarios in the event of an international crisis,
his team performed what's known as a regression analysis, extrapolating the
numbers from past oil shocks and then using them to calculate what might happen
when the supply from an oil-producing country was cut off in six different
situations. The fall of the House of Saud seems the most far-fetched of the six
possibilities, and it's the one that generates that $262 a barrel.
More realistic -- and therefore more chilling -- would be the scenario where
Iran declares an oil embargo a la OPEC in 1973, which Browder thinks could cause
oil to double to $131 a barrel. Other outcomes include an embargo by Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez ($111 a barrel), civil war in Nigeria ($98 a barrel),
unrest and violence in Algeria ($79 a barrel) and major attacks on
infrastructure by the insurgency in Iraq ($88 a barrel).
Regressions analysis may be mathematical but it's an art, not a science. And
some of these scenarios are quite dubious, like Venezuela shutting the spigot.
(For more on Chavez and Venezuela, click here.)
Energy chiefs at the World Economic Forum in Davos downplayed the likelihood of
a serious oil shortage. In a statement Friday, Shell's CEO Jeroen Van der Veer
declared, "There is no reason for pessimism." OPEC Acting Secretary General
Mohammed Barkindo said "OPEC will step in at any time there is a shortage in the
market." But then no one in the industry, including Van der Veer, foresaw an
extended run of $65 oil -- or even $55 oil -- like we've been having.
It's clear that there is very, very little wiggle room, and that most consumers,
including those in the United States, have acceded so far to the new reality of
$60 or even $70 oil. And as Soros points out, the White House has its hands full
in Iraq and elsewhere.
Although there are long-term answers like ethanol, what's needed is a crash
conservation effort in the United States. This doesn't have to be
command-and-control style. Moral suasion counts for a lot, and if the president
suggested staying home with family every other Sunday or otherwise cutting back
on unnecessary drives, he could please the family values crowd while also
changing the psychology of the oil market by showing that the U.S. government is
serious about easing any potential bottlenecks.
Similarly, he could finally get the government to tighten fuel-efficiency
standards and encourage both Detroit and drivers to end decades of steadily
increasing gas consumption. These kinds of steps would create a little headroom
until new supplies do become available or threats like Iran's current leadership
or the Iraqi insurgency fade.
It's been done it before. For all the cracks about Jimmy Carter in a cardigan
and his malaise speech, America did reduce its use of oil following the price
shocks of the 1970s, and laid the groundwork for low energy prices in the 1980s
and 1990s. But it would require spending political capital, and offending
traditional White House allies, and that's something this president doesn't seem
to want to do.
(2) Iran: The Next Neocon Target - HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS to U.S. House of Reps
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:03:20 EDT From: Ichee@aol.com
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives April 5, 2006
ICHEE.org COMMENT - let the world listen to one member of the Congress of the
United States who has the wisdom and courage to understand and speak the truth
about Iran.
April 5, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
It's been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and
his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were
no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of
our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein
was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no
connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The
current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic
state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing
oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay
there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price
to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They're
also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from
three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it
appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of
administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have
created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad
dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security
reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief
that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare
of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars.
Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most
importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is
that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would
never support the invasion knowing what we know today.
Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with
plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising
clamor for "democratizing" Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud
Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy,
its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never
complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people
against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass
destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to
have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the
charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same
arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media,
and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to
justify an invasion of Iraq.
Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim
nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We're poorer but certainly not safer for it. We
invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This
effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from
power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by
warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban
from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's
arch enemy, more than our own.
The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for
Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission,
justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and
his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the
current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein
is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of
stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein's
removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.
Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at
our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia
to claim leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized
government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war,
death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran's
worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran's best friends. Even this
apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a
similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our
failures?
Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of
imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or
accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3.
All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.
Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned
propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of
our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be
labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's
radicals.
Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who
maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in
the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have
any. It's hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would
consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people
are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other
people's children. This, I'm sure, would be denied-- which means their own
children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised
and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they
should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children
are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most
Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks.
For the past 3 years it's been inferred that if one is not in support of the
current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of
support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his
evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued
for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or
Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument
that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far
superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less
dangerous-- especially when there's no evidence that our national security is
being threatened.
Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for
the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and
media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so
many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the
fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now
serving in Iraq say it's time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the
propaganda that we're there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the
administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to
exploit their need to believe in a cause that's worth the risk to life and limb.
I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong. I sense
that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and
cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on
terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support
patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only
smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later
on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish
the war we're in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding
into Iran will drown out the cries of, "enough already!"
The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to
attack us have already begun. It's too bad we can't learn from our mistakes.
This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned
by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the
international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to
continue. We have been forewarned that "all options" remain on the table. And
there's little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there's
less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to
going into Iraq. It's astonishing that after three years of bad results and
tremendous expense there's little indication we will reconsider our traditional
non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation
building, policing the world, and protecting "our oil" still constitute an
acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.
It's already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious
about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than
Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot
stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat
that cannot be ignored.
Iran's history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq's history. This
ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and
Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country
that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative
than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of
evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran
started a long time before this president took office.
In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the
democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He
ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected
him-- that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear
reactor. Evidently we didn't buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a
need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule
served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who
overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow
in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of
the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most
Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the
internal affairs of Iran in 1953.
During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their
invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a
message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that
bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to
invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately
proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we
encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite
different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch
enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered
from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their
affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them
and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.
For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and
determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its
leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine
our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no
more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are
unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made
against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a
little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward
Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting
these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few
in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking
for UN sanctions against her.
There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and
initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working
on one--only conjecture.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India,
and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon
than these other countries?
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against
anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same
goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state
terrorist group.
Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular
to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons.
But we reward them just as we reward India.
We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear
weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had
to say about this: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and
I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them,
they're crazy."
There's been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This
distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass
resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.
IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of
"undeclared" sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of
nuclear material.
We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is
asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in
compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.
We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by
the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer
had them.
Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we're
hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self
interest.
Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made
in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their
suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation.
Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT.
It's the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise
our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.
The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The
"Iran Freedom Support Act," HR 282, passed in the International Relations
Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately
condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation
obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is
minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in
charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a
pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq
is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which
will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of
this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in
the three-year occupation of Iraq.
Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic
individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is
fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens
would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to
bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone
like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the
Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi
and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA
safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove
they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative
is impossible.
Let there be no doubt, though the words "regime change" are not found in the
bill-- that's precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael
Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the
International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: "I
know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of
regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the
language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can
clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can't have
freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs."
Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups
dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once
again we're unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a
people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don't
expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the
past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go
to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.
Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in
Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and
radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called
"aggressive" policies of the Iranian government. We're seven thousand miles from
home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will
have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the
aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may
have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation
is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.
Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians,
military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The
successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia
will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads.
Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted
by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would
be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that
some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down,
nor can they be destroyed easily.
One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure "our" oil supply.
This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have
more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a
similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump.
The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to
understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned
these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in
some IED explosion.
Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more
than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now
occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our
pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: "Fool me once
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." It looks to me like the Congress and
the country is open to being fooled once again.
Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of
the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation.
But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for
our need to undermine the Iranian government.
The President's 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as
frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he
claims: "We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." He
claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the
IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years
ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is
if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the
diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by
demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West-- led by the
U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear
technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.
The President states: Iran's "desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."
A "desire" is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved.
Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove
it doesn't have a "desire" to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain,
France, Pakistan, India, and Israel- whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic
like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a
congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.
Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the
mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military
confrontation with Iran.
Cause for Concern
Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a
war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting
out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while
serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much
easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers
to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no
significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in
patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not
supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil
that's about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed
and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting
adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.
If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of
non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with
these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites
all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts
from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular
reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it's for less than
honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the
world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs
cancel out the good intentions.
One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism
becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the
Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare
war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used
indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by
Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was
the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the
Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier
administration.
Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate,
because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional.
Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its "success," and against
the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again
understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation
building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace
non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy.
The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on
both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already,
and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable
accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially
when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war.
Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current
war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at
home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen's rights.
Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent.
Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter
how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World
War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars
is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But
the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought,
and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have
raised someone's standard of living.
Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are
never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not
enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create
enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates
from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not
enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever
amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation.
Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since
the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of
the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the
excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone
decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices
that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay
for the war.
The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle
class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the
bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international
corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation.
Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an
outcry for protectionist legislation. It's always easier to blame foreign
producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss
of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse.
Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of
living for most of our citizens.
Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that
results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War
raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an
ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil
discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and
avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s.
In a way it's amazing there's not a lot more outrage expressed by the American
people. There's plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not
part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American
casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal
surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the
issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even
strengthened while real oversight is ignored.
Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this
war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain
fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of
reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly
participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC
nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money
back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our
housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing
of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war
and welfare spending. It's fine until the music stops and the real costs are
realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation.
That's when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can't afford
the "humanitarianism" of the Neo-conservatives.
The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is
nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing
the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none
good. Today's economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won't
be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by
imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems
of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.
Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble
and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide
cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.
The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine
the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our
invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to
open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current
monetary system with the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
The theory and significance of "peak oil" is believed to be an additional
motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm
control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been
protecting "our" oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years.
With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a
military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia
moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don't understand
how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources.
Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the
world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is
factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled.
Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be
costly and oil prices will rise.
There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of
intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11
was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah
Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a
consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are
rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our
government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to
our security.
There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead
believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are
thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures
must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to
intimidate and confront Iran.
First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according
to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous
annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out
of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won
the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles.
If you're looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would
be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and
was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by
the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we
provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown
and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with
talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It
makes no sense and it's a very costly and dangerous policy.
The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest
to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the
Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on
others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our
own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict
non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate
interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that
intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral
arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments
should.
Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American
citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world
actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the
superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as
arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive
manner.
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals
have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy.
There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the
case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy
dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use
diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past
60 years.
It's time for a change.
--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
- Notebook, 1904
www.fightthenwo.org
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:01:54 -0000
From: "kenny318east3" <kenny318east3@yahoo.com>
Subject: Confused
"Moussauwi" is on currently on trial for his alleged involvement in the 9-11 plot.
Do you think that "Moussauwi" was involved in pre-positioning explosive charges ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:04:18 -0000
From: "kenny318east3" <kenny318east3@yahoo.com>
Subject: Confused
"Moussauwi" is currently on trial for his alleged involvement in the 9-11 plot.
Do you think that "Moussauwi" was involved in pre-positioning explosive charges ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:59:22 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: 9 items: Smear and Fear -- That's how Israel's lobby operates -=- Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You bet it does.
From: Larry Lawson
(1) Here is how our sons die for Israel .. very graphic
(2) Why is American policy in the Middle East skewed in favor of Israel?
(3) Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence By Ori Nir
(4) Israel pressuring U.S. over Iran attack
(5) Bush 'planning nuclear Iran strike'
(5 1/2) Of course there is an Israeli Lobby
(6) Smear and Fear That's how Israel's lobby operates by Justin Raimondo
(7) Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You bet it does.
(8) End of story: Israel triumphant
(9) A basic history of Zionism and its relation to Judaism
... and more
(1) Here is how our sons die for Israel...very graphic...
From: "Edgar J. Steele" <steele@plainlawtalk.com>
And, keep in mind that the actual death count is about five times that to which the Administration admits. The wounded rate is higher, too, though not at that multiple, because the most severely wounded, those who are most likely to die, get transported out of Iraq to Army hospitals elsewhere - Germany, for instance. Only actual deaths within Iraq get counted as war casualties. The guys below are somebody's sons. Our sons well could be the subjects of photos like these in the next few years. Picture the fellow in the first picture with your son's face for a moment. Humor me...do it.
The pictures below are extremely graphic, but we should ALL be forced to look at them, not to mention every single picture like them ever taken. Why? Because WE allow the criminals in charge of America to continue to mutilate and murder our children in this fashion. And for what? We. That's you and me. Us. What will it take? When will we put a stop to it? When, for God's sake? WHEN??????
-ed
(scroll down.....)
As of March 25, according to the Los Angeles Times http://tinyurl.com/repsm , there have been 17,400 US soldiers wounded in Iraq. Out of these, 9890 US soldiers have been wounded by explosives devices. On the average there are 110 US troops wounded per week. Many of these wounds are so horrific and irreparable , as depicted below, that the soldiers are mercifully "put to sleep" by military doctors with high dosages of morphine.
Larry
Doesn't it just make you all fuzzy and warm knowing that our children are being butchered so that the blood sucking leeches can sustain themselves and their little bastards, like Bill Klinton, they leave all over the countryside for us to feed and care for.
Legless, Armless, Faces Shot off -- these are the American GIs that Bush doesn't want photographed. More than 17,000 of them, at least. Plus, nearly 2500 dead.
Meanwhile, Shrub is running around the nation smiling like a Chimpanzee and calling everybody nicknames. I swear that he is getting to look more and more like a chimp.
(2)
The Lobby
Why is American policy in the Middle East skewed in favor of Israel?
by Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730
(3)
Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence
By Ori Nir
March 24, 2006
http://www.forward.com/articles/7548
Israel pressuring U.S. over Iran attack
The Washington Post reports that despite fact U.S. intelligence sources
believe that Iran needs another 10 years before having nuclear weapons,
Israel believes critical breakthrough will happen within months, and is
therefore pressuring the Americans
Yitzhak Benhorin
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government is continuing to aspire for a
diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, but doubts for
chances of success are growing, a Washington Post article published on
Sunday said.
According to the paper, Israeli officials who visited Washington
recently gave the Americans an urgent message regarding Iran: The
Islamic Republic was closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington
realizes, and the moment of decision is approaching quickly.
On Saturday, a New Yorker article said that the U.S. government is
planning to massively bomb Iran, and even use nuclear bunker-busting
bombs in order to destroy Iranian facilities and development sites
containing nuclear weapons.
The Washington Post wrote that despite estimations by American officials
that Iran would need another decade before having the bomb, Israel
believes that the critical breakthrough could take place within a number
of months. Israeli representatives told the Americans that Iran has
begun the most advanced centrifugal experiments in a speedier manner
than experts predicted in the past.
*****************************
(5)
Bush 'planning nuclear Iran strike'
Article in New Yorker says that U.S. government is preparing a massive
campaign to neutralize Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian President
Ahmadinejad is compared in the White House to Hitler
The U.S. government is planning to carry out massive bombardment against
Iran and using bunker-busting nuclear bombs in order to destroy
facilities and development centers in which nuclear weapons exist. These
details will be exposed in a new report as part of an investigation in
the New Yorker, to be publicized April 17.
The AFP paraphrases Seymour Hersh, the article's author, as saying that
"Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler."
"'That's the name they're using.' They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic
weapon and threaten another world war? " a former senior U.S.
intelligence agent is quoted as saying.
The same agent described the plan being formulated in the White House as
"enormous" and "emotional."
The article states that "a government consultant with close ties to the
civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was 'absolutely
convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb' if it is not stopped. He
said that the President believes that he must do 'what no Democrat or
Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and
"that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.'"
Another Pentagon official said that the current White House believes
that the only way to solve the problem is to change the balance of power
in Iran.
'Hizbullah comes into play'
The official added that "Hizbullah comes into play." The article
reported that "one of the military's initial option plans, as presented
to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a
bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against
underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant,
at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no
longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space
to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces
buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number
of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty
nuclear warheads a year."
In the course of the article, a former Defense Minister clerk tells the
New Yorker that the White House is planning "a sustained bombing
campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the
public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was
shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'"
'Israel preparing its own attack'
The newspaper said that Israel recently leaked its own attack plans, if
the United States does not act. The Israeli plan includes aerial
attacks, commando raids, a possibility of a missile attack, and even
bombs carried on the backs of dogs. The newspaper quotes Israeli
newspapers which said that Israel constructed an exact replica of the
Natanz nuclear development facility, but the United States does not
believe that the operation can succeed without using nuclear weapons.
The newspaper said that the Bush administration is studying the options
for a military attack in Iran, and is planning for this possibility in
order to pressure Iran by letting it know that such an option is getting
closer. Despite that, it does not appear that such an attack would take
place in the short term future, and many experts within the
administration and outside of it are highly doubtful of the
effectiveness of a military operation.
The Post claims that the Pentagon and the CIA are examining the possible
targets for the operation, such as the facility at Natanz and the
facility for enriching uranium at Isfahan, although a ground operation
is not being considered
--
http://www.iron-clay.com
One World Government ...
http://www.iron-clay.com/one_world_government.html
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet
to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of
them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold
the watchman accountable for his blood." - Eze 33:6
(5 1/2)
Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby
April 9, 2006
Edward Peck
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The London Review of Books recently published an article, by Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, on the Israel lobby's negative impact on U.S. domestic and international interests. The expected tsunami of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors, and denied there is such a lobby-validating both the lobby's existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and obliging Harvard to remove its name.
All democracies have lobbies. Shrill insistence that no groups promote Israel is ludicrous. Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby's views of Israel's interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies. That this influence largely results from the efforts of people determined to exercise their democratic prerogatives is not open to question-or to challenge.
The dangerous, unacceptable result of that lobbying, however, is the stifling of public debate. Knowing the fiercely negative reactions to accurate, detailed reporting of controversies surrounding Israel, the media fail to cover Israel's violations of every principle for which the United States-and Israel-loudly proclaim they stand. There is only rare, skimpy coverage of the ongoing Israeli mass punishments, house demolitions, illegal settlements, assassinations, settler brutality, curfews and beatings. On the other hand, the blind Palestinian rage generated by decades of receiving humiliating, savage suppression in their homeland is reported in lurid, bloody detail.
The lobby's effectiveness at control was illustrated two years ago. Both government and media condemned China when it arrested, and accused of espionage, a Chinese citizen-Green Card holder visiting from the U.S. Neither the U.S. government nor media has ever protested-has never even mentioned-Israel's years-long multiple arrests and protracted detentions of American citizens, without charge or trial. In September 2000, CNN interviewed four Americans who had been tortured, the only report on this compelling story, and the network has since been forced to refuse selling recordings of that news segment, "Americans Mistreated in Israeli Jails." America would have been fully informed had any other country committed these acts.
The lobby also recently blocked the New York staging of a play, following its successful London run, based on the words of peace activist Rachel Corrie. She was crushed by an armored Caterpillar bulldozer while attempting to prevent demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza. The driver failed to notice her blaze orange vest, yellow hard hat and bullhorn.
No rational American wants anything bad to happen to Israelis or Palestinians or Americans. But they have happened, are happening, will continue to happen. Israel's actions often involve violations of human rights, international law, and UN resolutions, undertaken at the expense of a helpless, brutalized Palestine, thus denying Israel peace, security, and international support. Worse, they also lead to violent reactions, which are often recognized under the UN Charter as legitimate resistance to occupation.
Israeli actions also generate anti-Semitism, the very label the lobby uses to bludgeon into silence anyone in America who questions relations with Israel and its expansionist policies. This effectively blocks broad public understanding that Israel's interests and America's, sometimes in agreement, are sometimes sharply divergent. Of greater and entirely justifiable concern, the lobby has succeeded in pressuring successive administrations into actions and statements blatantly contrary to announced American principles and the advancement of U.S. objectives.
As the only nation unstintingly providing Israel with vast amounts of money, arms and unhesitating political protection, the United States is perceived as the key facilitator of 40 years of occupation and oppression. The massive, growing political, economic and human costs of continuing that close relationship merit public knowledge, discussion and debate. The Israel lobby prevents it, as Mearsheimer and Walt have carefully documented.
Ambassador Edward Peck is an Advisory Board Member for the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute, was Deputy Director of the Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan White House and former Chief of Mission in Iraq, and was in Jerusalem and the West Bank as an international observer of the presidential elections in 2005, and in Gaza for the Legislative Council elections in 2006.
###################################################
(6)
April 10, 2006
Smear and Fear
That's how Israel's lobby operates
by Justin Raimondo
Editor's note: Justin Raimondo is traveling. His column will return Friday.
Israel's once-powerful lobby in the U.S. is running scared. The American Israel Political Affairs Committee ( AIPAC) is facing a burgeoning scandal with the upcoming trial of Steve Rosen their longtime chief lobbyist, and Iran policy expert Keith Weissman, who are accused of spying on behalf of Israel. Their source in the Pentagon - Iran analyst and neoconservative ideologue Larry Franklin - was caught red-handed by the FBI handing over top secret information to the two AIPAC officials, who then turned the vital data over to Israeli embassy employees. Franklin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 years, with time off for good behavior - i.e., testifying against his fellow spies.
Another big problem for the Lobby is that people are beginning to wake up to their game. A recent study, published by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, shows how the Lobby has been able to dominate the foreign policy debate and divert policymakers from pursuing American interests, while assiduously pursuing Israel's. The authors, John Mearsheimer, known as a spokesman for the " realist" school of foreign policy analysis, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School, have since come in for a relentless assault, a furious round of smears so vicious and hysterical that the effect is almost comical.
Take, for instance, Alan Dershowitz's contribution to the non-discussion, which insists on discerning the supposedly hidden "motive" behind the Mearsheimer-Walt piece. It couldn't possibly be that they disagree with the Lobby's agenda, and honestly believe that the debate over the centrality of Israel to American policy in the Middle East has been skewed - oh no. They have to be "bigots" out to spread "anti-Semitic canards" - and the "proof" of this is that they supposedly garnered some of their quotes from " Internet hate sites."
How does Dershowitz know this? He claims his "staff" is compiling a " chart" that supposedly "proves" it. But since nothing short of looking over the authors' shoulders as they did their research could possibly "prove" such a thing, Dershowitz's "staff" is pissing in the wind. Dershowitz's whole case can be summed up as "David Duke believes the same thing - therefore, it can't be true." The logical fallacy involved here is too obvious to be pointed out. Suffice to say that this about sums up the entire strategy of the Lobby in all the years of its operation: anyone who opposes them is a "bigot," an "anti-Semite," and is spreading the modern day equivalent of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
What a bunch of malarkey. This is victimology with a vengeance; it has usually worked in the past, though, and they are shocked that it doesn't seem to be working now. By trying this gambit on two distinguished scholars, however, the Lobby is showing just how desperate they are. Dershowitz, by the way, doesn't even try to confront the actual arguments made by Mearsheimer and Walt: instead, he spends some 20,000 or so words engaging in guilt by association.
Any mention of the term " neoconservatives" is taken by Dershowitz to mean "Jews" - but this is clearly not the case, as many neocons are not Jewish, although Jews are disproportionately represented in their ranks. But, then again, Jews are over- represented in the ranks of the libertarian movement, the leftist movement, the antiwar movement, and probably a good many other ideological movements of one sort or another. That the neocons put special emphasis on their affinity for and support of Israel - as a matter of high principle - is directly relevant to the argument of Mearsheimer and Walt that attributes their influence on administration policy to its present state of distortion - not because the neocons are Jews, but because they are neocons.
Furthermore, Mearsheimer and Walt explicitly stated that Jews are not the only or even the most influential members of the Lobby: evangelical Christians are by far more numerous and carry much more political weight in their unconditional support for the Jewish state. Dershowitz fails to mention this, because it doesn't fit into his distorted characterization. In addition, Dershowitz himself cites various groups and institutions listed by Mearsheimer and Walt, including the Brookings Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and just about every Washington think tank of note, and expresses incredulity that such an amalgam could constitute a unitary group:
"The so-called members of 'the Lobby' have little in common with each other, except for a preference for democracy over tyranny, belief in Israel's strategic importance to the United States, support for an endangered American ally, commitment to the survival of a small democracy in which Jewish culture can thrive, and the recognition of the need for one nation that will always be open to Jews threatened with discrimination and persecution in a world with continuing if not increasing anti-Semitism."
Dershowitz cannot have it both ways: either the authors of the study are claiming that the Lobby is a narrow "Jewish conspiracy," consisting primarily or even exclusively of Jews, or else it is an impossibly broad construction that encompasses virtually everyone to the left of David Duke and to the right of Cindy Sheehan. Which is it?
Dershowitz complains that the authors fail to mention other powerful lobbies, e.g., the Saudi lobby, as having substantial influence on American policymakers. But this hardly invalidates the argument that the Israel lobby's influence is usually decisive, especially when it comes to the formulation of American policy in the Middle East.
Dershowitz take umbrage at the Mearsheimer-Walt characterization of AIPAC as a "de facto agent of a foreign government," and acts as if this is the equivalent of a blood libel - but why, then, is the U.S. government now saying that the evidence against AIPAC honcho Rosen and his accomplice is " overwhelming," and why did Franklin plead guilty and take it on the chin with 12 years in the hoosegow? If AIPAC isn't an agent of Israel, then the Communist Party was never an agent of the Soviet Union and the German-American Bund was never an agent of Nazi Germany.
A good part of Dershowitz's attack on Mearsheimer-Walt consists of challenging their sources: Alex Cockburn is supposedly "discredited" because. well, just because Dershowitz says so. Also, he's "anti-American." So is Noam Chomsky, and so is Norman Finkelstein, according to The Dersh - but even if this is true, how does that "discredit" what they have written on this particular topic? The answer is: it doesn't, as any beginning student of logic could tell you.
Dershowitz tries desperately to impugn Mearsheimer's and Walt's motives in writing their piece: the nastiness in his screed explodes in the reader's face like a very bad smell. This is in stark contrast to the understated wording and calm, measured tone of the Mearsheimer-Walt piece itself, which nowhere engages in the kind of polemical overkill that underscores Dershowitz's desperation - and the Lobby's.
Dershowitz and other critics of Mearsheimer and Walt cite Daniel Drezner's remark that the study is " piss-poor" scholarship, but that term more accurately describes the hastily thrown-together tirades assembled by Dershowitz & Co. Emotionalism, ad hominem attacks, posing false choices, appeals to authority, reductive reasoning, hasty generalizations - there is hardly a logical error left out. As one commenter on Drezner's blog pointed out, Mearsheimer and Walt have never written on this subject, yet suddenly they're anti-Semites? It just doesn't make sense.
Yet, it does make a twisted kind of sense if you look at the way the Lobby has operated for many years. Smear and fear - smear your enemies and intimidate anyone who might agree with them. That is, in essence, their method. A concerted effort to get the Kennedy School to disassociate itself from the work of Mearsheimer and Walt, and the sudden announcement that Walt will no longer serve as academic dean, indicate the Lobby's efforts have been at least partially successful.
This is really too bad, since what is needed now more than ever is an open debate over the course of American foreign policy in the post-9/11 era, a discussion that cannot take place without engaging the Lobby and its inordinate influence. By launching a campaign of defamation against Mearsheimer and Walt, the Lobby has proved one of the central points made by the authors: that a real debate on Israel's influence on American foreign policy has so far failed to take place due to the Lobby's tactic of smearing anyone who dares take issue with them.
The central contention of Mearsheimer and Walt - that the level of support for Israel by the U.S. is not in America's interest - is nowhere confronted by any of their critics. This is because their argument is irrefutable - and because their critics are operating from an entirely different premise, which has nothing to do with promoting American interests.
By trying to silence their critics, the Lobby is making a huge mistake, one that will likely boomerang as the trial of Rosen and Weissman gets underway. As it becomes all too clear how and why the Lobby is now trying to lure us into war with Iran, just as they lied us into war with Iraq - and the tape-recorded transcript of their treason is read aloud in court - the American people will begin to ask questions. And the Lobby is not going to like most of the answers.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the
people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who
mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Great empires cannot subsist without great armies, and liberty cannot subsist with them." - Cato, anti-federalist
--- In ctrl@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride <smcbride2@...> wrote:
It's easy to imagine realistic scenarios now in which Israel could lead to the total destruction of the United States. The Israel lobby and the neocons may well succeed in violently polarizing the entire world against America. They have already gone a long way to undermine and ruin the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
------------------------
(7)
uruknet.info
information from occupied iraq
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m22398&l=i&size=1&hd=0
Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You bet it does.
Michael Scheuer
April 9, 2006
Covert action is much talked about and little understood. At its most basic level, covert action is a set of intelligence operations undertaken by a specific state's intelligence agencies to advance its national interests. They are executed in a manner that limits the visibility of that state's hand in whatever is done. Ideally, covert actions cannot be traced back to their sponsor. Most people take the term covert action to mean violent actions of one kind or another: kidnapping, assassination, support for insurgents, etc. While violence can certainly be part of a covert-action campaign, the more insidious - and often more effective - arm of covert action is called "political action," whereby one state seeks to influence the public opinion of another by speaking through the mouths of that country's citizens. And let me stress, there is nothing wrong or immoral about covert political action. America used political action worldwide in the Cold War; Britain used it in the United States to accelerate neutral America's entry into both world wars; the Saudis pay untold amounts to retired senior U.S. officials to speak admiringly of the anti-American desert tyranny; and Israel uses it today against America to ensure unlimited and unquestioning U.S. support. It is a legitimate foreign affairs tool, and the leaders of any nation who choose not to engage in such activity are certifiably negligent fools.
For years - even decades - U.S. citizens have been the subject of a political action campaign designed and executed by Israel. Currently, Israel's campaign is part steady-as-she-goes and part improvisation to neutralize an unexpected and - for Israel - worrying development. So far, Israel's covert political action is succeeding hands down. Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis and that there is no "Israeli lobby" in America. Simply put, Israel is conducting a brilliant covert political action campaign in the United States, a campaign any intelligence service in the world would rightly be proud of.
Part one of Israeli's political action consists simply of using that old standby debate-suppressor, the four-letter word "Nazi." Newspapers in Israel, of course, have long used the word to describe Israel's Muslim enemies. Recently, for example, the Jerusalem Post ran an article in which al-Qaeda is described as "yet another Nazi knockoff." This sort of language is the stuff of Israeli journalism, and not of much concern to Americans. If the Israeli press wants to teach their readers to underestimate the Islamist threat, so be it.
But now the word "Nazi" is being gradually fed to Americans as a scientific definition of our Islamist enemies. Headlines such as "Hamas Uber Alles," "Hitler's Heirs in Damascus," and "The Nazi Correction to Islamic Terror" are increasingly common in U.S. media publications found in the news files Googled daily by Americans. U.S. politicians, too, are eager to jump on the call-them-Nazis bandwagon, with Secretary Rumsfeld recently saying that leaving Iraq early would be like returning postwar Germany to the Nazis, and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) comparing the attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra to the burning of the Reichstag by the Nazis.
The goal of using the Nazi analogy is to suppress any realistic debate about the pluses and minuses of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and to make sure any American raising questions about U.S. support for Israel is seen as siding with the "Islamofascists," the heirs of Nazism. Any person who knows the least bit about Islam - and the Israelis know a great deal - knows it is not Nazism, yet the Internet is rife with such titles as "A Manifesto Against Islamofascism" and "Islamofascism's Creeping Coup in Turkey." The best capsule description of the threat posed by Islamofascists is provided by Frank Gaffney in a recent issue of The Intelligencer, the journal of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Listen to Mr. Gaffney, and you will almost hear Muslim jackboots striking the pavement.
"We are engaged in nothing less than a War for the Free World. This is a fight to the death with Islamofascists, Muslim extremists driven by a totalitarian political ideology that, like Nazism and Communism before it, is determined to destroy freedom and the people who love it."
The drive to make Islamofascist the term of choice in describing America's Muslim enemies is meant to still U.S. debate about Israel and, indeed, to limit questions about any aspect of U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world. After all, why would anyone in their right mind care what people think, unless they are blindly and unthinkingly opposed to Islamofascism?
The second part of any nation's covert political action plan is to be ready to exploit or redress unexpected developments within the target society. Last month, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt provided such an environment when they published a lengthy study showing the strong influence the Israeli lobby has on the crafting and application of U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world. If American society had its head screwed on right, the collective response of the citizenry would have been, "DUH!" - signifying that the near-determinative nature of Israeli influence is so clear that no academic analysis of that fact is necessary.
Instead, the reaction from American elites has been that of Captain Renault in Casablanca - they are shocked, shocked, that anyone could even think that there is such a thing as an Israeli lobby. The elites demand that Americans believe there are no such things as Israel-suborned American-citizen spies stealing U.S. national security secrets, pro-Israel U.S. media publications routinely savaging any American questioning the perfect and eternal mesh of U.S. and Israeli interests, and U.S. politicians from Pelosi to McCain to DeLay to Rice groveling at AIPAC's annual conference, each willing to compromise U.S. security if they can garner pro-Israel votes and pockets stuffed with cash from pro-Israel contributions.
In the specific case of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, prominent pro-Israel Americans have been quick off the mark to limit the damage caused to Israel's interests caused by the paper's candor and truthfulness. From Marvin Kalb to David Gergen to Max Boot to Alan Dershowitz, these folks have brazenly defied reality by insisting there is no "Israeli Lobby" and that Mearsheimer and Walt are dead wrong, poor scholars, paranoid conspiracy peddlers, or reborn Elders of Zion. Eliot Cohen's essay in the Washington Post epitomizes the Israel-Firsters' goal of defaming Mearsheimer and Walt to convince the citizenry that they are crazy and ranting anti-Semites.
The attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer are the stuff that the dreams of political action planners are made of: The apparently spontaneous response by target-country citizens voicing all-out support for the covert-action-sponsoring country. Such a response deep-sixes any chance for a substantive debate on the issue at hand, and submerges it in a blizzard of hate speech directed at the authors from prominent Israel-Firsters, those paragons of virtue who are the chief proponents of First-Amendment-destroying laws against hate speech.
So at day's end, one can only say: Astoundingly well done, Israel, good for you! The impact of your covert political action activities in America are all that you could have hoped for: Truth is negated, dissent is suppressed, and opponents are intimidated and defamed, and all this is done by prominent U.S. citizens. The only competitor you have is the Saudi lobby, an organization just as damaging as yours to genuine U.S. national interests, a reality you and we would see if the bloodied but hopefully unbowed Mearsheimer-Walt team decides to analyze the corrupt and corrupting Saudi lobby.
Finally, I forgot to mention at the start that covert political action campaigns are almost always directed by one nation against another nation that it considers an enemy or whose leaders it judges to be gullible, venal, none too bright, unreliable, or all four. That surely gives one pause for thought, but it truly is the way the world works.
Source : AntiWar.com
From: <RePorterNoteBook@aol.com>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:;>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: Harvard's Report: The French would call it: "a partir d'Israel"
>From Cairo-Egypt:
After reading the article of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by
Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Prof. Stephen Walt Dean
of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,
What does it take for the people or public to realize that America (depending
on and according to its administration) is ruled from Israel....(The French
would call it, a partir d'Israel)
I say ruled only to be polite, because after reading the article below, my
suspicions were asserted to be true, and confirmed categorically, that America
and Israel are involved in, what one can call, a sexual relationship where
Israel is playing the role and part of the man.
Cherif Loutfi
Cairo-Egypt
cherif@cherifo.com
Start:
Forum: 'The Israel Lobby' - Of course Israel has a lobby
EDWARD PECK: 'The dangerous, unacceptable result of this lobbying, however,
is the stifling of public debate'
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Editor's note: A recent work by two American academics took on a long-running
debate: the extent of the Israeli government's influence on the United
States. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by John Mearsheimer of the
University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,
appeared last month as a paper at the Kennedy School.
An edited version in the London Review of Books (available at www.lrb.co.uk)
brought the work to wider public attention -- and elicited strong response
from critics and supporters alike. An accompanying commentary by Eliot A. Cohen
attacks the article. "Forum: 'The Israel Lobby' -- Yes, it's anti-Semitic"
The London Review of Books recently published an article, by professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on the Israel lobby's negative impact on U.S.
domestic and international interests. The expected tsunami of rabid responses
condemned the report, vilified its authors and denied there is such a lobby --
validating both the lobby's existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and
obliging Harvard to remove its name.
Edward Peck is a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Mauritania.
He is an advisory board member for the Center on Peace and Liberty at the
Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. (www.independent.org).
START:
All democracies have lobbies. Shrill insistence that no groups promote Israel
is ludicrous. Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both
nations, but the lobby's views of Israel's interests have become the basis of
U.S. Middle East policies. That this influence largely results from the efforts
of people determined to exercise their democratic prerogatives is not open to
question -- or to challenge.
The dangerous, unacceptable result of that lobbying, however, is the stifling
of public debate.
Knowing the fiercely negative reactions to accurate, detailed reporting of
controversies surrounding Israel, the media fail to cover Israel's violations of
every principle for which the United States -- and Israel -- loudly proclaim
they stand. There is only rare, skimpy coverage of the ongoing Israeli mass
punishments, house demolitions, illegal settlements, assassinations, settler
brutality, curfews and beatings. On the other hand, the blind Palestinian rage
generated by decades of receiving humiliating, savage suppression in their
homeland is reported in lurid, bloody detail.
The lobby's effectiveness at control was illustrated two years ago. Both
government and media condemned China when it arrested, and accused of espionage, a
Chinese citizen green-card holder visiting from the United States.
Neither the U.S. government nor media has ever protested -- has never even
mentioned -- Israel's years-long multiple arrests and protracted detentions of
American citizens, without charge or trial. In September 2000, CNN interviewed
four Americans who had been tortured, the only report on this compelling
story, and the network has since been forced to refuse selling recordings of that
news segment, "Americans Mistreated in Israeli Jails." America would have been
fully informed had any other country committed these acts.
The lobby also recently blocked the New York staging of a play, following its
successful London run, based on the words of American peace activist Rachel
Corrie ("My Name is Rachel Corrie"). She was crushed by an armored Caterpillar
bulldozer in 2003 while attempting to prevent the Israeli demolition of a
Palestinian home in Gaza. The driver failed to notice her blaze orange vest,
yellow hard hat and bullhorn.
No rational American wants anything bad to happen to Israelis or Palestinians
or Americans. But they have happened, are happening, will continue to happen.
Israel's actions often involve violations of human rights, international law
and U.N. resolutions, undertaken at the expense of a helpless, brutalized
Palestine, thus denying Israel peace, security and international support. Worse,
they also lead to violent reactions, which are often recognized under the U.N.
Charter as legitimate resistance to occupation.
Israeli actions also generate anti-Semitism, the very label the lobby uses to
bludgeon into silence anyone in America who questions relations with Israel
and its expansionist policies. This effectively blocks broad public
understanding that Israel's interests and America's, sometimes in agreement, are
sometimes sharply divergent. Of greater and entirely justifiable concern, the lobby
has succeeded in pressuring successive administrations into actions and
statements blatantly contrary to announced American principles and the advancement of
U.S. objectives.
As the only nation unstintingly providing Israel with vast amounts of money,
arms and unhesitating political protection, the United States is perceived as
the key facilitator of 40 years of occupation and oppression. The massive,
growing political, economic and human costs of continuing that close relationship
merit public knowledge, discussion and debate.
The Israel lobby prevents it, as Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt have carefully
documented.
==========
"An anti-Semite condemns people because they are Jews" --ICHEE.org
"An anti-Semite is someone that the Jews hate."
---Joe Sobran
Another way of putting it:
An anti-Semite used to be someone who does not like Jews; now it is
someone who the Jews do not like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.TADP.org
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The QUESTION:
To subscribe and grow with knowledge or to unsubscribe and Die Stupid?
Send an E-mail to:
RePorterNoteBook@aol.com
(8)
End of story: Israel triumphant
By M K Bhadrakumar
In Gabriel Garcia Marquez' novella Chronicle of a Death Foretold,
virtually everyone in the town knows that Santiago Nasar is going to
be murdered. Yet nobody can or will do anything to prevent it. The
murder is motivated and inexorable. Yet no one quite knows why
Santiago Nasar, a rich young swashbuckling fellow, must die.
There is a similar feeling of unforgiving inevitability about
President George W Bush's desire to go to war with Iran. In its
carefully woven plot and its inventive, non-linear structure that is
intended to sustain dramatic tension, Bush's Iran war leaps out of the
pages of Marquez' metaphysical murder mystery.
But there is nothing mysterious about the general plot outline.
Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist for The New Yorker
magazine, has now filled in the details of Bush's rush to war. Yet
for all its sense of inevitability, the story line still has
indeterminacies. Truth is continually slithering away from it - like
a sly serpent determined to live for another day.
Three concentric circles have been forming for the past six years of
the Bush presidency around the "Iran question". Bush administration
officials can draw satisfaction that finally they are beginning to
reinforce one another. The debate henceforth is less about the main
objective; it has come down now to the details of the timing and
execution.
Of the three circles, the one outside the perimeter concerns the
various factors that the Bush administration is compelled to reckon
with within the United States. Inside that lies another circle
involving the factors at work in the Arab Middle East. At the center,
at its very core, is the US agenda of dominating the region. Put
another way, it is about securing Israel's dominant position in a New
Middle East.
More- http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD13Ak03.html
(9)
A basic history of Zionism and its relation to Judaism
By Hanna Braun
I would like to start with a quotation by Amira Hass, a very courageous
Israeli journalist who lives in Ramallah. She writes for the most
respected though by no means left-wing daily "Ha'aretz" (Il Ard in
Arabic, one of many examples of the great similarity of the Arabic and
Hebrew languages; both derived from an ancient form of Aramaic).
Although threatened several times with sacking, as well as with numerous
death threats, she carries on.
Hass ends one of her recent articles with this question: is transfer an
inseparable part of the founding ideology of the state of Israel, or a
twisted mutation, which should not be allowed to rise up against its
creator?
Whereas the increasing number of refuseniks and Israeli peace activists
believes the latter (and I respect their sentiments), I, like Hass, do
not share them; my belief is that the state of Israel was bound to end
up with what we have today.
In order to understand the circumstances that led to the birth of
Zionism I shall sketch an outline of the history of Judaism and the
Jews.
Even in biblical times there was a great deal of ethnic and even
religious mixing in ancient Judea and Israel, which never constituted an
entirely ethnic/religious entity. A cursory reading of the Old Testament
reveals that practically all the biblical prophets were perpetually
railing against this mixing, particularly in religious terms and
intermarriage. Moreover, even during that time, there were Jewish
communities established in Arab lands, in Persia, as well as in East and
North Africa. With the destruction of the Temple and the final fall of
their autonomous Roman colony of Judea in 70 AD, the important families
such as the High priests (Cohanim/Cohens), priests (Levyim/Levys),
members of the Sanhedrin, the Judaic internal court that handed Jesus
over to the Roman authority, and others, felt insecure. There had been a
number of revolts and uprisings against their hegemony and their
collaboration with Rome, Jesus being one non-violent example, and so
they decided to leave when the Romans pulled out. Most of the indigenous
subsistence farmers, craftsmen and small-time traders stayed put and
continued their lives as before. Some of these inhabitants were early
Christians and form the ancestors of many of today's Palestinian
Christians, others remained vaguely Jewish. Modern research shows that
when Islam arrived in the area in 638 AD many of these Jews converted
and that their descendants form a considerable part of today's
Palestinians. Numerous surnames, such as Moussa, Dini, Mansoor and
Canaan inter alias are even nowadays shared by Arab Jews, Muslims and
Christians. (Incidentally, people with the surnames Da Souza and Sassoon
were originally from the Jewish community in Suza, the ancient capital
of Persia). Those who left with the Romans later dispersed to other
parts of Europe and even central Asia, where there were some trading
outposts. A considerable part of European Jews, however, consisted of
Khazars, inhabitants of an important kingdom in the early middle ages,
roughly between the Caspian and the Black Seas. One of their Khans or
kings converted to Judaism around 740 AD and made Judaism the state
religion. In the 9th century Khazaria finally fell to the Viking hordes
and its inhabitants dispersed throughout much of Europe. Thus the idea
of a "return" of European Jews to their roots is something of an absurd
myth.
The various Jewish communities in Asia (including what is termed the
Middle East) and North Africa were on the whole well integrated into
their respective societies and apart from some isolated incidents did
not experience the persecutions that later became so prevalent in
Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their
Jewish neighbours from marauding crusaders; in one instance at least,
Jews fought alongside Muslims to try and prevent crusaders from landing
at Haifa's port, and Salah ad-Din Al-Ayoubi (Saladin), after
re-conquering Jerusalem, invited the Jews back into the city.
The Jews in Moorish rule in the Iberian Peninsula flourished and
experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic
civilisation and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the
north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the
fall of Granada-the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian
hands-when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th
century (Jews in 1492 and Muslims some 10 years later). Most of the Jews
from the Iberian Peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under
Ottoman rule, including Palestine, and continued their peaceful
co-existence with Muslims in those countries. It is interesting to note
that some of these displaced Jews who had settled in Safad (Palestine)
wrote laments about their expulsion from their "promised Land", which
for them had been Spain.
The bulk of Portuguese "converted" Jews (these were forced conversions
and such Jews from Spain and Portugal were called Marranos, i.e. swine,
by the Christian Authorities, who suspected them of still practicing
their old religion in secret) settled in Amsterdam in the Netherlands,
presumably because they had long established trading connectionsto that
city. They reverted to their original religion and in 1655 were invited
hence to Britain by Oliver Cromwell. Many of them were glad to resettle
since at the time the Netherlands had just freed itself from the Spanish
yoke in 1648 and the shadow of the dreaded inquisition was still
uncomfortably close.
The fate of Jewry in European countries, mainly in Eastern Europe, was
very different: persecutions, killings and burnings were widespread and
Jews were forced to live in closed ghettos, particularly in the Russian
Empire, where they were confined to the "Pale" of Jewish settlement, an
area which consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Byelarus or
White Russia. Anyone who wished to move outside these borders needed
special permission, although there were large communities in the western
and south-eastern part of what had been Poland, but became part of
Prussia and Austria respectively By the mid-19th century some of the
more progressive Jewish communities had established themselves in the
big cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev.
In central and western Europe religious tolerance, followed by the
granting of full citizens' rights and emancipation came relatively
early, in the wake of general liberalisation. However, Russian rulers
remained opposed to any liberalisation, including religious tolerance
and emancipation, and as late as 1881, Tsar Alexander the third
initiated a series of particularly vicious pogroms to divert unrest
amongst the population, at a time when Britain, for instance, boasted a
Jewish prime minister.
Total segregation was not always imposed from outside, however, but was
frequently enforced from within by highly authoritarian rabbis who
exercised absolute power over their congregations, often including the
right to life and the imposition of the death penalty (via
denunciation). Thus it was a major decision for anyone to leave these
congregations and to look for a broader education (known as
"enlightenment"). In Eastern Europe "enlightenment" was a relatively
late phenomenon and it found expression initially in the early-19th
century, in a revival of Hebrew language and literature and in the
modern idea of Jews seeing themselves as a people.
This distinction between a people and a religion was of course anathema
to Orthodox Jews, who still today regard Hebrew as a sacred language to
be used solely for prayers and religious studies and the Jewish people
and religion as indivisible. The concept of the Jews as people closely
mirrored the relatively new European idea of a homogeneous nation state.
An exception to this was the socialist "Bund" organisation whose members
rejected nationalism and later Zionism.
Some of these early proto-Zionists, calling themselves "Hovevei Zion"
(Lovers of Zion), started the first settlements in Palestine in the
1840's with the help of Jewish philanthropists such as the Rothschilds
and the Montefiores who themselves were not Zionists, and a larger
number of immigrants followed after the Russian pogroms of 1881-82.
These settlers distinguished themselves by their deliberate segregation
from the indigenous population and their contempt for local customs and
traditions. This naturally aroused suspicion and hostility in the
locals. (There were long established religious Greek and German
colonies, mostly in the midst of Palestinian towns, to which the locals
showed no objection). This exclusivity was largely based on a sense of
superiority common to Europeans of the time, who believed they were the
only advanced and truly civilised society and in true colonial fashion
looked down on "natives" or ignored them altogether.
However, beyond that there was also a particular sense of superiority of
Jews towards all non-Jews. This belief in innate Jewish superiority had
a long tradition in rabbinical religious Jewish thinking, central to
which was the notion of the Jews as God's chosen people. Moshe Ben
Maimon (Maimonides) had been an exponent of this theory and quite often
thinkers with a more humanist outlook, e.g. Spinoza, were
excommunicated. The accepted thinking in religious communities was that
Jews must on no account mix in any way with gentiles for fear of being
contaminated and corrupted by them. This notion was so deeply ingrained
that it quite possibly still affected, albeit subconsciously, those Jews
who had left the townships and had become educated and enlightened. Thus
the early settlers from Eastern Europe transferred the "Stettl"
(townlet) mentality of segregation to Palestine, with the added belief
in the nobility of manual labour and in particular soil cultivation. In
this they had been influenced by Tolstoy and his writings.
The "father" of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from
a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated,
secular journalist and author who was sent by his editor to Paris in
1894 to cover the Dreyfuss affair. Dreyfuss had been a captain in the
French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason, although
he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later. The case
brought to light the remainder of a strong streak of anti-Semitism
prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French
press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl
himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and
felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland.
To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the
Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of
the time, and was rewarded for his effort by being offered Argentina or
Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.
Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but
when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897 (it was to
have been in Augsburg but had to be transferred at the last moment
because of local rabbinical protests), he came up against Eastern
European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who,
although broadly emancipated and "enlightened" (orthodox Jews at that
time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not
attend the congress), would not accept any homeland other than the land
of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there
were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage
and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover
ceremony is "Next year in Jerusalem" although this was a
religious/sentimental rather than a national aspiration, and it was
common amongst the orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil
purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased's
head.
Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the "Land of Zion",
i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Even so
this solution was only definitely accepted after his death, during the
5th Zionist Congress. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small
section of mainly eastern European Jews who saw the solution to
anti-Semitism in what they termed as a return to their "roots" and in a
renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. Herzl wrote
his book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) in which he wrote,
inter alias, that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of
Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism", and again
regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the
poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it
in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own
country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried
out prudently and discreetly. Let (the landowners) sell us their land at
exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."
Some early Zionists, such as Max Nordau, a French Zionist who visited
Palestine, were horrified; Nordau burst out in front of Herzl: "But we
are committing a grave injustice!" Some years later, in 1913, a
prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha'am (one of the people),
wrote: "What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of
their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom
... and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs,
trampling on their rights without the least justification ... even
bragging about this behaviour."
But these early Zionists' dismay at the injustices to, and total lack of
recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited
out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl's writing.
The widely perceived Zionist truism of "a land without people for a
people without land" prevailed and within a matter of a few years the
immigrants were perceived as "sons of the land" (Bnei Ha'aretz or Ibna
El-Ard) whereas the inhabitants were seen as the aliens.
The Arab population of Palestine was well aware of the Zionist danger;
as early as 1896 a math teacher in Jerusalem wrote in the newspaper
"Philisteen": "I have no problems with Jews; it's the Zionists that I am
most concerned about." In 1916, after there had been an agreement with
the British Government that after the fall of the Ottoman Empire
Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (the fertile triangle) would gain
independence, leaders of the Arab communities called upon every Arab
Muslim, Christian and Jew to rise against the Ottomans. Many did so.
Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl's death, the Balfour
Declaration in 1917-shortly after Palestine was conquered by
Britain-that granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the
official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and
representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour
wrote in 1919: "In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the
inhabitants of the country and (Zionism's) immediate needs and hopes for
the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of
the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine". This idea was
closely mirrored by an early Zionist, Israel Zangwill, who wrote in
1920: "There should be an Arab exodus based on race distribution...a
trek like that of the Boers from Capetown".
Settlements grew slowly for a long time, but the systematic occupying
village lands that had not been officially documented since the
respective inhabitants had known for centuries what acreage belonged to
each family, as well as the frequent buying up of lands from absentee
landlords, which left tenant farmers homeless, contributed to the first
Palestinian uprising in 1921-22 and other outbursts of hostilities,
including a massacre of some 65 Jews in Hebron in 1929, after orthodox
Jews from Eastern Europe had founded a "Yeshiva" (a religious study
centre) in the town and had aroused the suspicions and hostility of the
indigenous population who prior to this had lived in peace and harmony
for hundreds of years with their non European Jewish neighbours. (A
small number of the original, non- European community, still lived in
Hebron until recently and repeatedly petitioned successive Israeli
governments to evict the new rightwing religious settlers who cause
endless trouble to the Palestinian population).
Another contributing factor to growing Arab hostility was the policy of
neither employing Arabs nor buying their produce. This was termed
"Hebrew work for Hebrew workers". Zeev Jabotinsky the revisionist
rightwing Zionist, wrote in 1939:"We Jews, thank God, have nothing to do
with the East..the Islamic soul must be broomed out of Eretz Yisrael"
(One wonders how this sounded to the many Arab and Eastern Jews in
Palestine and elsewhere). The slogan of Hebrew work for Hebrew workers
was very much in force when I came to Palestine in 1937. It was,
however, not entirely and strictly enforced and there were various
examples of co-operation and good neighbourly relations. This was
particularly evident in Haifa, where our next-door neighbours were Arabs
and where large sections of the downtown area were mixed. This lasted
until the "liberation" of Haifa, when the most of the Arab population of
the city were expelled and only a small, run down area (Wadi Nisnas)
remained in what became effectively a ghetto. There were other such
examples in Jerusalem and other places.
For many years Zionism remained a minority movement of mainly Eastern
European Jews, excluding the whole religious establishment and most
central and western European Jews. My family's views on Zionism were
fairly typical of western European Jews who regarded this ideology as a
help line to those Jews, mainly eastern European ones, who had trouble
making ends meet). Last but not least, Zionism was quite meaningless to
non-European communities, who unbeknown to Herzl and his contemporaries,
form the majority of us. These communities were ignored by early
Zionists and indeed the latter had little interest in their aspirations
till the establishment of the state of Israel and after the
"independence" war of 1948-49. After this the new state unleashed a
massive propaganda campaign to induce the Sephardi (of Spanish origin)
and Oriental Jews to "ascend" to the land of their ancestors, mainly to
for demographic reasons- in 1948 only about one third of the population
and about 10% of the land were Jews or in Jewish hands-but also as
cannon fodder. The same happened in the 1980s with the Jews of Ethiopia.
However, upon arrival these non-European newcomers were treated very
much as inferior second- class citizens. They were sprayed with DDT at
their point of entry and within less than a fortnight the men were
drafted into the army, while their families were usually accommodated in
inferior reception camps or abandoned Arab houses. This European
dominance is still prevalent in modern Israel where for example the
national anthem even nowadays speaks about Jewish longing for the East
towards Zion, whereas for many of the non-European communities Palestine
lies to the West. Sadly, this has led to some groups of Sephardi and
Oriental Jews becoming extreme right-wing chauvinists, so as to "prove"
their credentials.
Immigration ("Aliyah" = "ascent" in Zionist parlance) took off in
seriously large numbers with the rise of Hitler, who initially declared
himself quite sympathetic to Zionism, as had other right-wing
anti-Semites before him. New Jewish settlements mushroomed by leaps and
bounds, leading to a bitter and prolonged Palestinian uprising from 1936
till 1939, when it was crushed by the British mandatory powers. But it
was not until the end of WW2 that the demographic issue came openly to
the fore. Numerous delegates from the Jewish "Hagana" ("Defence"
underground movement) in Palestine arrived at the displaced refugee
centres in Europe in order to prevent survivors from immigrating to any
countries other than Palestine, occasionally by force. Illegal ships
packed with survivors tried repeatedly to land in Palestine. On at least
one occasion the occupants of the ship "Exodus", setting out from
Germany, after being prevented from landing by the British authorities,
were offered asylum by France and Denmark, but the then leader of the
Jewish Yishuv (settlement), David Ben Gurion, forbade this solution,
deliberately forcing the hapless survivors to land back in Germany,
purely for propaganda porposes. Ben Gurion also stated repeatedly that
had there been a possibility prior to WWII to save one million Jewish
children by sending them to Britain or only half that number by sending
them to Britain, he would have always opted for the latter.
With the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 Zionism started to
win the hearts and minds of the majority of Jewish society. After the
six day war in 1967 the vast majority of Euro/American Jews became
fervent supporters of the Israeli state and since that time we have
witnessed an increasing and deliberate confluence of Judaism and
Zionism, to the extent that today it is widely regarded as treason and
self- hate for a Jew to criticise the state, let alone Zionism. In my
view, this development was almost inevitable given the preconception of
an exclusive Jewish state. If it is not a religious state, i.e. a
theocracy, what is a Jewish state and what purpose does it serve? It is
certainly not an ethnic entity; one only has to walk through Israeli
streets to realize that we are as diverse as the countries we have
originated from. As for the argument that Israel provides a bolthole, a
safe haven from anti-Semitic attacks, this is hardly sustainable because
firstly, Israel today is extremely powerful with huge stockpiles of
nuclear weapons and secondly, at present it is probably the most unsafe
country for Jews to reside in. Moreover, the claim that nothing like the
holocaust should ever happen again is true, but only insofar as it
applies to the whole world. We are not seeking "homogenous" ethnic
states all over the world to rid us of the threat of genocide, and
Israel is no exception to this. In a post-colonial world the notion of a
homogenous nation state based on demography is completely unacceptable
and ridiculous. How then, can Israel and the majority of its citizens
justify their claim and indeed be convinced that theirs is a modern,
democratic society? (I shall demonstrate later that Israel was never a
democracy to its Arab citizens and is no longer a democracy to its own
people.) The last resort, when all logical justifications fail, is that
God has promised the land to his people, namely us. (This rather begs
the question of where it leaves a non-believing Jew). I have found over
the years, and particularly in the last 30 or so years, that the numbers
of young people wearing the skullcap and generally observing at least
some of the religious laws has increased dramatically and I believe this
is no coincidence.
The religious establishment has gone along with the general flow and
has, indeed, profited from it. Since the late 50's there has also been a
notable and frightening change in the orthodox community, which led to
the establishment in 1974 of the "Gush Emunim" (the block of the
faithful), initiated by Rabbi Tsvi Yehuda Kook the younger in the USA.
This is the fundamentalist movement which believes in accepting the
state of Israel and striving to make it entirely and exclusively Jewish
in all areas that the Torah mentioned as God's promise to his people.
(They do not appear to have noticed that nowhere in the Old Testament
does God say that the Jews will take the land from its inhabitants).
Gush Emunim also form the backbone of continuing and expanding
settlements inside the Occupied Territories. Prior to this time orthodox
Jewry played no important role in politics except in pressurising
successive governments to introduce more Jewish religious regulations
into state law. The ultra-orthodox group "Neturei Karta" has never
recognised the state of Israel and is exempt from army service.
Although Gush Emunim is small in numbers, they wield disproportionate
influence and power since successive Israeli governments covertly (and
nowadays overtly) endorsed their aspirations. Their followers have been
allocated special army units so as to enable them to observe Jewish
religious laws and rituals in every detail (although even in the regular
army only Kosher food is served and the Sabbath is observed as far as
possible). These units have a reputation as dedicated crack-troops. What
is less well known but silently condoned is their refusal to give
medical aid or even drive wounded persons to hospital on the Sabbath
unless they are Jews. But in my view this is an extremely shortsighted
and dangerous road, leading in the end to a fundamentalist theocracy
much like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists'
belief is that the Messianic age is already upon us and that any
obstacles to a total elimination of any non-Jews in the promised land,
i.e. the whole of what was Palestine including the Holy Mount, is God's
punishment for sinful Jews, namely all those who are westernised and
secular. This fully exonerates, and indeed sanctifies, a man like Baruch
Goldstein who murdered 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi mosque,
as well as the assassination of PM. Yitzhak Rabin. Like the Hamas
movement, which was initially encouraged by Israel's secret services,
this is another genie that, having been let out of the bottle, can no
longer be controlled.
This version of a Jewish theocracy is not accepted by secular Israelis
who form the bulk of the population but most of whom still cling to
their belief that Israel is a modern democracy. It was never a democracy
to its Arab population, starting from birth, when Israeli nationals
receive Jewish, Arab or Druze nationality rather than Israeli one, and
continuing with the Histadrut's (the most powerful trade union)
continued policy of promoting the rights of Hebrew workers and Hebrew
culture. Arab citizens cannot serve in the army, which in turn deprives
them of further/higher education grants and other help available to
those who have completed their three years compulsory service. The
budget for Arab-Israeli towns and villages is approximately one third of
that of their Jewish counterparts. Land is still continuously
expropriated from Arab and Beduin villages and settlements, while
according to recent statistics by Human Rights Watch some 250,000
persons, descendants of those who managed to hide or flee to nearby
hills when the Israeli army destroyed their villages in 1948, can never
reclaim their lands even though their former village have been razed to
the ground and are uninhabited and despite many of them still holding
the title deeds. Moreover, no Israeli land can be sold to Arabs.
Only a month ago the government tried to oust Arab MKs from the Knesset
(parliament) when they expressed support for their fellow Palestinians
in the Occupied Territories. Fortunately on this occasion the High Court
overturned this ruling.
Democratic rights of Jewish Israelis are also increasingly being eroded.
The number of "refuseniks", young people refusing to enlist in the
Israeli Army, is growing despite the personal cost to themselves. Israel
refuses to recognise conscientious objectors and imprisons them
repeatedly, so that some of them have now served a prison sentences for
a total of almost two years. In addition they forfeit the various
benefits that veterans receive such as grants for higher
education/apprenticeships, help with employment and housing. Academics
are nowadays far from secure in their academic freedom: one of them,
Ilan Pappe of Haifa University, was about to be expelled and only an
international protest forced the University's authority to suspend the
expulsion. Likewise, a MA student at the same university who wrote his
dissertation on yet another massacre he unearthed (in Al-Tanturah), was
initially awarded a distinction for his paper; however, a year later his
degree was withdrawn altogether and he was expelled from Haifa
University.
The Israeli Peace Bloc (Gush Shalom) has likewise come under fire. Some
months ago they wrote an open letter to all officers serving in the
Occupied Territories which warned them that by ordering their troops to
execute actions in breach of the Geneva Convention of human rights they
could be liable to be brought before the international court of Human
Rights at a later date. PM Sharon was incensed and claimed that the
activists were betraying Israel "to our enemies" (sic). He wanted them
tried for treason but at the time there was no Israeli law to try them
under. This was speedily amended by a sweeping new law, now in place,
which makes the provision of any information of whatever kind that might
harm Israeli security a treasonable crime.
It seems a bitter irony that a movement that initially saw itself as
progressive, liberal and secular should find itself in an alliance with,
and held to ransom by, the most reactionary forces, but in my view this
was inevitable from its inception although the founders, and most of us
(including people like myself, growing up in Palestine in the thirties)
did not foresee this and certainly would not have wished it.
Nowadays the deliberate blurring of the distinction between Zionism and
Judaism, which includes a rewriting of ancient as well as modern
history, is exploited to stifle any criticism of Israel's policies and
actions, however extreme and inhuman they may be. This, incidentally
also plays directly into anti-Semitic prejudices by equating Israeli
arrogance, brutality and complete denial of basic human rights to
non-Jews with general Jewish characteristics.
Growing up in Israel makes it quite difficult to see all the historical
falsifications and myths that underpin Zionist ideology except for
academics, and some of them have indeed researched and publicised the
truth, often at great cost to themselves.
Zionism has now assumed the all-embracing mantle of righteousness; it
claims to represent and to speak for all Jews and has adopted the slogan
of "my country right or wrong," with the West tolerating Israel's
continuous breaches of human rights that it would not tolerate if
perpetrated by any other country. Few Western states and not many Jews
dare take a stand against Israel, particularly as many of the former
still feel a sense of unease and guilt about the holocaust which
Zionists Jews inside and outside Israel have exploited in what to me
seems an almost obscene manner.
In the USA, the Jewish Zionist lobby is still strong enough to keep
successive governments on board. Moreover, the USA regards Israel as an
important strategic ally in its fight against Middle Eastern "rogue"
states that have supplanted the Soviet Union as the great satanic enemy
of the free world. The latest phenomenon is that of American Christian
Fundamentalists who advocate the return of all Jews to their God-given
land. I fear that unless and until Israel is judged by the same criteria
as other modern states, this is unlikely to change. It is the duty of
everyone, and particularly of Jews with a conscience and a sense of
justice to speak out against the falsifications of history by the
Zionist lobby, and the dangerous misconceptions it has led the West to
accept.
It is also high time to build a boycott campaign similar to the
anti-apartheid one against Israel. (Called for by Nelson Mandela and
Archbishop Tutu among others).
Hanna Braun, London, September 2001 (updated February 2006).
Bibliography:
Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Prof. Israel Shahak (died 2nd July
2001)
Fundamental Judaism in Israel, Prof. Israel Shahak
A History of the Jews, Ancient and Modern, Ilan Halevi
Western Scholarship and the History of Palestine, Rev. Dr. Michael Prior
(ed.)
Arab Nationalism and the Palestinians 1850-1939; Abdelaziz A. Ayyad
Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict; Dr. Norman
Finkelstein
The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict; Prof. Ilan Pappe
Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood; Idith Zertal
The Myths of Zionism; John Rose
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Patton <james_patton@yahoo.com>
Subject: The Death of British Freedom by John Pilger
This is an important article. The US congress has abandoned the Bill of Rights,
and now Britain is set to introduce a "National Identity Register" that will force
ordinary citizens to carry an identity card that will keep a record of their every
movement and transaction.
And Pilger says if you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed
and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to 2,500 pounds!
Is this a good thing? Do Britons want this? Do Britons need this?
And how far behind is Australia behind in introducting similar measures?
In a so-called "democracy (TM)", where is the lively public debate about
such an important issue?
It seems since they successfully pulled off the black-psy-op of 9/11,
the ruling class have been using their unchecked power to enrich themselves
and kill the freedom of anyone who dissents.
It seems to me a sad step backwards.
Part of the key to stopping this, I think, is to bring the criminals who planned
and executed the controlled demolitions of September 11 to justice.
Just my two cents worth,
James.
April 14, 2006 The Death of British Freedom
by John Pilger People ask: Can this be happening in Britain? Surely not. A centuries-old democratic constitution cannot be swept away. Basic human rights cannot be made abstract. Those who once comforted themselves that a Labor government would never commit such an epic crime in Iraq might now abandon a last delusion, that their freedom is inviolable. If they knew.
The dying of freedom in Britain is not news. The pirouettes of ambition of of the prime minister and his political twin, the treasurer, are news, though of minimal public interest. Looking back to the 1930s when social democracies were distracted and powerful cliques imposed their totalitarian ways by stealth and silence, the warning is clear. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labor MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.
Presented by the government as a simple measure for streamlining deregulation, or "getting rid of red tape," the only red tape it will actually remove is that of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation, including this remarkable bill. It will mean that the government can secretly change the Parliament Act and the constitution and laws can be struck down by decree from Downing Street. Blair has demonstrated his taste for absolute power in his abuse of the royal prerogative, which he has used to bypass Parliament in going to war and in dismissing landmark High Court judgments, such as that which declared illegal the expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos islands, now the site of an American military base. The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the U.S. Congress last year abandoning the Bill of Rights.
Those who fail to hear these steps on the road to dictatorship should look at the government's plans for ID cards, described in its manifesto as "voluntary." They will be compulsory and worse. An ID card will be different from a driving license or passport. It will be connected to a database called the NIR (National Identity Register), where your personal details will be stored. These will include your fingerprints, a scan of your iris, your residence status and unlimited other details about your life. If you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to 2,500 pounds.
Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy, and every bank will have an NIR terminal where you can be asked to "prove who you are." Each time you swipe it, a record is made at the NIR. This means that the government will know every time you withdraw more than 99 pounds from your bank account. Restaurants and off-licenses (liquor stores) will demand that the card is swiped so that they are indemnified from prosecution. Private business will have full access to the NIR. If you apply for a job, your card will have to be swiped. If you want a London Underground Oyster card, or a supermarket loyalty card, or a telephone line, or a mobile phone, or an Internet account, your card will have to be swiped.
In other words, there will be a record of your movements, your phone records and shopping habits, even the kind of medication you take.
These databases, which can be stored in a device the size of a hand, will be sold to third parties without you knowing. The ID card will not be your property, and the Home Secretary will have the right to revoke or suspend it at any time without explanation. This would prevent you drawing money from a bank. ID cards will not stop or deter terrorists, as Home Secretary Charles Clarke has now admitted; the Madrid bombers all carried ID. On March 26, the government silenced the last parliamentary opposition to the cards when it ruled that the House of Lords could no longer block legislation contained in a party's manifesto. The Blair clique does not debate. Like the zealot in Downing Street, its "sincere belief" in its own veracity is quite enough. When the London School of Economics published a long study that effectively demolished the government's case for the cards, Charles Clarke abused it for feeding a "media scare campaign." This is the same minister who
attended every cabinet meeting at which Blair's lies over his decision to invade Iraq were clear.
This government was reelected with the support of barely a fifth of those eligible to vote: the second lowest since the franchise. Whatever respectability the famous suits in television studios try to give him, Blair is demonstrably discredited as a liar and war criminal. Like the constitution-hijacking bill now reaching its final stages, and the criminalizing of peaceful protest, ID cards are designed to control the lives of ordinary citizens (as well as enrich the new Labor-favored companies that will build the computer systems). A small, determined, and profoundly undemocratic group is killing freedom in Britain, just as it has killed literally in Iraq. That is the news. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken," said Blair at the 2001 Labor Party conference. "The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."
First published in the New Statesman.
John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:09:18 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Fw: Rumsfeld 'personally involved' in 'harsh' interrogation
From: MA PA
April 14, 2006 9:44 AM
Rumsfeld 'personally involved' in 'harsh' interrogation
High-ranking military officials shed new light on Rumsfeld role in harsh treatment of a Guantánamo detainee.
April 14, 2006
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as "the 20th hijacker."
(...)
... detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani suffered from what Army investigators have called "degrading and abusive" treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/7721584.html
Revolt of Retired Generals Conveys Revulsion and Disgust of Active Duty Counterparts
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/7720194.html
Revolt of the Generals: Six Call for Rumsfeld to Resign
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/7711450.html
Newswire - April 14, 2006
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/2006/04/14/
MARC PARENT
CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/14409
http://www.dailykos.com/user/ccnwon
/ / /
.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:18:39 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Re: articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next
Children who "ran amuck" and shot up their high scool classmates -- were selected disturbed kids subjected to conditioning to elicit the aggression responses --- they were programmed to kill and make the rational for gun confiscation, just as the 911 jetliners were programmed for WTC crashbombings to make the rational for "war on terror"
It is essential to disarm the population to have a master-class servant-class society.
----- Original Message -----
From: Naveed
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] articles 4: Soros backs Iran war - "difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided" -=- Ron Paul Iran is Next
tell that rothschild stooge to grab his favorite pair of boots and a rifle and ship out!
this is the same bastard that helped confiscate guns in austrailia!
Dick Eastman <olfriend@nwinfo.net> wrote:
Ron Paul is doing his job.
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
April 13, 2006
(1) Soros backs Iran war - " I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided"
(2) Iran: The Next Neocon Target - HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS to U.S. House of Reps
(1) Soros backs Iran war - " I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can
be avoided"
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:41:56 -0400 From: "David Chiang"
<sino.economics@verizon.net>
Ready for $262 a barrel oil? Two of the world's most successful investors say
oil will be in short supply in the coming months. By Nelson Schwartz, FORTUNE
senior writer April 11, 2006: 2:31 PM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
The other, billionaire investor George Soros, wouldn't make any specific
predictions about prices. But as a legendary commodities player, it's worth
paying heed to the words of the man who once took on the Bank of England -- and
won. "I'm very worried about the supply-demand balance, which is very tight,"
Soros says.
"U.S. power and influence has declined precipitously because of Iraq and the war
on terror and that creates an incentive for anyone who wants to make trouble to
go ahead and make it." As an example, Soros pointed to the regime in Iran, which
is heading towards a confrontation with the West over its nuclear power program
and doesn't show any signs of compromising. "Iran is on a collision course and I
have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided," he says.
{What about Israel, India and Pakistan? Soros is revealng himself as a Zionist -
Peter M.}
Another emboldened troublemaker is Russian president Vladimir Putin, Soros said,
citing Putin's recent decision to briefly shut the supply of natural gas to
Ukraine. The only bit of optimism Soros could offer was that the next 12 months
would be most dangerous in terms of any price shocks, because beginning in 2007
he predicts new oil supplies will come online.
Hermitage's Bill Browder doesn't yet have the stature of George Soros. But his
$4 billion Moscow-based Hermitage fund rose 81.5 percent last year and is up a
whopping 1780 percent since its inception a decade ago. A veteran of Salomon
Bros. and Boston Consulting Group, the 41-year old Browder has been especially
successful because of his contrarian take; for example, he continued to invest
in Russia when others fled following the Kremlin's assault on Yukos.
Doomsdays 1 through 6
To come up with some likely scenarios in the event of an international crisis,
his team performed what's known as a regression analysis, extrapolating the
numbers from past oil shocks and then using them to calculate what might happen
when the supply from an oil-producing country was cut off in six different
situations. The fall of the House of Saud seems the most far-fetched of the six
possibilities, and it's the one that generates that $262 a barrel.
More realistic -- and therefore more chilling -- would be the scenario where
Iran declares an oil embargo a la OPEC in 1973, which Browder thinks could cause
oil to double to $131 a barrel. Other outcomes include an embargo by Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez ($111 a barrel), civil war in Nigeria ($98 a barrel),
unrest and violence in Algeria ($79 a barrel) and major attacks on
infrastructure by the insurgency in Iraq ($88 a barrel).
Regressions analysis may be mathematical but it's an art, not a science. And
some of these scenarios are quite dubious, like Venezuela shutting the spigot.
(For more on Chavez and Venezuela, click here.)
Energy chiefs at the World Economic Forum in Davos downplayed the likelihood of
a serious oil shortage. In a statement Friday, Shell's CEO Jeroen Van der Veer
declared, "There is no reason for pessimism." OPEC Acting Secretary General
Mohammed Barkindo said "OPEC will step in at any time there is a shortage in the
market." But then no one in the industry, including Van der Veer, foresaw an
extended run of $65 oil -- or even $55 oil -- like we've been having.
It's clear that there is very, very little wiggle room, and that most consumers,
including those in the United States, have acceded so far to the new reality of
$60 or even $70 oil. And as Soros points out, the White House has its hands full
in Iraq and elsewhere.
Although there are long-term answers like ethanol, what's needed is a crash
conservation effort in the United States. This doesn't have to be
command-and-control style. Moral suasion counts for a lot, and if the president
suggested staying home with family every other Sunday or otherwise cutting back
on unnecessary drives, he could please the family values crowd while also
changing the psychology of the oil market by showing that the U.S. government is
serious about easing any potential bottlenecks.
Similarly, he could finally get the government to tighten fuel-efficiency
standards and encourage both Detroit and drivers to end decades of steadily
increasing gas consumption. These kinds of steps would create a little headroom
until new supplies do become available or threats like Iran's current leadership
or the Iraqi insurgency fade.
It's been done it before. For all the cracks about Jimmy Carter in a cardigan
and his malaise speech, America did reduce its use of oil following the price
shocks of the 1970s, and laid the groundwork for low energy prices in the 1980s
and 1990s. But it would require spending political capital, and offending
traditional White House allies, and that's something this president doesn't seem
to want to do.
(2) Iran: The Next Neocon Target - HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS to U.S. House of Reps
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:03:20 EDT From: Ichee@aol.com
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives April 5, 2006
ICHEE.org COMMENT - let the world listen to one member of the Congress of the
United States who has the wisdom and courage to understand and speak the truth
about Iran.
April 5, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
It's been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and
his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were
no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of
our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein
was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no
connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The
current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic
state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing
oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay
there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price
to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They're
also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from
three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it
appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of
administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have
created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad
dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security
reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief
that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare
of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars.
Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most
importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is
that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would
never support the invasion knowing what we know today.
Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with
plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising
clamor for "democratizing" Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud
Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy,
its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never
complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people
against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass
destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to
have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the
charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same
arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media,
and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to
justify an invasion of Iraq.
Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim
nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We're poorer but certainly not safer for it. We
invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This
effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from
power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by
warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban
from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's
arch enemy, more than our own.
The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for
Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission,
justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and
his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the
current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein
is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of
stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein's
removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.
Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at
our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia
to claim leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized
government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war,
death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran's
worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran's best friends. Even this
apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a
similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our
failures?
Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of
imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or
accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3.
All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.
Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned
propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of
our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be
labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's
radicals.
Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who
maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in
the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have
any. It's hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would
consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people
are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other
people's children. This, I'm sure, would be denied-- which means their own
children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised
and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they
should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children
are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most
Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks.
For the past 3 years it's been inferred that if one is not in support of the
current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of
support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his
evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued
for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or
Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument
that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far
superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less
dangerous-- especially when there's no evidence that our national security is
being threatened.
Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for
the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and
media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so
many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the
fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now
serving in Iraq say it's time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the
propaganda that we're there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the
administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to
exploit their need to believe in a cause that's worth the risk to life and limb.
I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong. I sense
that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and
cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on
terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support
patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only
smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later
on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish
the war we're in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding
into Iran will drown out the cries of, "enough already!"
The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to
attack us have already begun. It's too bad we can't learn from our mistakes.
This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned
by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the
international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to
continue. We have been forewarned that "all options" remain on the table. And
there's little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there's
less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to
going into Iraq. It's astonishing that after three years of bad results and
tremendous expense there's little indication we will reconsider our traditional
non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation
building, policing the world, and protecting "our oil" still constitute an
acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.
It's already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious
about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than
Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot
stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat
that cannot be ignored.
Iran's history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq's history. This
ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and
Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country
that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative
than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of
evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran
started a long time before this president took office.
In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the
democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He
ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected
him-- that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear
reactor. Evidently we didn't buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a
need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule
served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who
overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow
in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of
the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most
Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the
internal affairs of Iran in 1953.
During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their
invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a
message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that
bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to
invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately
proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we
encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite
different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch
enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered
from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their
affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them
and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.
For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and
determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its
leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine
our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no
more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are
unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made
against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a
little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward
Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting
these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few
in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking
for UN sanctions against her.
There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and
initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working
on one--only conjecture.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India,
and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon
than these other countries?
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against
anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same
goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state
terrorist group.
Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular
to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons.
But we reward them just as we reward India.
We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear
weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had
to say about this: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and
I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them,
they're crazy."
There's been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This
distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass
resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.
IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of
"undeclared" sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of
nuclear material.
We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is
asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in
compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.
We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by
the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer
had them.
Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we're
hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self
interest.
Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made
in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their
suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation.
Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT.
It's the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise
our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.
The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The
"Iran Freedom Support Act," HR 282, passed in the International Relations
Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately
condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation
obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is
minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in
charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a
pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq
is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which
will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of
this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in
the three-year occupation of Iraq.
Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic
individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is
fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens
would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to
bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone
like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the
Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi
and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA
safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove
they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative
is impossible.
Let there be no doubt, though the words "regime change" are not found in the
bill-- that's precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael
Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the
International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: "I
know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of
regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the
language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can
clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can't have
freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs."
Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups
dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once
again we're unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a
people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don't
expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the
past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go
to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.
Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in
Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and
radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called
"aggressive" policies of the Iranian government. We're seven thousand miles from
home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will
have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the
aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may
have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation
is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.
Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians,
military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The
successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia
will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads.
Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted
by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would
be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that
some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down,
nor can they be destroyed easily.
One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure "our" oil supply.
This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have
more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a
similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump.
The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to
understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned
these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in
some IED explosion.
Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more
than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now
occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our
pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: "Fool me once
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." It looks to me like the Congress and
the country is open to being fooled once again.
Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of
the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation.
But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for
our need to undermine the Iranian government.
The President's 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as
frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he
claims: "We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." He
claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the
IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years
ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is
if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the
diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by
demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West-- led by the
U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear
technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.
The President states: Iran's "desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."
A "desire" is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved.
Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove
it doesn't have a "desire" to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain,
France, Pakistan, India, and Israel- whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic
like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a
congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.
Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the
mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military
confrontation with Iran.
Cause for Concern
Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a
war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting
out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while
serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much
easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers
to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no
significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in
patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not
supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil
that's about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed
and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting
adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.
If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of
non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with
these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites
all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts
from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular
reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it's for less than
honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the
world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs
cancel out the good intentions.
One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism
becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the
Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare
war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used
indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by
Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was
the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the
Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier
administration.
Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate,
because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional.
Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its "success," and against
the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again
understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation
building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace
non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy.
The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on
both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already,
and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable
accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially
when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war.
Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current
war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at
home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen's rights.
Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent.
Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter
how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World
War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars
is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But
the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought,
and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have
raised someone's standard of living.
Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are
never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not
enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create
enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates
from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not
enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever
amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation.
Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since
the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of
the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the
excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone
decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices
that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay
for the war.
The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle
class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the
bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international
corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation.
Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an
outcry for protectionist legislation. It's always easier to blame foreign
producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss
of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse.
Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of
living for most of our citizens.
Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that
results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War
raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an
ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil
discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and
avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s.
In a way it's amazing there's not a lot more outrage expressed by the American
people. There's plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not
part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American
casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal
surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the
issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even
strengthened while real oversight is ignored.
Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this
war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain
fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of
reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly
participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC
nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money
back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our
housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing
of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war
and welfare spending. It's fine until the music stops and the real costs are
realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation.
That's when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can't afford
the "humanitarianism" of the Neo-conservatives.
The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is
nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing
the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none
good. Today's economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won't
be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by
imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems
of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.
Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble
and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide
cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.
The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine
the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our
invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to
open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current
monetary system with the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
The theory and significance of "peak oil" is believed to be an additional
motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm
control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been
protecting "our" oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years.
With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a
military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia
moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don't understand
how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources.
Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the
world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is
factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled.
Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be
costly and oil prices will rise.
There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of
intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11
was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah
Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a
consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are
rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our
government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to
our security.
There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead
believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are
thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures
must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to
intimidate and confront Iran.
First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according
to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous
annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out
of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won
the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles.
If you're looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would
be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and
was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by
the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we
provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown
and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with
talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It
makes no sense and it's a very costly and dangerous policy.
The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest
to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the
Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on
others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our
own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict
non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate
interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that
intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral
arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments
should.
Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American
citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world
actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the
superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as
arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive
manner.
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals
have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy.
There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the
case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy
dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use
diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past
60 years.
It's time for a change.
--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
- Notebook, 1904
www.fightthenwo.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:31:45 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Blame, who said anything about blame? Espionage Act Trial of AIPAC Operatives Unnerves Some U.S. Jewish Leaders
from neocon Zionist globalist anti-populist Wall Street Journal
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean McBride
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [political-research] Trial Unnerves Some U.S. Jewish Leaders
[The fact that the militantly neoconservative Wall Street Journal is being forced to acknowledge the issues below reveals that the neocon mainstream media have a real problem. Despite the heavy spin on the Mearsheimer/Walt controversy by Jay Solomon, many of the uncomfortable facts are leaking through.]
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB114497795106425790-LhuibEuwLfeoUQwXriW9q_eTL98_20060514.html
Trial Unnerves Some U.S. Jewish Leaders
As Ex-Lobbyists of Pro-Israel Group Face
Court, Article Queries Sway on Mideast Policy
By JAY SOLOMON
April 14, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The coming trial of two former representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is fueling concern among Jewish leaders that Israel and the Jewish-American community increasingly are being blamed for the Bush administration's troubles in the Middle East.
The trial comes amid a furor sparked last month by an article by two American academics that argues pro-Israel interest groups have undercut the U.S.'s standing in the Middle East by promoting a policy line too close to Tel Aviv's. They argue that the U.S. is too aligned with Israel in its position on the Palestinian question, weapons proliferation in the Middle East, and diplomatic ties with a number of Arab states. Meanwhile, leaders of such groups as the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League say they're tracking global media that they believe disproportionately focuses on the role Jewish officials inside the Bush administration played in building the case for war in Iraq.
MORE
Read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."1A number of prominent strategists overseeing the Iraq invasion during President Bush's first term are Jews, such as former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Pentagon's then-No. 3 civilian official, Douglas Feith. Although they have been singled out for particular criticism, Jewish leaders say critics of the war often selectively bypass the scores of non-Jewish officials who also played central roles in developing the Iraq policy.
"Now you have an Iraq war that Americans are turning against, and you have people saying it's all a Jewish conspiracy," says Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress, which promotes religious tolerance and the rights of the state of Israel. "But look at President Clinton's team: You had many Jews who aggressively pushed for peace in the Middle East. But these same critics don't see this as part of the same conspiracy."
Despite the criticism of the pro-Israel lobby, many Jewish leaders in America say they don't believe their community ultimately will be blamed for the war in Iraq and unrest elsewhere in the Middle East. They cite polls showing that America's support for Israel has grown in recent years, and note that many indicators suggest that anti-Semitism in America is declining. While certain officials who are Jewish may be facing criticism, these leaders say, they don't see a wider threat.
"I don't see a gathering storm" against the Jewish community, says David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington. "Most people seem to be focusing on individuals rather than a conspiracy."
The trial of the former AIPAC lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, is scheduled to begin next month. The two men are charged under the Espionage Act with receiving and disseminating classified information provided by a former Pentagon Middle East analyst. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley are among the witnesses Messrs. Rosen and Weissman's defense team has indicated it may call.
The Justice Department's indictment details how Messrs. Rosen and Weissman allegedly sought to promote a hawkish U.S. policy toward Iran by trading information and favors with a number of senior U.S. officials. Lawrence Franklin, the former Pentagon official, has pleaded guilty to misusing classified information. Mr. Franklin was charged with orally passing on information about a draft National Security Council paper about Iran to the two lobbyists, according to people familiar with the case, as well as other classified information. Mr. Franklin was sentenced in December to nearly 13 years in prison, but his sentence could be reduced, depending on the testimony he provides for the prosecution.
Lawyers for Messrs. Rosen and Weissman, as well as many Jewish leaders, say the actions of the former AIPAC employees were no different from how thousands of Washington lobbyists work. They say the indictment marks the first time in U.S. history that American citizens -- outside government employees or contractors -- have been charged with receiving and disseminating state secrets in conversations. In court filings, the defense team argues that their clients couldn't have known that the information they received was classified, and they say a conviction in the case could cast a chill over the U.S. media and political process.
The actions of the men are "what members of the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists and members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times per day," the legal team wrote this month in a brief seeking to have the case dismissed. "These meetings are a vital and necessary part of how our government and society function."
Several members of Congress have expressed concern about the case since it broke in 2004, fearing that the Justice Department may be targeting pro-Israel lobbying groups, such as AIPAC. These officials say they're eager to see the legal process run its course, but are concerned about the lack of transparency in the case.
"The administration hasn't been forthcoming on this case," said Lale Mamaux, a spokeswoman for Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida. Mr. Wexler wrote to the Bush administration seeking more information on the AIPAC case when it first broke.
The trial is scheduled to begin just weeks after publication of an article on the pro-Israel lobby by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University. In the paper, titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which was posted on the Web site of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, the authors argue that a bloc of pro-Israel interest groups, including Jewish-Americans and Christian evangelicals, have lobbied to align U.S. foreign policy with Israel's. They write that this trend has accelerated under the Bush administration, where neoconservative strategists in the Pentagon and White House have been ideologically aligned with hawks in Israel. (Read the paper2.)
Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt argue that rather than enhancing national security, America's ties to Israel have escalated terrorist attacks against the U.S., undermined moves toward democracy in the Middle East, and advanced a global race to acquire weapons of mass destruction. "Other special-interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest," their paper says.
The authors write that the broader Jewish community in America appeared to be generally against the invasion of Iraq. But they emphasize that many pro-Israel lobbying groups and U.S. officials close to Israel championed the conflict. "The war was due in large part to the [pro-Israel] Lobby's influence, especially the neoconservatives within it."
Reaction from the Jewish community and from many in the mainstream press has been strong and swift against the academics. Opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have attacked alleged factual and historical inaccuracies in the piece. Many Jewish leaders say the article rehashes centuries-old conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals with dual loyalties. They say similar sentiment arose during the first Gulf War, when some critics of the conflict saw it as designed to protect Israel.
Still, Jewish leaders say that such attacks traditionally have come from members of the extreme left or right wings, and that they are particularly concerned to see them presented by academics from such pre-eminent American institutions. "The notion that there's a so-called Jewish cabal continues to surface," said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. "That it had currency in Czarist Russia was, tragically, par for the course. ... But at Harvard or Chicago in 2006? That's truly mind-boggling."
In their article, Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt emphasize that the pro-Israel lobby isn't a cabal or conspiracy, but rather a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that operates in much the same way that other U.S. interest groups do. Mr. Walt also said in an interview that the main aim of the article was to stimulate debate on an important foreign-policy issue.
Harvard, which left the article on the Web site but removed the Kennedy School's logo from it, has stressed that the paper reflects the authors' personal views and not that of the university. In a statement, Harvard said that "the Kennedy school does not restrict, interfere with, or take a position on the research conclusions reached by individual faculty members."
Trying to stifle a debate on Washington's relationship with Israel, or the pro-Israel lobby itself, could prove damaging to the Jewish community longer term. "It's bad for Jews in America if it's seen like you can't talk about this one specific issue," says M.J. Rosenberg, who heads the Washington office of the Israel Policy Forum.
Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com3
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:25:46 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Fw: Six Retired Generals Clamor for Rumsfeld's Ouster
remember -- in the eyes of the Zionist neocons the Iraq invasion/occupation
is a success. They count the number of Iraqi dead as positive points and
the number of American points are given no weight at all. The object was to
have a tough occupation constantly on the back of Iraq for the sake of
Israel and globalism and monopoly oil. The more the bloody chaos/civilwar
conflict the more they like it. Iran is to be an even more beautiful bloody
party in their eyes. We are not in the good ol USA any more. This is ZOG
territory -- and our soldiers are killing and dying because the US owes the
money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "t r u t h o u t" <postman@truthout.org>
To: <frameup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:09 AM
Six Retired Generals Clamor for Rumsfeld's Ouster
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041406J.shtml
Two more retired US generals called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to
resign on Thursday, claiming the chief architect of the Iraq operation
ignored years of Pentagon planning for a US occupation and should be held
accountable for the chaos there.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:43:40 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Leslie, can you explain this message from qmail-sent programe at yahoo that you forwarded?
What is this saying? What has happened here?
I am no yahoo expert.
Dick Eastman
----- Original Message -----
From: Leslie Schwartz
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 4:47 AM
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<Undisclosed-Recipient:;@smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com>:
Unable to switch to /nonexistent: file does not exist. (#4.3.0)
I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <lhs_emf@pacbell.net>
Received: (qmail 54994 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2006 03:19:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO muse) (lhs?emf@pacbell.net@24.1.11.49 with login)
by smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2006 03:19:52 -0000
Reply-To: <lhs_emf@pacbell.net>
From: "Leslie Schwartz" <lhs_emf@pacbell.net>
To: <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>,
<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Eastman answers McBride Re: Why we believe Zionists are masterminds of September 11
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:19:49 -0500
Message-ID: <HBEKIINIJPGLMFPBKNBNAEGHDPAA.lhs_emf@pacbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_038F_01C65E7F.36A02400"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
In-Reply-To: <008701c65e9f$f8f2a3a0$5c32b2d8@nwinfo.net>
Importance: Normal
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_038F_01C65E7F.36A02400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Rumsfeld is Protestant.
There are more non-Jewish neo-cons than there are Jewish neocons.
Even if every American neocon were Jewish that still is not proof of Israeli involvement in 9/11, that is exactly the kind of
ill-logic you recognize is invalid below.
Please refer me to actual proof that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Zionists.
Just because Israel is an indirect beneficiary of some of the outcomes of the American invasion, that does not mean that therefore
that they engineered, masterminded or caused the invasion to happen in the first place.
Is the CIA a Zionist organization and who says so that can actually prove the statement? Are the progeny of Reinhart Galen Jewish
Zionists? What known black ops agencies of the US are verifiable Zionists? The CIA were clearly involved at least in the cover up
and obfuscation of evidence that would have alerted anyone as to the coming event.
Zionist is an overloaded word, it raises too many emotions for many people to deal with and not everyone is going to agree on all of
the definitions of who is a Zionist and who is not.
Don't tell me someone is Jewish that therefore they are Zionists. Also, just because someone is a Zionist that does not make them
some incarnation of evil and guilty of every wrong you are angry about.
All this does is substitute one hate word - Jew for another hate word - Zionist.
Just because the media is not fair or balanced in its coverage of the Israel - Palestinian conflict does not mean that the media are
Zionists, what it means that people who favor Zionism have more influence over the content of the media than do people who favor
Palestinians have over the media. I have heard this accusation that the US media is run by Zionists, this is something I always hear
from hate groups and never from anyone else. I want to see the proof for that as well, not just more sloppy logic and more name
calling.
This is exactly the kind of illogic and hate speech I was referring to before.
Comments of this caliber just below are a complete waste of time.
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Leslie Schwartz
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:04 PM
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman
No Dick, I will reply in more detail later. This event is not all that substantially different in character than Gulf of Tonkin, and many other similar, etc. Its done by the arms and arms finance industry, with key government official taking the lead role in the disinformation campaign. You're mixing too many factors together and as with so many similar events in our history it originates from within our power structure. Israel is an incidental beneficiary, even if mossad or some other free lance foreign black op covert agencies were used. It is also like Hitler's Reichstag fire; purpose to use domestic terror gain control of the government and the internal political agenda. Don't blind yourself with the anger towards Israel or Zionists.
Further your contention;
"Mossad would be the agency that would then oversee the positioning of accomplices/moles/operatives in all of the critical/strategic/necessary/sufficient positions in the U.S. and British institutions (MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI, WHite House, Pentagon, FAA)"
Sorry, but that Is (respectfully) ridiculous on its face.
If that really is your conclusion start presenting the facts and prove it and stop just offering opinions and theories and conjecture as conclusions, just because you see some overlapping categories among these groups and some possible motives, all that is not proof.
Later .
Leslie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eastman
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:59 AM
To: 911-disc@yahoogroups.com; 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [911TruthAction] I rest my case. Re: Fw: Jew Baiting Leslie Schwartz, Dick Eastman
----- Original Message -----
From: Leslie Schwartz
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting
>I have seen a number of messages on this message board NOT making that distinction, and in fact lumping together, Jews, Zionists, Neocons, mossad, Judaism, Israelis, Ashkenazi Jews, the Rothschild's, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, the Warburg's, PNAC, the CFR, the etc. and etc., and mentioning specific high profile people who may fall within one or more of those categories.
Leslie, all these terms are in use by people doing their own detective work on 9-11 and the origin of the Arab-American wars. When Wolfowitz has Perle, Kissinger, Feith etc. in a group at the Pentagon in the months leading up to 9-11 and when there is proof that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside-job -- then we must ask ourselves what these men -- Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger, Feith, Dov Zakheim, Rumsfeld have in common that may be clues to their organization/motives/network/method etc. When dealing the Perle, Wolfowitz and Kissinger a great many leads are obvious -- Jews, Zionists, Neocons, Mossad, Likud, the Rothschild's, the Rockefellers, PNAC, the CFR.
Think about this: An operation like 9-11 -- if it was an inside-job false-flag operation at all -- could not have originated in the overt organization charts of U.S. agencies -- it must have had its origins in secret groups of people who could trust each other with such (dastardly, illegal, secrecy-demanding) plans. Mossad is one of only a few possibilities of where the idea could have been hatched (the other possibility is that the idea was hatched among a group of the world's billionaires -- Perle and Kissinger being their agents -- but even in this case, the next step would have had to have been to bring in Mossad as the primary "caterer" -- because only Mossad (unlike CIA, NSA, MI6) had the ethnic, religious and ideological unity/solidarity (let's call it 'radical likudnikism' if not "Zionism") to work in confidence of the unlikliness of betrayal.
Mossad would be the agency that would then oversee the positioning of accomplices/moles/operatives in all of the critical/strategic/necessary/sufficient positions in the U.S. and British institutions (MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI, WHite House, Pentagon, FAA) as well as the key control positions of the private sector (sufficient mass media, ADL, think tanks, opinion makers). This could not be accomplished by any organization -- say the NSA -- within the U.S. -- the American leadership by "yes-men" is not that dependable. And so Mossad made sure that all strategic points within the Pentagon were made secure for 9-11. etc.
You yourself are being unfair, Leslie, when you say we "lump together" these terms. When I say "Zionist" I do not mean "Jews" (as in all Jews) -- when I say CFR or PNAC or ADL I mean exactly those organizations and nothing else. No one is "lumping" (i.e., equating) all these things anywhere. Remember, I have said again and again that only individuals commit crimes, not groups -- but individuals work in groups and for groups and it is in groups that we find them and understand them.
>I also recall some hater using the term "crypto-Jews" on this message board as if any self respecting individual is going to hide the fact they are Jewish becomes THAT writer hates Jews. This is delusional and it is offensive.
I also heard someone refer to the Charlie Sheen as a "crypto-Jew" -- a term I don't understand -- maybe Charlie has Jewish people in his family tree, and maybe he does not advertize it (why should he bother -- unless to help his career in Hollywood, but apparently he has not bothered) -- but look at Ed Asner -- also speaking about the 9-11 standdown (I know that Asner is talking "false-flag", I haven't heard him yet) -- but I ask you Leslie -- is "crypto-Jew" any less of an unfair term than calling me a "hater" just because I look in the backgrounds of Perle, Wolfowitz, Kissinger etc. and find common elements of Zionists, Neocons, CFR, Rockefellers, Rothschilds (in Perle's case)? Certainly it is reasonable to look at their backgrounds -- certainly these ties are relevant -- or af least very very very suspicious.
When necessary and accurate distinctions are not made and a message goes out which obviously has some emotion, even anger over the events associated with 9/11/01 (emotion which is otherwise understandable) it is an ugly thing to read, its racist, its UN-AMERICAN and I personally do not think it helps anyone to understand these events or how we can constructively respond to the overall situation.
You are right -- and the worst part is that it alienates intelligent and fair-minded people like yourself, especially since you are Jewish and Jews are needed in raising the cry against the perpetrators -- if only to overcome the strong negatives of the "Jew haters" like me -- or like I have been written off as being.
If you want to be taken seriously and treated with respect for your research and comments, you should know that is not going to be the response when you basically write everything bad that happens in this world is one kind of flavor of the month "Jewish conspiracy" by one name or another.
But 9-11 was a conspiracy of one kind and it did involve men who are confirmed Zionists, it did involve Mossad (see my reasons for saying this), and it did involve the neo-cons -- as represented by the leadership at the Pentagon -- but of course including Cheney and (cipher) Bush (the former of which is a Zionist -- the latter merely a sociopathic useful idiot).
If you make the sufficient and accurate distinctions and make a sincere effort to report only what you have verified to be factual you will not hear any complaints about it. If you don't have proof and only have a theory then say that, and when your making broad accusations about the actions, motives and future plans of groups or categories of people chances are your going to have to account for that uncertainty in your statement, otherwise its an accusation without sufficient proof and it will again cause people to distrust your motives and good-will.
My proof is the Pentagon attack evidence which implicates the Pentagon leadership -- Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger (in the Wolfowitz group at the Pentagon) and the ties of those men, the interests that put them there. http://bedoper.com/eastman
We are solving a case where the government (which ordinarily would investigate the crime) is itself the guilty party -- and we must work back to find all the people/motives/methods behind the crime.
That being said, I admit to guilt in not making the distinction that when I say that the Pentagon leadership is almost all Jewish and that the Pentagon leadership are implicated in the false-flag attack ont he Pentagon -- that I am not saying that ALL JEWS WERE IN ON THE PLOT. (I would think that intelligent people would understand that without my saying it.) But it is important that they are Jewish, because that leads us to investigate their network and affiliations -- the powers that brought them their, their goals, the way they carried off this complex and far-reaching operation.
Leslie
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Hammond
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:12 PM
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting
Scott, PLEASE! Note that the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is pointed out. One is NOT the other.
Kevin
Scott Peden <scotpeden@cruzithero.com> wrote:
Sorry, in the deluge of all the reasons I hear to go to war, I only saw a couple of e-mails from a few certain people claiming that the Jewish Lobby and Israel wanted the US to go to war, they never responded or were able to share where their source of information was from, so all I had was their personal hearsay, that they got it from someone they trusted, as hearsay and that they themselves were as trustworthy as the person who gave them the hearsay, so there was no need for me to question anything they passed along. That is, they couldn't show me any independent data to show that Israel and the Jewish Lobby screamed for the US to go to war, much less any comments for this, in print. So I have just taken that as Jew Bashing, happens all the time and a great many ludicrous things get dumped on those of Jewish faith that maybe the Israel government may have wanted or tried to do. Even though I haven't been the slightest fan of the Israeli government since the attack on the USS Liberty, that hasn't colored my feelings for individuals of Jewish faith.
When there are hard facts, I gladly accept them, links where I can do my own research, not stuff like the gOlem sends out where all references go back to other stuff he wrote.
So, if you have any hard facts, references I can read myself, that show that the Jewish Lobby and the Israeli government actually pushed for the US to go to war with countries that had no connection with the phantom 911 terrorists (like the 7 Saudi's. that are still alive, last seen in Saudi Arabia itself) please share them. I make up my own mind. If this was a court of law and I was a juror, I definitely couldn't give the death penalty on what information I have seen.
-
A van full of C-4 placed in THREE WYTC towers, to bring them down as
controlled demolition.
I don't understand that.
You are basing trace amounts of explosives, lets say C-4 since it is compact and easy to transport. A van load of it wouldn't have been enough to take down all three of the WTC towers. Maybe one. No way the building could have been rigged over night. Traditional demolition experts figured weeks in a rush job, more likely months.
So, How it was used, was what was found in their van of a composition that could have made steel turn molten and remain in a liquid form for days later?
To turn this 'suspect' evidence into some scientific fact, you'd have to know if what they had, could have caused the results we saw and fit in with the data we have gathered.
As far as Faux News, I have no idea if they were one of the three stations I watched most that morning, from about 8 minutes after the first plane hit, I watched live newscasts, but Faux News, they are professional revisionist story tellers, their news is to get their advertisers money, not to tell the truth, in my personal opinion, they are trying to take the national Enquirer's business away. Their credibility ain't worth the airwaves they broadcast over.
They are my local station, I know first hand what they report and what they rewrite. They turn peace marches into riots, when no such thing ever happened.
What they showed on the 6 PM news (Pacific time) didn't even compare with what I saw that morning between 8 AM and noon my time. Might have just reported on something in a book of Fiction and called it truth. All they got right was that a great many people died and that a great many people were in shock.
I have heard from someone that survived the destruction of their work
place (One of the Towers) about construction work that had gone on there for the three
previous months, but please, share your data, and give your theories,
hopefully, separating the proven hard facts from speculation.
I don't understand that either
I have been told, by someone that worked in the WTC towers for years, that there was construction going on for several months before 9/11 and no one knew what it was, much of it was after hours.
I use to be a building demolition junkie, I've seen hundreds of film clips on this, I seen more than a few in person.
Fire didn't take down the WTC towers, explosives as in a demolition did.
I have friends that are pilots, they referred me to several buildings that jet liners had hit and then I researched those thoroughly. I researched to see how many steel structure buildings had fallen from airplane hits and the resulting fires. ZERO. I looked to see how many steel structured buildings I could find that had fallen due to fires, maybe there was more 'interesting footage' like the three WTC towers. ZERO, no other steel structure building has ever fallen from a fire even one induced by crashing a jet liner into it.
Yet I have seen a great many buildings demolished and what I saw that morning, I was sure was a demolition job. After my research, I couldn't only imagine how far off I was thinking of how blood thirsty those who pulled this off were.
I and my X wife read everything we could on the WTC towers after our daughter started work there, about 1998, we both were independently aware that in the original articles of impeachment for Clinton one of the articles was that a private plane had made it into NYC airspace, 12.5 minutes or something like that, and that was the only instance of the 10 minute response time having been violated in 12 years, before that it was a 12 minute response time, until 9/11/01 when it was closer to 1 hour and 43 minutes.
Unfortunately, for my curiosity, to maintain her security clearance, my daughter can't talk about anything other than her emotions that day. If you have ever worked a federal government job, if you've ever been a civilian whose company did contracts for the Government, you'll understand her position and why I never pushed her for any other details.
We know Cheney ordered the Colonel at Norad to stand down. We know that with an inter office memo that Bush transferred the power that congress had given to the president and the President only, to his Vice President, Dick Cheney. We now know that Cheney was in charge of Norad that morning. Of course no one needed to get GW to safety, it was an inside job. That is data, those are things that can be found again and again in internet searches, facts that can be verified, many articles written about them plus Cheney direction Norad is in the 911 Commission report. They fucking aren't afraid of those that do research, they control all the information superhighway except the internet and who knows if we have days or years left there.
I happened to be one of the few people who saw the live interview of the Colonel, I heard it was under national security just like the half dozen videos of what ever hit the pentagon. Yup, so my word is now hearsay. But the 911 commission report telling about Cheney ordering the Norad controllers to stand down, not once, but three times, that data is there for those who dig.
I haven't researched the nitty gritty details that so many others have, I have researched what I saw and heard in 4 hours that morning watching 2 different TV's and all I can find is that it is a darker more sinister picture than I thought that morning.
Se that light at the end of the tunnel over there?
That is the door to the slaughter house.
Follow the sheepeople, follow stuff that you can't verify as truth yourself and that is where you are headed.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of scol202
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:26 PM
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting
Can you share your data to prove that the main beneficiary of 9/11 is
Israel?
Iraq and Iran are/were the two biggest threats to the state of
Israel's existence. The Jewish lobby and the Israeli government
screamed loudest for the war
I'm looking at Halliburton, root and Brown, I'm looking at The
Carlyle group, I am looking at the US Military Industrial Complex, I
am looking at the World Trade organization, I am looking at the World
health Organization.
Yes, American criminals benefited too. Americans also helped with
9/11 they deserved some payback, don't you think ?
Now, some citizens of Israel might be in one of these groups, but
when you say Mossad, you are telling me that Israel attacked the USA,
and 5 men with a vans that had trace amounts of explosives is
suspect but..
It's white hot suspect, absolutely correct, couldn't be much hotter.
Israeli spies selling paintings were found to have addresses close to
the hijackers, this was reported on Fox news.
A van full of C-4 placed in THREE WYTC towers, to bring them down as
controlled demolition.
I don't understand that.
I have heard from someone that survived the destruction of their work
place about construction work that had gone on there for the three
previous months, but please, share your data, and give your theories,
hopefully, separating the proven hard facts from speculation.
I don't understand that either
Oh yes, I saw the Colonel in charge of Norad for that are,
interviewed just after the first tower was hit, I heard him say that
his superior ordered him to ground, not fuel or arm any of his planes
unless given further orders.
Really, I didn't hear that.
Also, several years later the data came out that Cheney's secure
undisclosed place was the control room of Norad, as his control
amounted to continually telling the operators there to let the
aircraft through, to issue to warnings to the apparent targets and
especially to not let any of our armed aircraft into the air that
might interfere.
Yes I understood that.
I am dying to see your data showing that Cheney is Mossad, I want to
be present at the execution.
Cheney isn't even an israeli citizen, he's actually American. he is a
neocon and a member of the PNAC, both predominantly Jewish in
character.
Scott
Eric
--- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Peden" <scotpeden@...>
wrote:
>
> Can you share your data to prove that the main beneficiary of 9/11
is
> Israel?
>
> I'm looking at Halliburton, root and Brown, I'm looking at The
Carlyle
> group, I am looking at the US Military Industrial Complex, I am
looking at
> the World Trade organization, I am looking at the World health
Organization.
>
> Now, some citizens of Israel might be in one of these groups, but
when you
> say Mossad, you are telling me that Israel attacked the USA, and 5
men with
> a vans that had trace amounts of explosives is suspect but.. A van
full of
> C-4 placed in THREE WYTC towers, to bring them down as controlled
> demolition.
>
> I have heard from someone that survived the destruction of their
work place
> about construction work that had gone on there for the three
previous
> months, but please, share your data, and give your theories,
hopefully,
> separating the proven hard facts from speculation.
>
> Oh yes, I saw the Colonel in charge of Norad for that are,
interviewed just
> after the first tower was hit, I heard him say that his superior
ordered him
> to ground, not fuel or arm any of his planes unless given further
orders.
>
> Also, several years later the data came out that Cheney's secure
undisclosed
> place was the control room of Norad, as his control amounted to
continually
> telling the operators there to let the aircraft through, to issue to
> warnings to the apparent targets and especially to not let any of
our armed
> aircraft into the air that might interfere.
>
> I am dying to see your data showing that Cheney is Mossad, I want
to be
> present at the execution.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of scol202
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:39 PM
> To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Jew Baiting
>
> It does matter if five Mossad agents were caught red handed
> celebrating the collapse of the towers with traces of explosives in
> their van. They failed several lie detector tests and the boss of
the
> company fled to Israel. The fact that an Israeli company was warned
> before the attacks matters too.
>
> The main beneficiary of the Iraq war was Israel and the only
> beneficiary of the racist war on terror is Israel. It matters.
>
>
>
> --- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, "Leslie Schwartz"
> <lhs_emf@> wrote:
> >
> > For anyone who actually cares about the truth to this continuing
> misinformation being promoted here again by Eastman, (Eastman:
> > essentially "my sampling - few Jews killed at the WTC 9/11/01")
> check out the following.
> >
> > Here is a list of the names of those who died in the WTC. As a
Jew,
> I know what names are likely Jewish and which are not. I am not
> > going to go thru all of them one by one and tell you which are
> which. If you have been around a bit you will know on your own.
> >
> > Highlight the names to see the full name, very roughly at least
1/3
> (conservatively) are Jewish.
> >
> > http://www.9-11heroes.us/victims-world-trade-center.php
> >
> > Here is another discussion of this issue, with more links and an
> analysis of the misinformation Eastman continues to spew. The
> > estimate here is between 400 - 500 people of Jewish decent died in
> the WTC towers on 9/11/01. There are a series of articles
> > debunking these lies via this link.
> >
> > http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=331277
> >
> > Moreover this issue, the tragedy which 9/11 is and represents does
> not have a dam thing to do with who is Jewish and who is not or
> > how the events occurred or why they occurred again has nothing to
> do with Jews or Jewishness or Israel, or American Jews, or French
> > Jews, or German Jews, etc. As I told you before its about money
and
> power. AGAIN, if you really want to have the background history
> > to understand this event read John Loftus, read Webster Tarpley.
> Educate yourself, don't be lazy, don't indulge in your prejudices.
> > Learn that lesson and it will take you a long way in life. That is
> the most important lesson anyone can take from this discussion.
> >
> > Dick, if you really cared about the truth you would investigate
the
> truth about it and stop the lies. Are you admitting now below to
> > laziness' rather than hatred? If that is your excuse, then ask
> yourself if that is the standard you really want to live by and use
> > as a guide for your efforts in this or any or important study when
> you communicate with others about the important issues they
> > should be aware of. You could not prove your assertion on this
> issue but yet you repeated it again. What conclusion are we to draw
> > from that I wonder?
> >
> > Your statements have been shameful, stupid and most of all wrong.
> You ought to know that Jewish people like myself love this country
> > as much as you do and we fight and die for it and have done so
> throughout its history, and we devote ourselves to this country as
> > much as you obviously think you do.
> >
> > But there is one big difference between all of us (who are
rational
> and concerned) and you, as one of a group of haters who have
> > been writing in this caliber of trash to this message board. We
> don't call people names based on race or religion, we don't make up
> > stupid theories about history based on simpleton ideas and
> misinformation. We have learned the hard way not to keep hate in
our
> > hearts and we have learned just how thoughtless and dangerous it
is
> to go about life that way. We have seen the results and we don't
> > want to see them again, no matter who the victim might be next
> time. We take the time to learn and to understand and to be as
> > accurate and honest with ourselves and others as we can be and if
> we do not know the truth we research it honestly and keep our
> > mouths shut until we do know the truth, rather than go about
> repeatedly making baseless statements which prove our ignorance to
> > others.
> >
> > Dick, take the time when you write and think about these topic to
> make distinctions that are truly meaningful and accurate and
> > constructive. When you do that we will all be grateful for your
> efforts.
> >
> > Leslie
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Dick Eastman
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:48 PM
> > To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [911TruthAction] Fw: Jew Baiting
> >
> >
> > From: Leslie Schwartz
> > To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:55 PM
> > Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Jew Baiting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Its not about Israel not even a little bit about Israel for
those
> with the power to make things happen, Mossad just knew it was
> > going to happen and was on hand to see it go down. They have
wanted
> the US to get involved in policing the middle east for a long
> > time, but that is not why the event happened.
> >
> >
> >
> > Leslie Schwartz, yes I am Jewish and if don't like it you know
> what you can do about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lets see Eastman prove just one if his hate based contentions,
as
> you said below, prove to us Eastman that no one of Jewish
> > ethnicity or decent was killed in the 9/11/01 attack. If you can
> prove that point Eastman then shut up and talk about what you can
> > prove.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Leslie,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not in a position to prove that no one of Jewish ethnicity
> or decent was killed in 9/11/01 attack. The sampling of names I
> > have seen (e.g. the long series on WTC deaths biographies that
thre
> New York Times ran) showed very few Jewish names in my
> > ampling -- not the high ratio of Jewish names I would expect for
> New York City and the hub of finance and world trade. I do take
> > the word of several sources on the internet that only two Israelis
> died. But no proof that there were no Jews killed at WTC -- only
> > indications that there were too few than one would expect.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some of the greatest people in the world have been Jewish -- I
> have known great acts of mercy and generosity by Jews -- paying
> > for an operation for my brother, simply because he wanted to. My
> favorite college professor -- my model of a good man -- is Jewish
> > (Dr. Richard Glassman at LFC)
> >
> >
> >
> > I often say "Jews" when the just discrimination would narrow
that
> to Mossad, or Zionists, or Neo-cons, or Likudniks -- or even
> > more justly I should have narrowed it to this or that
individual --
> >
> >
> >
> > so I am in the wrong -- but I am also mindful that I force Jews
> to ask themselves -- "is he right about me?" "am I allowing
> > myself to be a part of or to go along with what Eastman is
pointing
> out (Neo-con Zionist guilt for 9-11)
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is a letter that will interest you:
> >
> >
> >
> > =================
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello, Al.
> >
> > Do you think 9-11 was an inside job?
> >
> > If so, do you think Zionist's in the White House, Pentagon,
Israel
> > had anything to do with it?
> >
> > Do you think their Zionism was a large part of their motivation?
> >
> > I answer "yes" to all three questions and I have what I think
> > is ample proof of each point.
> >
> > I never claimed to be sane or to know what sanity is -- but I
> > understand evidence and can reach the logical implications
> > that follow from sufficiently complete evidence.
> >
> > Any time you want to discuss the message and what it is
> > based on, rather than the messenger -- I will be happy to
> > walk you through what I have found.
> >
> > Here is a sample:
> >
> > http://bedoper.com/eastman
> >
> > I trust you are still the great investigator you were when we
> corresponded so long ago.
> >
> > Maybe in better -- saner -- times we will compare notes again.
I
> could only gain.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Dick Eastman
> > Yakima, Washinton
> >
> > P.S. as for the impotence of internet posting -- I am taken in
> by chaos theory
> > and that one-quintillion-to-one shot that I just may be the
> little butterfly who
> > could. flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap ... --DE
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <aelewis@>
> > To: <foo@>; <anti-capitalism@yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: <Conspiracy-Theory@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:48 PM
> > Subject: [A-C] Re: Joni Ferris nails self-important Jew hater
> Dick Eastman
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Yes, Joni, it does seem that Dick has become a rabid Jew-hater
> > over the past several years. It was not always so. I have
observed
> > his posts over many months on anti-capitalism, as well as long
ago
> > (5 years ago) on other lists. It seems that the stress of his
life
> > (which has been considerable), combined with a latent inner
> > scapegoat-ism and perhaps xenophobia (characteristic of
> > right-wingers), has precipitated a psychic degeneration into
> > Paranoid Personality Disorder (see below) with a special
> > Jew-hating spin.
> >
> > (Note that I say "Jew-hating" rather than "anti-semitic". The
> > bigtime anti-semitism in the world today is amongst the
Zionists,
> > the "Christian" Zionists, and other muslim-haters. Jew-hating
is a
> > special, narrow type of anti-semitism which ought to be
> > distinguished from its parent.)
> >
> > It seems that Dick, like G L Rockwell (founder of the American
> > Nazi Party), has yielded to "the ageless impulse of men and
women
> > eaten by the disease of hatred to find a political expression or
> > rationalization for their malady":
> >
> > . http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/07/19/simonelli/ ---
> > . "[Rockwell] drank too much, battled depression, was left by
> > . several wives, became estranged from his family and spun
> further
> > . and further out of control; you'll wince at the passages in
> which
> > . his goodhearted brother and William F. Buckley, whom Rockwell
> > . hounded, try to get him help. In the succinct summation from
a
> > . 1967 volume that that Simonelli cites, Rockwell gave in
to 'the
> > . ageless impulse of men and women eaten by the disease of
> hatred to
> > . find a political expression or rationalization for their
> malady.'"
> >
> > I've watched this degeneration in several other people. Some of
> > them were quite acute thinkers and great writers, until their
> > deterioration set in. In some cases it is hard to account for
it.
> > Though in Dick's case it is not so hard; he has been quite open
> > about the extreme stresses of his personal life. That, combined
as
> > I say with a latent tendency, has added up to his current
> > relentless stream of semi-demented anti-Jewish ravings and
> > screechings. The anti-capitalism yahoo list has become a
cesspool,
> > unfortunately -- and largely on his account. What we have here
is
> > the anti-capitalism of Goebbels and Himmler, sputtering barely
> > coherently about Jewish bankers' conspiracies. (And yes, Jewish
> > bankers ARE an important aspect of this mess; just that their
> > badness does not inhere in their Jewishness.)
> >
> > There was something in me, years ago (circa 2001), that flashed
a
> > warning sign, and I removed Dick from my email list and
generally
> > cut off communication. Somehow I sensed what was to come. And it
> > came! Oh, brother, did it come.
> >
> > The paranoia was evident in years past. For example, if a
message
> > of his was held up for a few hours, or just did not get through,
> > he would immediately conclude that it was because "they" were
out
> > to get him, and were denying him access to the chat boards or
> > whatever. Of course, it IS possible that "they" (the
> > establishment) might shut down people who are saying things that
> > they do not like. Indeed it has actually happened, and I expect
> > that it will happen increasingly. But for someone with insight,
it
> > is very unlikely that "they" would so selectively target a
single
> > individual -- an individual with NO power, purchase or
credibility
> > in the circles where it counts. In other words, you'd have to
be a
> > tad nuts, or at least seriously lacking in insight, to think
that
> > "they" would go out of their way to shut you down when you are
> > (pardon me) a pipsqueak ranter from Lower Bumfuck, Nebraska,
> > posting on a list with 323 pipsqueak members like you and me.
Yes,
> > "they" exist -- and they don't give a good God Damn about
> > Yahoo-group yahoos like us. Sorry.
> >
> > In charity, I will grant that the capitalist system generally
does
> > tend to make people crazy. The stress, combined with the toxic
> > diet and outright environmental toxins, combined with the sense
of
> > powerlessness (based on the REALITY of powerlessness), combined
> > with some personal bad breaks, can drive people nuts. Not hard
to
> > understand.
> >
> > And, perhaps Dick's personal degeneration was in some measure
> > fueled by the actual (inexcusable) behavior of radical Zionists,
> > Likudniks and the like, who persistently refuse to take
> > responsibility, and who deny their (very real and not just
> > incidental) role in the current mess. Witness the brouhaha just
> > the last week or two over the Mearsheimer/Walt piece. The Israel
> > lobby not only does not want to take any responsibility, it
wants
> > to deny its own existence! THAT can drive people nuts, too.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > PS: Note that Paranoid Personality Disorder (below) is NOT
> > paranoid psychosis, with loss of contact with reality.
Personality
> > disorders are characterized by a somewhat tenuous grasp of
reality
> > (shall we say: "creative" personal representations of it!) --
not
> > with a loss of contact with it. It is more of a personal
> > mind-style than a "disease"; see Hofstader's fine article:
> > The Paranoid Style in American Politics
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-capitalism/message/18977
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >
> > http://mentalhelp.net/disorders/sx37.htm
> >
> > Paranoid Personality Disorder
> >
> > A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that
their
> > motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early
> > adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by
> > four (or more) of the following:
> >
> > 1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are
exploiting,
> > harming, or deceiving him or her
> >
> > 2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or
> > trustworthiness of friends or associates
> >
> > 3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear
> > that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
> >
> > 4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign
> > remarks or events
> >
> > 5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults,
> > injuries, or slights
> >
> > 6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that
> > are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to
> > counterattack
> >
> > 7. has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding
> > fidelity of spouse or sexual partner
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > Criteria summarized from: American Psychiatric Association.
> > (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
> > fourth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association.
> >
> > -------------------------
> >
> > "From the standpoint of any sane person, the present problem of
> > capitalist concentration is not only a question of law, but of
> > criminal law, not to mention criminal lunacy." -- G K Chesterton
> >
> > "You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily
> > denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and
> > well when you are visited by the police." -- J B R Yant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > 911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of Service.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group " 911TruthAction
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> 911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
> _____
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
SPONSORED LINKS United state army United state citizenship Trademark united state
United state coin United state military United state patent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:49:00 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Re: Confused
I think that very unlikely. Try the laughing Israelis or some other
black-op group (US or Israeli) disguised in coveralls and holding
a work order.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kenny318east3" <kenny318east3@yahoo.com>
To: <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: [911TruthAction] Confused
>
> "Moussauwi" is on currently on trial for his alleged involvement in the
9-11 plot.
>
> Do you think that "Moussauwi" was involved in pre-positioning explosive
charges ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:15:14 -0400
From: ranger116@webtv.net
Subject: Charlie Sheen on Ellen DeGeneres show Friday afternoon 4/14/06 9/11
Charlie Sheen on Ellen DeGeneres show Friday afternoon 4/14/06 9/11
This Week on The Ellen DeGeneres Show
Address:http://ellen.warnerbros.com/thisweek/
Bush Lied - People Died
Bush Spied - Must Be Tried !
No person with Dual Citizenship - Should hold any City, County, State or
Federal Elected or appointed Government office or Tax Payer Paid Civil
Service Job !
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
A U.S. Congressman a couple years ago said, The Founding Fathers did
not put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to guarantee Americans the
Right to hunt for food, But the Right to hunt Elected Officials who try
to take our rights away.
The Bush Administration
They Hate Our FREEDOM !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looking for a Caribbean vacation getaway !
See The "View" Here !
Address:http://www.calabashviews.com/
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"All Laws Which Are Repugnant to The Constitution Are Null And Void "
Marbury Vs. Madison 5 US 137,174,176
http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/marburyVmadison_text.html
`````````````````````````````````````
Give us Liberty or Give us Death --------- - Bring it On ! Let's Roll !
`````````````````````````````````````
"We Don't Give Up Our Rights ! --
That's What Makes Us AMERICANS !"
`````````````````````````````````````
Hear The TRUTH for a Change !
90+ Air America Radio Stations Listed Here
:http://www.airamericaradio.com/
&
Ed Schults at www.WeGotEd.com
Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com
&
From the Hosts & Call in Listeners all over the USA,
Listen to - The Power Hour with Joyce Riley & Dave VonKleist Times &
Freqs --> :http://www.thepowerhour.com/
&
Alex Jones on Short Wave at :http://www.infowars.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Politically correct speech is just government censorship.
Prejudicial speech is just free speech about what a lifetime of
experiences has taught you. "tlb 2001"
More on Politically Correct Speech
:http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0708.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From The US Declaration of Independence
:http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, Laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Government that Governs Least Governs Best !!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Keyboard Is Mightier
[::::::::::]
Than The Sword
©1999 tlb
c=={::::::::::::::::>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas Lee Buyea
Florida News Service
Miami, Fla. USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\\
(o> My Cockatiel Angel
\\_//) I think She is an Alien
\_/_)
_I_ :http://www.aracnet.com/~mgb/pic/potd538.jpg
<html><body bgcolor="white"text="black">and</body>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:28:41 -0000
From: "angiesept11" <angiesept11@yahoo.com>
Subject: Debate Revives as 9/11 Dust Is Called Fatal
From today's paper:
New York Times
April 14, 2006
Debate Revives as 9/11 Dust Is Called Fatal
By ANTHONY DePALMA
In the cold, clinical language of the autopsy report of a retired New
York City detective that was released this week, there were words that
thousands of New Yorkers have come to anticipate and to fear.
"It is felt with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the
cause of death in this case was directly related to the 9/11
incident," stated the report from the medical examiner's office in
Ocean County, N.J.
That "reasonable degree of medical certainty" — coroner language for
"as sure as I can be" — provides the first official link made by a
medical expert between the hazardous air at ground zero after the
trade center collapse and the death of someone who worked in the
rescue effort.
The report has reopened old wounds, giving lawsuits brought by first
responders and downtown residents new evidence to back up allegations
that the toxic mixture of dust and fumes at ground zero was deadly.
The report has also reignited a fierce debate over whether to classify
deaths like that of Detective James Zadroga, 34 — who died on Jan. 5
of respiratory failure at his parents' New Jersey home — as being "in
the line of duty," making survivors eligible for more benefits.
Dr. Robin Herbert, who has screened thousands of first responders
through the World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening
Program, called Detective Zadroga's autopsy report a "sentinel event"
and a warning sign.
"It should be taken very seriously and investigated with great vigor,"
Dr. Herbert said.
But while acknowledging that those exposed to the dust may develop
fatal diseases, many medical experts who have tracked the health
effects of the trade center collapse have been reluctant to cross the
line in between probability and certainty.
The autopsy report went further than any other medical document to
link a death to the dust, but it by no means provides conclusive proof
of the dust's general toxicity and its impact on other workers at the
site. That, experts generally agree, may take 20 years to play out,
depending on the latency period for many cancers and other diseases
that could be linked to exposure to the toxic materials.
Proving the cause of a disease, even when the cause may seem obvious,
is difficult. Dr. Michael M. Baden, former chief medical examiner of
New York and a forensics expert, said the phrase "reasonable degree of
certainty" is the standard term used in court to mean that given the
available information, "it's very likely that that opinion is correct."
That said, Dr. Baden noted that given the impact of such a finding, he
would have expected the medical examiner's office to consult with
doctors who had tested or treated other first responders before coming
to such a conclusion. Other experts said that tests should have been
done on the particles found in Detective Zadroga's lungs to compare
them with the dust from the trade center.
Neither step was taken. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Gerard
Breton, a 73-year-old retired pathologist who has been on contract to
the medical examiner's office in Ocean County for a decade.
Dr. Breton said in a telephone interview yesterday that he did not
attempt to classify the "innumerable foreign body granulomas"
containing "unidentified foreign materials" in Detective Zadroga's
lungs. He also did not consult any doctors besides the detective's
physician, who he said had informed him of Detective Zadroga's work at
ground zero.
Nonetheless, Dr. Breton said what he found was unmistakable.
"I cannot personally understand that anyone could see what I saw in
the lungs, and know that the person was exposed to ground zero, and
not make the same link I made," said Dr. Breton.
Detective Zadroga, who joined the New York Police Department in 1992,
did not smoke and had no known history of asthma. His family has long
believed that the 450 grueling hours that the highly decorated officer
spent working on recovery efforts at ground zero in 2001 had filled
his lungs with fiberglass, pulverized concrete and a toxic brew of
chemicals that fatally scarred his lungs, leading to his death at the
age of 34.
For them, the autopsy report was an awful confirmation.
Joseph Zadroga, Detective Zadroga's father, said his son and other
officers who had worked at the trade center site knew the air they
were breathing would probably cause health problems down the road.
"You had to be a fool not to realize that," he said on Tuesday at a
news conference in Manhattan.
Detective Zadroga's colleagues have argued that hundreds of officers
who were also exposed to the dust will probably suffer from a variety
of serious illnesses, including a number of blood cancers, because of
their work at ground zero.
Michael J. Palladino, president of the Detectives' Endowment
Association, said that he wanted state pension law amended so that
Detective Zadroga's death and others like it are reclassified as
occurring in the line of duty, qualifying survivors to receive larger
benefits. A bill to make such a change has been proposed in Albany.
In Brooklyn yesterday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg noted that a law was
passed last year allowing city workers who got sick after responding
to the trade center site to qualify for full disability pensions, even
after they retire. He called Detective Zadroga's death tragic, but
said the autopsy report may not be definitive.
"We'll see what other doctors say," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Generally,
there are lots of other contributing factors."
More than 7,300 people who worked at the trade center recovery site —
police officers, firefighters and constructions workers — have joined
in a class-action suit seeking damages from their employers.
David E. Worby, the lawyer handling that suit, said about 40 of the
plaintiffs have already died. "At a minimum, their diseases were
aggravated, and accelerated by the toxic exposure," he said.
Toxic substances known to cause cancer, like benzene and asbestos,
take decades to develop the disease. Mr. Worby said the doctors and
scientists he had consulted believe that the complex mixture of
chemicals that resulted from the collapse of the two towers — along
with everything in them — may have created a compound that acts as an
accelerant, vastly increasing the speed by which known carcinogens
trigger cancer.
"It's a horror show," he said.
In a separate class-action lawsuit against federal environmental
officials, residents and schoolchildren from Lower Manhattan claim
they were given false assurance that the air around ground zero was
safe enough for them to move back in a few days after the attack.
In February, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that statements about
safety made by officials after 9/11 were misleading and "without
question conscience-shocking."
Kareem Fahim and Diane Cardwell contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/nyregion/14dust.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:42:21 -0700
From: APFN <apfn@apfn.org>
Subject: Dark Times - The evidence is in, the analyses have been made
[This message is not in displayable format]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:42:50 -0000
From: "angiesept11" <angiesept11@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Charlie Sheen on Ellen DeGeneres show Friday afternoon 4/14/06 9/11
I just saw it. There was nothing about 9/11. Sheen was promoting two
things, his appearance in a just released movie called 'Scary Movie'
and his new line of clothing for children called 'Sheen Kidz'.
--- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, ranger116@... wrote:
>
> Charlie Sheen on Ellen DeGeneres show Friday afternoon 4/14/06 9/11
>
> This Week on The Ellen DeGeneres Show
> Address:http://ellen.warnerbros.com/thisweek/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bush Lied - People Died
> Bush Spied - Must Be Tried !
>
> No person with Dual Citizenship - Should hold any City, County, State or
> Federal Elected or appointed Government office or Tax Payer Paid Civil
> Service Job !
>
>
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> A U.S. Congressman a couple years ago said, The Founding Fathers did
> not put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to guarantee Americans the
> Right to hunt for food, But the Right to hunt Elected Officials who try
> to take our rights away.
>
> The Bush Administration
> They Hate Our FREEDOM !
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Looking for a Caribbean vacation getaway !
> See The "View" Here !
> Address:http://www.calabashviews.com/
> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> "All Laws Which Are Repugnant to The Constitution Are Null And Void "
>
> Marbury Vs. Madison 5 US 137,174,176
> http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/marburyVmadison_text.html
>
> `````````````````````````````````````
> Give us Liberty or Give us Death --------- - Bring it On ! Let's Roll !
> `````````````````````````````````````
> "We Don't Give Up Our Rights ! --
> That's What Makes Us AMERICANS !"
> `````````````````````````````````````
>
> Hear The TRUTH for a Change !
>
> 90+ Air America Radio Stations Listed Here
> :http://www.airamericaradio.com/
> &
> Ed Schults at www.WeGotEd.com
> Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com
> &
> From the Hosts & Call in Listeners all over the USA,
> Listen to - The Power Hour with Joyce Riley & Dave VonKleist Times &
> Freqs --> :http://www.thepowerhour.com/
> &
> Alex Jones on Short Wave at :http://www.infowars.com/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Politically correct speech is just government censorship.
>
> Prejudicial speech is just free speech about what a lifetime of
> experiences has taught you. "tlb 2001"
>
> More on Politically Correct Speech
> :http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0708.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> From The US Declaration of Independence
> :http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
> -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
> ends, It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
> institute new Government, Laying its foundation on such principles and
> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
> effect their Safety and Happiness."
> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
> pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
> under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
> off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
> security."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Government that Governs Least Governs Best !!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Keyboard Is Mightier
> [::::::::::]
> Than The Sword
> ©1999 tlb
> c=={::::::::::::::::>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Thomas Lee Buyea
> Florida News Service
> Miami, Fla. USA
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> \\
> (o> My Cockatiel Angel
> \\_//) I think She is an Alien
> \_/_)
> _I_ :http://www.aracnet.com/~mgb/pic/potd538.jpg
>
> <html><body bgcolor="white"text="black">and</body>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:50:35 +0100
From: "yahoo" <yahooboxx@ntlworld.com>
Subject: US business ban on Hamas-led PA
US business ban on Hamas-led PA
Ismail Haniya's administration was sworn in last month
The United States has banned its nationals from doing business with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, a Treasury spokesperson says.
The Treasury ruled this week that the militant Islamist group has a vested interest in the transactions of the Palestinian Authority.
That decision made the PA automatically subject to existing US bans on doing business with "terrorist entities".
The US and EU cut off aid to the PA after Hamas took power on 30 March.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said on Friday the cut in aid would not weaken the Palestinian people's resolve.
"We will eat salt, but we will not bow our heads for anybody other than God, because we are faithful to the rights of our people and our nation. We will not betray it," he said.
Mr Haniya was addressing worshippers in Gaza before the start of a series of rallies aimed at demonstrating support for the Hamas-led administration.
Thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza rallied in support of their new government.
Exceptions
The US and EU consider Hamas a terrorist group.
"Hamas is a designated terrorist group" under three different sets of regulations, Molly Millerwise of the US Treasury Department said.
"As a result, US persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with the PA unless authorised by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control."
The US is making exceptions for government entities under the direct control of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate whose Fatah movement is a rival of Hamas.
The ban also does not forbid Americans from doing business with non-governmental organisations or private sector banks, among other exceptions.
Bombing threat
Also on Friday, another Hamas leader warned that if the party's government was broken by its enemies, Hamas would go back on the offensive.
Younes al-Aftal, a Hamas MP, said there would be Hamas suicide bombings again in the heart of Israel.
This is the first time a prominent Hamas leader has talked in these terms since the Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet was sworn in two weeks ago.
Hamas has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings in Israel since the start of the second intifada in 2000.
It is currently maintaining a ceasefire, but remains committed to the destruction of Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4910860.stm
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:20:14 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Amazing -- force fields around tanks? -=- Alan Dershowitz derides "paranoid claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy" -=- My Name is Rachel Corrie
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
April 14, 2006
(1) US to deploy Israeli 'force field' around tanks
(2) Editorials and opinion pieces calling for war on Iran - Jim Lobe
(3) Israel Lobby trying to control Academia
(4) Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie - The Lobby and the Bulldozer, By Norman
Solomon
(5) Alan Dershowitz derides "paranoid claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy"
(6) My Name Is Rachel Corrie - the play that's Too Hot for New York
(1) US to deploy Israeli 'force field' around tanks
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:16:52 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>
US to deploy RPG-busting 'force field' Classified Israeli tech bound for Iraq
By Lester Haines, The Register (UK), 12th April 2006
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/12/trophy_system
The US is to field test an innovative Israeli set-up designed to act as a "force
field" around armoured vehicles, protecting them from rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs) and anti-tank missiles, according to a Fox News report. The system,
dubbed "Trophy", uses radar to track incoming threats and then destroys them
when they're in range by attacking the warheads with an "invisible force",
according to Fox. Quite how it does this is, unsurprisingly, classified, but
Defense Update understands Trophy is "designed to form a 'beam' of fragments,
which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range
of 10 metres to 30 meters from the protected platform". The countermeasure is,
then, actually physical - a fact confirmed by Defense Update, which explains the
system has "an automatic reload mechanism to handle multiple attacks", although
that's about as specific as it gets. The sceptical among you should note that
Trophy has allegedly completed "hundreds of live tests with the Israel Defense
Forces and demonstrated effective neutralisation of anti-tank rockets and guided
missiles, high safety levels, insignificant residual penetration, and minimal
collateral damage". Trophy is claimed to be effective against several
simultaneous threats from different directions, whether the protected vehicle is
stationary or moving, and in all weathers. According to Fox, Trophy will soon
get a chance to strut its stuff in Iraq.
(2) Editorials and opinion pieces calling for war on Iran - Jim Lobe
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:51:52 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>
To Battle Stations! To Battle Stations! by Jim Lobe, IPS, April 13, 2006
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32889
and http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8852
Led by a familiar clutch of neoconservative hawks, major right-wing publications
are calling on the administration of President George W. Bush to urgently plan
for military strikes ? and possibly a wider war ? against Iran in the wake of
its announcement this week that it has successfully enriched uranium to a purity
necessary to fuel nuclear reactors.
In a veritable blitz of editorials and opinion pieces published Wednesday and
Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and National Review
warned that Tehran had passed a significant benchmark in what they declared was
its quest for nuclear weapons and that the administration must now plan in
earnest to destroy Iran's known nuclear facilities, as well as possible military
targets, to prevent it from retaliating.
Comparing Iran's alleged push to gain a nuclear weapon to Adolf Hitler's 1936
march on the Rhineland, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called for
undertaking "serious preparation for possible military action ? including real
and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of
such strikes":
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/095mzmiq.asp
"[A] great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities," according to
Kristol, a leading neoconservative champion of the Iraq war and co-founder of
the Project for the New American Century, "even if executing other
responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped."
National Review, another prominent right-wing weekly, echoed the call. "Any air
campaign should . be coupled with aggressive and persistent efforts to topple
the regime from within," advised its lead editorial, entitled "Iran, Now," and
almost certainly written by Michael Ledeen of the neoconservative American
Enterprise Institute (AEI):
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200604130746.asp
"Accordingly, it should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the
symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the
Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison."
The hawks' latest campaign appeared timed not only to exploit the alarm created
by Iran's nuclear achievement and by a spate of reports last weekend regarding
the advanced state of U.S. war plans, but also to counter new appeals by a
number of prominent and more mainstream former policymakers for Washington to
engage Iran in direct negotiations.
The Financial Times Wednesday published a column by Richard Haass, president of
the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations and a top adviser to Secretary
of State Colin Powell during Bush's first term, in which he called for
Washington to make "a fair and generous diplomatic offer" to Iran that would
permit it to retain a small uranium enrichment program, if for no other reason
than to rally international opinion behind the U.S. in the event rejects it:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10428/too_soon_to_talk_of_attacks_against_iran.html
Arguing that the "likely costs of carrying out such an attack substantially
outweigh probable benefits," Haass noted that "the most dangerous delusion
[among those who support military action] is that a conflict would be either
small or quick."
On Thursday, he was joined by Powell's deputy secretary of state, Richard
Armitage, who, in an interview with the Financial Times, also called for direct
talks: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3afec478-ca4c-11da-852f-0000779e2340.html
"It merits talking to the Iranians about the full range of our relationship .
everything from energy to terrorism to weapons to Iraq," said Armitage, who is
considered a strong candidate to take over the Pentagon if Donald Rumsfeld
resigns or is forced out.
"We can be diplomatically astute enough to do it without giving anything away,"
he added, noting that Washington could be patient "for a while" given the
estimated five to 10 years the U.S. intelligence community believes it will take
before Tehran can obtain a nuclear weapon.
Such statements are anathema to the hawks, who have long depicted any move to
engage Iran as equivalent to the appeasement policies toward Hitler of France
and Britain in the run-up to World War II.
"Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France
of 1936?" asked the title of Kristol's editorial, which, despite the reports of
advanced Pentagon planning that included even the possibility of using tactical
nuclear weapons against hardened Iranian targets, asserted that the
administration's policy had been "all carrots and no sticks."
His view echoed that of the neoconservative editorial writers at the Wall Street
Journal, who said the administration's "alleged war fever is hard to credit,
given that for three years the Bush Administration has deferred to Europe in
pursuing a diplomatic track on Iran." The Journal said the government must give
priority to developing "bunker buster" nuclear bombs:
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB114480231036823566.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
While Kristol insisted that the "credible threat of force" should initially be
used in support of diplomacy with Washington's European allies, he also called
for "stepping up intelligence activities, covert operations, special operations,
and the like," as well as "operational planning for possible military strikes."
What he had in mind was laid out in a companion article by ret. Air Force Lt.
Gen. Thomas McInerney, a member of the ultra-hawkish Iran Policy Committee
(IPC), entitled "Target: Iran":
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/101dorxa.asp
If Iran resists diplomatic pressure, according to McInerney, Washington should
be prepared to carry out a "powerful air campaign" led by 60 stealth aircraft,
and more than 400 non-stealth strike aircraft with roughly 150 refueling tankers
and other support aircraft, 100 unmanned aerial vehicles, and 500 cruise
missiles to take out some 1,500 nuclear-related and military targets.
Before or during such an attack, he wrote, "a major covert operation could be
launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the
period of diplomacy." The IPC has long advocated support for the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iraq-based paramilitary group listed as a terrorist
organization by the State Department.
In yet another op-ed published in Thursday's Washington Post, Mark Helprin, a
novelist and Israeli military veteran, called for anticipating the possibility
that U.S. forces in Iraq and its broader interests in the region could be
imperiled by Iranian retaliation and popular outrage in the Arab Middle East:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201659_pf.html
To prepare for such an eventuality, "we would do well to strengthen ? in numbers
and mass as well as quality ? the means with which we fight, to reinforce the
fleet train with which to supply fighting lines, and to plan for a land route
from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates."
Such concerns, counseled Reuel Marc Gerecht, a Gulf specialist at AEI, are
overblown. In a lengthy analysis of the possible costs of a military attack that
was also published in the Standard, he argued that Washington should "not be
intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world
opinion."
"What we are dealing with is a politer, more refined, more cautious, vastly more
mendacious version of bin Ladenism," according to the article, entitled "To
Bomb, or Not to Bomb: That Is the Iran Question." "It is best that such men not
have nukes, and that we do everything in our power, including preventive
military strikes, to stop this from happening":
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/100mmysk.asp
(3) Israel Lobby trying to control Academia
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:22:26 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Perhaps as significant as the recommendations were the commission's findings,
which discerned anti-Semitism in "anti-Zionist and anti-Israel propaganda."
http://jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=16524&intcategoryid=3
FOCUS ON ISSUES Two steps forward for efforts to correct bias in Mideast studies
By Ron Kampeas April 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 11 (JTA) - The effort by an alliance of Jewish groups to hold
government-funded Middle East studies departments accountable took two strides
forward in recent weeks, one legislative and one moral. Congress came a step
closer to a mechanism that would monitor how Middle East Studies departments
spend federal money, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an advisory body,
found that anti-Israeli activism could engender a hostile atmosphere for Jews on
campus.
The debate over Title VI Campus oversight under scrutiny
On March 30, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a higher education reform
bill that for the first time would establish an independent advisory board to
make recommendations "that will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of
views on world regions, foreign language, international affairs, and
international business."
At issue is "Title VI," the section of the Education Act passed in the 1950s
that established federal funding for universities. The intent was to nurture
international studies and create a cadre of Americans who would guide the United
States through the thicket of foreign relations.
Longstanding complaints from the Jewish community that many college faculties
nurture hostility to Israel instead of scholarship were reinforced after the
Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A number of academics argued that anti-Israel
monomania in Middle East departments helped blind the U.S. policy establishment
to the emerging Islamist threat.
Those arguments have resonated in a Washington obsessed with pre-Sept. 11
intelligence failures."The events and aftermath of September 11, 2001, have
underscored the need for the nation to strengthen and enhance American knowledge
of international relations, world regions, and foreign languages," says the
House bill passed last month.
The bill also grants the education secretary some discretion in examining
whether Middle East Studies departments are producing well-rounded graduates for
the U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and defense corps, as envisioned by the Title
VI framers. A JTA investigative series last year found that several of the
Middle East Studies centers with anti-Israel and anti-Western agendas have
extended their biases even beyond the college campus, delving into public
education and developing curricula for middle- and high-school students.
The House bill requires the secretary to take into account when allocating funds
"the degree to which activities of centers, programs, and fellowships at
institutions of higher education address national interests, generate and
disseminate information, and foster debate on international issues from diverse
perspectives." A Senate bill passed last year grants the secretary the same
discretion, but the Senate balked at the seven-person advisory body that was
included in the House bill. Some senators feared the board invoked unsavory
memories of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, the controversial
government committee that investigated suspected Communists during the McCarthy
era.
However, both the House and Senate bills guarantee that "nothing in this title
shall be construed to authorize the International Advisory Board to mandate,
direct, or control an institution of higher education's specific instructional
content, curriculum, or program of instruction or instructor." That language has
gone some way to assuaging fears in Congress and universities that the advisory
board would be coercive. The House bill was brought to the Senate floor last
week; it remains to be seen whether the advisory board will survive efforts to
resolve the two competing bills. The American Jewish Congress, which led
lobbying for the advisory board, blitzed Congress members in the days before its
passage.
Another battlefront for Jewish groups seeking reforms on campus has been the
Civil Rights Commission. The commission is stacked with members sympathetic to
the views of the administration in power. It has no enforcement power, but its
recommendations are taken seriously by the Education Department's Office of
Civil Rights.Meeting last Monday, the commission voted to:
* Recommend that the Civil Rights Office use Civil Rights Act enforcements,
which include funding cuts at universities where Jewish students face a hostile
environment;
* Call on university leaders to denounce anti-Semitism;
* Call on universities to "maintain academic standards" and "respect
intellectual diversity" in language reminiscent of the House and Senate bills; *
Recommend that the Civil Rights Office inform Jewish students of their rights;
and
* Call on Congress to collect data on anti-Semitic and other hate crimes on
campuses.
The commission endorsed the recommendations by a 5-1 vote, with one commissioner
absent. The commissioner who voted against, Gerald Reynolds, who is the
chairman, was unable to shake his concern that a blanket recommendation against
anti-Semitism could inhibit Christian proselytizing, a practice he did not
endorse but which he believed had constitutional protection.
Perhaps as significant as the recommendations were the commission's findings,
which discerned anti-Semitism in "anti-Zionist and anti-Israel propaganda." That
recognition was crucial for the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish and
Community Research, one of the groups that had petitioned the civil rights
commission.
"Going to college should involve learning, not getting threatened or being
called a Nazi," the institute's founder, Gary Tobin, said in a statement,
referring to propaganda comparing Israel to Hitler's Germany. Susan Tuchman,
director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Law and Justice,
which also petitioned the commission, welcomed the call for university
administrators to unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism.
"Many universities have remained silent. That connotes acceptance," she
said.Other petitioners included the AJCongress, the Anti-Defamation League,
Hillel and the American Jewish Committee.
© JTA. Reproduction of material without written permission is strictly
prohibited.
(4) Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie - The Lobby and the Bulldozer, By Norman
Solomon
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:20:39 +0200 From: "Kristoffer Larsson"
<kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu>
http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=36729
April 13, 2006
Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie
The Lobby and the Bulldozer
By NORMAN SOLOMON
Weeks after a British magazine published a long article by two American
professors titled "The Israel Lobby," the outrage continued to howl through
mainstream U.S. media.
A Los Angeles Times op-ed article by Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow
Max Boot helped to set a common tone. He condemned a working paper by professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted last month in the London
Review of Books.
The working paper, Boot proclaimed, is "nutty." And he strongly implied that the
two professors -- Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago and Walt at Harvard
-- are anti-Semitic.
Many who went on the media attack did more than imply. On April 3, for instance,
the same day that the Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted Boot's piece from the L.A.
Times, a notably similar op-ed appeared in the Boston Herald under the headline
"Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard."
And so it goes in the national media echo chamber. When a Johns Hopkins
University professor weighed in last week on the op-ed page of the Washington
Post, the headline was blunt: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic." The piece flatly called
the Mearsheimer-Walt essay "kooky academic work" -- and "anti-Semitic."
But nothing in the essay is anti-Semitic.
Some of the analysis from Mearsheimer and Walt is arguable. A number of major
factors affect Uncle Sam's Middle East policies in addition to pro-Israel
pressures. But no one can credibly deny that the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, where
politicians know that they can criticize Israel only at their political peril.
Overall, the Mearsheimer-Walt essay makes many solid points about destructive
aspects of U.S. support for the Israeli government. Their assessments deserve
serious consideration.
For several decades, to the present moment, Israel's treatment of Palestinian
people has amounted to methodical and despicable violations of human rights. Yet
criticism of those policies from anyone (including American Jews such as myself)
routinely results in accusations of anti-Jewish bigotry.
The U.S. media reaction to the essay by professors Mearsheimer and Walt provides
just another bit of evidence that they were absolutely correct when they wrote:
"Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have
significant influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy -- an influence AIPAC
celebrates -- stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed,
anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being
charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's
'Jewish Lobby.' In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then
attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic:
anti-Semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."
Sadly, few media outlets in the United States are willing to confront this "very
effective tactic." Yet it must be challenged. As the London-based Financial
Times editorialized on the first day of this month: "Moral blackmail -- the fear
that any criticism of Israeli policy and U.S. support for it will lead to
charges of anti-Semitism -- is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting
views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American
university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the
dissenters."
The Financial Times editorial noted: "Reflexes that ordinarily spring
automatically to the defense of open debate and free enquiry shut down -- at
least among much of America's political elite -- once the subject turns to
Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby's role in shaping U.S. foreign
policy."
The U.S. government's policies toward Israel should be considered on their
merits. As it happens, that's one of the many valid points made by Mearsheimer
and Walt in their much-vilified essay: "Open debate will expose the limits of
the strategic and moral case for one-sided U.S. support and could move the U.S.
to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests
of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as
well."
But without open debate, no significant change in those policies can happen.
That inertia -- stultifying the blood of the body politic by constricting the
flow of information and ideas -- is antithetical to the kind of democratic
discourse that we deserve.
Few other American academics have been willing to expose themselves to the kind
of professional risks that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt took by releasing
their provocative paper. And few other American activists have been willing to
expose themselves to the kind of risks that Rachel Corrie took when she sat
between a Palestinian home and a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza three years ago.
The bulldozer, driven by an Israeli army soldier on assignment to demolish the
home, rolled over Corrie, who was 23 years old. She had taken a nonviolent
position for human rights; she lost her life as a result. But she was rarely
praised in the same U.S. media outlets that had gone into raptures over the
image of a solitary unarmed man standing in front of Chinese tanks at the time
of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
In sharp contrast to the high-tech killers who run the Israeli military
apparatus and the low-tech killers who engage in suicide bombings, Rachel Corrie
put her beliefs into practice with militant nonviolence instead of carnage. She
exemplified the best of the human spirit in action; she was killed with an
American-brand bulldozer in the service of a U.S.-backed government.
As her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, said in a statement on her birthday a
few weeks after she died: "Rachel wanted to bring attention to the plight of the
Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, a people she felt were largely
invisible to most Americans."
In the United States, the nonstop pro-Israel media siege aims to keep them
scarcely visible.
Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death.
(5) Alan Dershowitz derides "paranoid claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy"
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:50:46 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort@earthlink.net>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060412/cm_huffpost/018998;_ylt=A86.I1cO1j1E014Ajhb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
Opinion Alan Dershowitz: The Lobby, Jews, and Anti-Semites
Alan Dershowitz Wed Apr 12, 7:29 PM ET
Fifteen years ago I said in an interview that the typical American Jewish leader
"is moderate in his politics, successful in his business or profession,
exercises considerable restraint in criticizing the powers that be, [and] is
slow in seeing anti-semitism."
In fact, while we are regularly among the first to identify and combat any sort
of injustice or bigotry against other groups, many Jews are typically reluctant
to stand up and make a fuss in our own self-defense. And so it is especially
perverse when hate-mongers harboring Jewish conspiracy theories try to insulate
themselves against criticism by preemptively claiming that "Jews are too
sensitive" or that "Jews are too quick to cry anti-Semitism." The truth is often
quite the opposite.
Has anything changed since I encouraged the Jewish community to be more
assertive and to demand that it be treated with the same respect to which all
Americans are entitled?
The perfect test case came last month, when the academic dean of Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government and a political science professor at the University
of Chicago jointly published a "working paper" that parroted virtually every
conspiracy theory ever articulated against Jews. Dean Walt and Professor
Mearsheimer wrote that Jews control the media and the government; that we are
loyal to Israel rather than to our "host" country; and that we dupe non-Jews,
against their best interests, into fighting and dying for our interest. All that
was missing from the Walt-Mearsheimer screed was the "blood libel": the medieval
accusation that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make Passover matzo.
(They came close by asserting another blood libel - namely, that Israeli
citizenship is based on "blood kinship," a claim which is demonstrably false.)
I promptly wrote a response to the Walt-Mearsheimer paper exposing the authors'
shoddy scholarship, their misstatement of "facts" (which are actually
well-trafficked lies), and their blatant errors in logic. I also made a point of
questioning the authors' motivation for writing the article in the first place.
As I wrote in the introduction:
paper is little more than a compilation of old, false, and authoritatively
discredited charges dressed up in academic garb. The only thing new about it is
the imprimatur these recycled assertions have now been given by the prominence
of its authors and their institutional affiliations. As [former Ku Klux Klan
leader] David Duke observed: "The Harvard report contains little new
information. I and a few other American commentators have for years been making
the same assertions as this new paper." It "validates every major point I [Duke]
have been making." It should have been easily predictable - especially to
"realists" - that their "Harvard report" would be featured, as it has been, on
neo-Nazi and extremist websites, and even by terrorist organizations, and that
it would be used by overt anti-Semites to "validate" their paranoid claims of a
worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
For responding to Mearsheimer and Walt's false charges, I was accused by The
Nation contributer and Huffington Poster Philip Weiss of being a "vigilante" and
by Dissident Voice as being one of "the attack dogs of the lobby." So much for
the marketplace of ideas! Free speech for me but not for thee!
Though I have issued an open invitation to Walt and Mearsheimer to debate me,
both on the merits of their article and on their motivation, neither has taken
me up on my challenge. In fact, as soon as their article appeared, Walt and
Mearsheimer hid themselves away and refused to speak on the record. A rare
published interview response came out just this past Monday in the Irish Times,
and it offers a revealing look into their article's sourcing.
Mearsheimer is quoted in the article as saying, "as for David Duke, we have no
control over who reads our work but I can say that both of us abhor and condemn
what Duke stands for." Fair enough. It is understandable that he would want to
disassociate himself from the former Klan member. But immediately after the Duke
quotation comes Norman Finkelstein, who says, "There is credible evidence for
the claim that the Iraq war was a Jewish war." He then suggests that "the
evidence is superficial but, nonetheless, there is evidence for it." It is his
conclusion, therefore, that is most revealing: "So if, as the situation gets
worse in Iraq, if Jews are scapegoated, it is in part a disaster of their own
making."
Mearsheimer cannot disavow Finkelstein the way he did Duke, because he
approvingly cited Finkelstein three times in his article. Let's look more
closely, then, at precisely what it is Finkelstein said, in order to see the
sort of worldview that Walt and Mearsheimer endorsed in their article by relying
on Finkelstein and his ilk.
First, Finkelstein does not say "Israel war," but rather, he says "Jewish war."
And he does not say that Israeli or Zionists are scapegoated; it is "Jews" who
are scapegoated." Finkelstein is very explicitly talking about Jews. He cannot
claim - as he often tries to do - that his overt anti-Zionism is being confused
with anti-Semitism. Second, Finkelstein's claim that "there is credible evidence
that the Iraq war was a Jewish war" is easily falsifiable. As even Walt and
Mearsheimer acknowledge in their paper, Jews were "less supportive of the Iraq
war than the population at large." How could this be a "Jewish war" if so many
Jews were opposed to it? Moreover, many of those opposed to the war in Iraq -
like me - are supporters of Israel and, according to Mearsheimer and Walt,
members of "the Lobby." Finally, notice the way Finkelstein blames Jews for
provoking anti-Semites into their bigotry. Finkelstein implicitly acknowledges
that the Walt-Mearsheimer paper is a form of scapegoating, but instead of
condemning scapegoating as a pernicious form of hate, Finkelstein says it is the
Jews fault that they are scapegoated! This is bigotry plain and simple, and it
is a favored claim of neo-Nazis and reactionary white supremacists such as David
Duke. They recognize that lots of people hate Jews, but they blame it on the
victim, just as Hitler did.
Nor is this the first time Finkelstein has blamed anti-Semitism on the Jews.
Mearsheimer was on notice that Finkelstein regularly blames Jews for
anti-Semitism, as he did in a Tikkun Magazine article last year, and in the very
book to which Mearsheimer cites, in which one of Finkelstein's major theses is
that "[a]longside Israel, [American Jewish elites] are the main fomenters of
anti-Semitism in the world today....They need to be stopped."
So far the response to the Walt-Mearsheimer paper has been encouraging. Many
prominent professors and writers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have spoken out
strongly against Walt and Mearsheimers false and conspiratorial account of Jews
in America. Nearly every major newspaper and political magazine in the country
has published condemnations. I compile and quote from many of these sources in
my response paper. More recently, Professor Eliot Cohen addressed the
anti-Semitism issue head-on in The Washington Post:
Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic? If by
anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews;
if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult
powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions
and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong
about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any
exculpatory information -- why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.
I am proud of the way the Jewish community has responded to the Walt-Mearsheimer
paper. Jews should not be ashamed to stand up for themselves and decry the sort
of people who would blame all their own problems, or all of America's problems,
on Jewish "power," "influence," and "manipulation." Those attitudes are
indisputably anti-Semitic. It is doubly anti-Semitic to justify this sort of
Jewish scapegoating by saying; that it is "of [the Jews] own making."
I continue to issue my challenge to my colleague, Dean Walt, "to look me in the
eye and tell me that because I am a proud Jew and a critical supporter of
Israel, I am disloyal to my country."
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is Preemption:
A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006).
(6) My Name Is Rachel Corrie - the play that's Too Hot for New York
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:27:04 +0500 From: "Eric Walberg" <eric@albatros.uz>
Too Hot for New York by PHILIP WEISS
The Nation [from the April 3, 2006 issue]
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/weiss
The slim book that was suddenly the most controversial work in the West in early
March was not easy to find in the United States. Amazon said it wasn't available
till April. The Strand bookstore didn't have it either. You could order it on
Amazon-UK, but it would be a week getting here. I finally found an author in
Michigan who kindly photocopied the British book and overnighted it to me; but
to be on the safe side, I visited an activist's apartment on Eighth Avenue on
the promise that I could take her much-in-demand copy to the lobby for half an
hour. In the elevator, I flipped it open to a random passage:
"I can't cool boiling waters in Russia. I can't be Picasso. I can't be Jesus. I
can't save the planet single-handedly. I can wash dishes."
The book is the play My Name Is Rachel Corrie. Composed from the journal entries
and e-mails of the 23-year-old from Washington State who was crushed to death in
Gaza three years ago under a bulldozer operated by the Israeli army, the play
had two successful runs in London last year and then became a cause celebre
after a progressive New York theater company decided to postpone its American
premiere indefinitely out of concern for the sensitivities of (unnamed) Jewish
groups unsettled by Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections. When the
English prod cers denounced the decision by the New York Theatre Workshop as
"censorship" and withdrew the show, even the mainstream media could not ignore
the implications. Why is it that the eloquent words of an American radical could
not be heard in this country--not, that is, without what the Workshop had called
"contextualizing," framing the play with political discussions, maybe even
mounting a companion piece that would somehow "mollify" the Jewish community?
"The impact of this decision is enormous--it is bigger than Rachel and bigger
than this play," Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother, said. "There was something about
this play that made them feel so vulnerable. I saw in the Workshop's schedule a
lesbian play. Will they use the same approach? Will they go to the segment of
the community that would ardently oppose that?"
In this way, Corrie's words appear to have had more impact than her death. The
House bill calling for a US investigation of her killing died in committee, with
only seventy-eight votes and little media attention. But the naked admission by
a left-leaning cultural outlet that it would subordinate its own artistic
judgment to pro-Israel views has served as a smoking gun for those who have
tried to press the discussion in this country of Palestinian human rights.
Indeed, the admission was so shocking and embarrassing that the Workshop quickly
tried to hedge and retreat from its statements. But the damage was done; people
were asking questions that had been consigned to the fringe: How can the West
condemn the Islamic world for not accepting Muhammad cartoons when a Western
writer who speaks out on behalf of Palestinians is silenced? And why is it that
Europe and Israel itself have a healthier debate over Palestinian human rights
than we can have here?
When she died on March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie had been in the Middle East for
fifty days as a member of the In ternational Solidarity Movement (ISM), a group
recruiting Westerners to serve as "human shields" against Israeli
aggression--including the policy of bulldozing Palestinian houses to create a
wider no man's land between Egypt and then-occupied Gaza. Corrie was crushed to
death when she stood in front of a bulldozer that was proceeding toward a
Palestinian pharmacist's house. By witnesses' accounts, Corrie, wearing a bright
orange vest, was clearly visible to the bulldozer's driver. An Israeli army
investigation held no one accountable.
Corrie's horrifying death was a landmark event: It linked Palestinian suffering
to the American progressive movement. And it was immediately politicized.
Pro-Israel voices sought to smear Corrie as a servant of terrorists. They said
that the Israeli army was merely trying to block tunnels through which weapons
were brought from Egypt into the occupied territories--thereby denying that
Corrie had died as the re sult of indiscriminate destruction. Hateful e-mails
were everywhere. "Rachel Corrie won't get 72 virgins but she got what she
wanted," said one.
Few knew that Corrie had been a dedicated writer. "I decided to be an artist and
a writer," she had written in a journal, describing her awakening, "and I didn't
give a shit if I was mediocre and I didn't give a shit if I starved to death and
I didn't give a shit if my whole damn high school turned and pointed and laughed
in my face."
Corrie's family felt it most urgent to get her words out to the world. The
family posted several of her last e-mails on the ISM website (and they were
printed in full by the London Guardian). These pieces were electrifying. They
revealed a passionate and poetical woman who had long been attracted to
idealistic causes and had put aside her work with the mentally ill and
environmental causes in the Pacific Northwest to take up a pressing concern,
Palestinian human rights. Thousands responded to the Corries, including a
representative of the Royal Court Theatre in Sloane Square, London, who asked if
the theater could use Rachel's words in a production--and, oh, are there more
writings? Cindy Corrie could do little more than sit and drink tea. She had
family tell the Royal Court, Give us time.
It was another year before Sarah Corrie dragged out the tubs in which her sister
had stored her belongings and typed passages from journals and letters going
back to high school. In November 2004 the Corries sent 184 pages to the Royal
Court.
It had been the intention of the two collaborators, Alan Rickman and Katharine
Viner, a Guardian editor, to flesh out Rachel Corrie's writings with others'
words. The pages instantly changed their minds. "We thought, She's done it on
her own. Rachel's voice is the only voice you had to hear," Viner says. The
Corrie family, which holds the rights to the words, readily agreed. Rachel
Corrie was the playwright. Any royalties would go to the Rachel Corrie
Foundation for Peace and Justice. The London "co-editors" then set to work
winnowing the material, working with a slender blond actress, Megan Dodds, who
resembles Corrie.
A year ago the play was staged as a one-woman show in a 100-seat theater at the
Royal Court. The piece was critically celebrated, and the four-week run sold
out. Young people especially were drawn to the show.
My Name Is Rachel Corrie--the title comes from a declaration in Corrie's
journal--is two things: the self-portrait of a sensitive woman struggling to
find her purpose, and a polemic on the horrors of Israeli occupation.
The work is marked by Plath-like talk about boys--"Eventually I convinced Colin
to quit drowning out my life"--and rilling passages about her growing
understanding of commitment: "I knew a few years ago what the unbearable
lightness of being was, be fore I read the book. The lightness between life and
death, there are no dimensions at all.... It's just a shrug, the difference
between Hitler and my mother, the difference between Whitney Houston and a
Russian mother watching her son fall through the sidewalk and boil to death....
And I knew back then that the shrug would happen at the end of my life--I knew.
And I thought, so who cares?... Now I know, who cares...if I die at 11.15 p.m.
or at 97 years--And I know it's me. That's my job..." As the work grinds toward
death, Corrie's moral vision of the Mideast becomes uppermost. "What we are
paying for here is truly evil.... This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to
come into when you decided to have me."
The show returned last fall to a larger theater at the Royal Court, and sold out
again. Most viewers tended to walk off afterward in stunned silence, but some
nights the theater became a forum for discussions. Rickman or Viner or D odds
came out to talk about how the show had come about.
The Royal Court got bids from around the world, including a theater in Israel,
seeking to stage the production. But the priority was to bring the show to
"Rachel's homeland," as Elyse Dodgson, the theater's international director,
says. At bottom, Corrie's story feels very American. It is filled with
references that surely escaped its English audience--working at Mount Rainier,
swimming naked in Puget Sound, drinking Mountain Dew, driving I-5 to California.
The New York Theatre Workshop agreed to stage the show in March 2006. But by
January the Royal Court began to sense apprehension on the Workshop's part. "I
went to New York to meet them because I didn't feel comfortable about what they
were saying," Dodgson says.
The Workshop was evidently spooked. Its artistic director, James Nicola, spoke
of having discussions after every performance to "contextualize" the play, of h
iring a consultant who had worked with Salman Rushdie to lead these discussions
and of hiring Emily Mann, the artistic director of the McCarter Theatre in
Princeton, New Jersey, to prepare a companion piece of testimonies that would
include Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism.
"We've had some brilliant discussions, we told them, but the play speaks for
itself," Dodgson says. "It is expensive and unnecessary to have that after every
single performance. Of course we knew some of the hideous things that were said
about Rachel. We took no notice of them. The controversy died when people saw
that this was a play about a young woman, an idealist."
Dodgson was further upset when a Workshop marketing staffer, whom she won't
name, used the word "mollifying." "It was a very awkward conversation. He said,
'I can't find the right word, but "mollifying" the Jewish community.' It shocked
me."
Corrie's connection to the International Solidarity Movement was politically
loaded. The ISM is committed to nonviolence, but it works with a broad range of
organizations, from Israeli peace activists to Palestinian groups that have
supported suicide bombings, which has been seized on by those who want it to get
lost.
At the heart of the disagreement was an insistence by supporters of Israel that
Corrie's killing be presented in the context of Palestinian terror. And that
specifically, the policy of destroying Palestinian homes in Gaza be shown to be
aimed at those tunnels--even though the pharmacist's house Corrie was shielding
was hundreds of yards from the border and had nothing to do with tunnels. One
person close to NYTW, who refused to go on the record, elaborates: "The fact
that the Israelis and such were trying to bulldoze these houses was not due to
the fact that they were just against the Palestinians, but the underground
tunnels, ways to get explosives to this community . By not mentioning it, the
play was not as evenhanded as it claims to be." Another anonymous NYTW source
said that staffers became worried after reading a fall 2003 Mother Jones profile
of Corrie, a much disputed piece that relied heavily on right-wing sources to
paint her as a reckless naif.
Just whom was the Workshop consulting in its deliberations? It has steadfastly
refused to say. In the New York Observer, Nicola mentioned "Jewish friends."
Dodgson says that in discussions with the Royal Court, Workshop staffers brought
up the Anti-Defamation League and the mayor's office as entities they were
concerned about. (Abe Foxman of the ADL visited London in 2005 and denounced the
play in the New York Sun as offensive to Jewish "sensitivities.") By one
account, the fatal blow was dealt when the global PR firm Ruder Finn (which has
an office in Israel) said it couldn't represent the play.
In its latest statement, the Workshop says it consulted many community voices,
not only Jews. These did not include Arab-Americans. Najla Said, the artistic
director of Nibras, an Arab-American theater in New York, says, "We're not even
'other' enough to be 'other.' We're not the political issue that anyone thinks
is worth talking about."
The run had been scheduled for March 22-May 14. Tickets were listed on
Telecharge in February. But the Workshop had not announced the production.
According to the Royal Court, Nicola at last told them he wanted to postpone the
play at least six months or a year to allow the political climate to settle down
and to better prepare the production. The Royal Court took this as a
cancellation. The news broke on February 28 in the Guardian and the New York
Times.
The Times article was shocking. It said the Workshop had "delayed" a production
it had never announced, and reported that Nicola had been "polling local Jewish
religious and community leaders as to their feelings." Nicola was quoted saying
that Hamas's victory had made the Jewish community "very defensive and very
edgy...and that seemed reasonable to me."
The Red Sea parted. Or anyway the Atlantic Ocean. The English playwright Caryl
Churchill, who has worked with both theaters, condemned the decision. Vanessa
Redgrave wrote a letter urging the Royal Court to sue the Workshop. At first,
the New York theater community was quiet.
Enter the blogosphere, stage left. Three or four outraged theater bloggers began
peppering the Workshop's community with questions. Whom did the Workshop talk
to? Why aren't theater people up in arms? Garrett Eisler, the blogger Playgoer,
likened the decision to one by the Manhattan Theater Club to cancel its 1998
production of Corpus Christi, a play imagining Christ as a gay man--a decision
that was reversed after leading voices, including the Times editorial page,
denounced the action.
The playwright Jason Grote circulated a petition calling on the Workshop to
reverse itself. Signers included Philip Munger, a composer whose cantata
dedicated to Corrie, The Skies Are Weeping, also had experienced politically
motivated cancellations. The young playwright Christopher Shinn spoke out early
and forcefully, saying the postponement amounted to censorship. "No one with a
name was saying anything," says Eisler. "And Chris Shinn is not that big a name,
but he is a practicing theater artist whose name gets in the New York Times."
By the time I visited the Workshop, a week into the controversy, it was a
wounded institution. Linda Chapman, the associate artistic director, who had
signed Grote's petition, said she couldn't talk to me, because of the
"quicksand" that any statement had become. The Workshop had posted and then
removed from its website a clumsy statement aimed at explaining itself. Playgoer
was demanding that the opponents of the play come forward and drumming for a
declaration from Tony Kushner, who has staged plays at the Workshop, posting his
photo as if he were some war criminal.
In an interview with The Nation, Kushner said that he was quiet because of his
exhaustion over similar arguments surrounding the film Munich, on which he was a
screenwriter, and because he kept hoping the decision would be made right. He
said Nicola is a great figure in American theater: "His is one of the one or two
most important theaters in this area--politically engaged, unapologetic,
unafraid and formally experimental." Never having gotten a clear answer about
why Nicola put off the play, Kushner ascribes it to panic: Nicola didn't know
what he was getting into, and only later became aware of how much opposition
there was to Corrie, how much confusion the right has created around the facts.
Nicola felt he was taking on "a really big, scary brawl and not a play." Still,
Kushn er said, the theater's decision created a "ghastly" situation. "Censoring
a play because it addresses Palestinian-Israeli issues is not in any way right,"
he said.
The Royal Court came out smelling like a rose. It triumphantly announced that it
was moving the Megan Dodds show to the West End, the London equivalent of
Broadway, and that it couldn't come to New York till next fall.
The Grote petitioners (519 and counting) want that to happen at the Workshop,
which itself was reaching out with another statement on the matter, released on
the eve of the anniversary of Corrie's death. "I can only say we were trying to
do whatever we could to help Rachel's voice be heard," Nicola said. The cut may
be too deep for such ointment. As George Hunka, author of the theater blog
Superfluities, says, "This is far too important an issue for everyone to paper
it over again, with everyone shaking hands for a New York Times photographer.
It's an ex traordinarily rare picture of the ways that New York cultural
institutions make their decisions about what to produce."
Hunka doesn't use the J-word. Jen Marlowe does. A Jewish activist with
Rachelswords.org (which is staging a reading of Corrie's words on March 22 with
the Corrie parents present), she says, "I don't want to say the Jewish community
is monolithic. It isn't. But among many American Jews who are very progressive
and fight deeply for many social justice issues, there's a knee-jerk reflexive
reaction that happens around issues related to Israel."
Questions about pressure from Jewish leaders morph quickly into questions about
funding. Ellen Stewart, the legendary director of the theatrical group La MaMa
E.T.C., which is across East 4th Street from the Workshop, speculates that the
trouble began with its "very affluent" board. Rachel's father, Craig Corrie,
echoes her. "Do an investigation, follow the money." I called six board members
and got no response. (About a third appear to be Jewish, as am I.) This is of
course a charged issue. The writer Alisa Solomon, who was appalled by the
postponement, nonetheless warns, "There's something a little too familiar about
the image of Jews pulling the puppet strings behind the scenes."
Perhaps. But Nicola's statement about a back channel to Jewish leaders suggests
the presence of a cultural lobby that parallels the vaunted pro-Israel lobby in
think tanks and Congress. I doubt we will find out whether the Workshop's
decision was "internally generated," as Kushner contends, or more orchestrated,
as I suspect. What the episode has demonstrated is a climate of fear. Not of
physical harm, but of loss of opportunities. "The silence results from fear and
intimidation," says Cindy Corrie. "I don't see what else. And it harms not only
Palestinians. I believe, from the bottom of my heart, it harms Israelis and it
harms us."
Kushner agrees. Having spent five months defending Munich, he says the fear has
two sources: "There is a very, very highly organized attack machinery that will
come after you if you express any kind of dissent about Israel's policies, and
it's a very unpleasant experience to be in the cross hairs. These aren't
hayseeds from Kansas screaming about gays burning in hell; they're newspaper
columnists who are taken seriously." These attackers impose a kind of literacy
test: Before you can cast a moral vote on Palestinian rights, you must be able
to recite a million wonky facts, such as what percentage of the territories were
outside the Green Line in 1949. Then there is the self-generated fear of lending
support to anti-Semites or those who would destroy Israel. All in all, says
Kushner, it can leave someone "overwhelmed and in despair--you feel like you
should just say nothing."
Who will tell Americans the Middle East story? For generati ons that story has
been one of Israelis as victims, and it has been crucial to Israeli policy
inasmuch as Israel has been able to defy its neighbors' opinions by relying on a
highly sympathetic superpower. Israel's supporters have always feared that if
Americans started to conduct the same frank discussion of issues that takes
place in Tel Aviv, we might become more evenhanded in our approach to the Middle
East. That pressure is what has stifled a play that portrays the Palestinians as
victims (and thrown a blanket over a movie, Munich, that portrays both sides as
victims). I've never written this sort of thing before. How moving that we have
been granted that freedom by a 23-year-old woman with literary gifts who was not
given time to unpack them.
--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:21:30 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Astounding: Lessons of the Opium Wars -=- Austrailia becoming Chinese quarry/colony? -=- Shanghai has 4,000 skyscrapers, turns its back on low-income residents
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
April 14, 2006
(1) Shanghai has 4,000 skyscrapers, turns its back on low-income residents
(2) Australia becoming China's quarry - and colony?
(3) Lessons of the Opium Wars
(6) Relations between Hindus and Jews
(1) Shanghai has 4,000 skyscrapers, turns its back on low-income residents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:37:17 -0400 From: "David Chiang"
<sino.economics@verizon.net>
Shanghai's Boom: A Building Frenzy April 13, 2006 By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/arts/design/13pres.html?pagewanted=print
SHANGHAI, April 12 - Wu Zigfried Zhiqiang grows animated as he clicks through a
PowerPoint presentation of the Shanghai of the future, and for anyone who thinks
his city is the last word on post-modernism, with its needle-spire towers and
kitschy skyscrapers, he suggests that the surprises have just begun.
"On the one hand you will see something like New York's financial district, and
on the other, you will see new industrial infrastructure: one of the biggest
ports, one of the biggest automobile factories, the biggest shipyards," said Mr.
Wu, who is the project designer for the 2010 World Expo, a vast undertaking that
is driving much of the change. "You cannot find these things in New York."
Within the next four years, Shanghai, the backdrop of so much upheaval and so
many rebirths since it became the prized treaty port for European powers in the
mid-19th century, will be utterly transformed once again. But critics say it
will lose as much, in texture and vibrant community life, as it stands to gain
in dazzling, futuristic projects. The notion of what warrants conservation has
been highly restrictive, amounting to several hundred buildings in a city of 18
million and to parts of 12 districts, like the leafy and increasingly gentrified
former French Concession neighborhood.
Mr. Wu, a 46-year-old urban designer, describes how China's greatest city is
racing to be greater still, aiming for the top as it ascends the hierarchy of
world cities, with one eye on longtime champions like New York, and another on
its fraternal rival, Beijing.
Like China's capital, which is undergoing a crash rebuilding program in time for
the 2008 Summer Olympics, Shanghai is using its role as host of the World Expo
to shift what had already been a hugely ambitious remake into high gear. By the
standards of recent urban development projects in the West - the so-called Big
Dig in Boston, say - the scale of what the city is undertaking is astounding.
Along the western banks of the Huangpu River, site of the historic Bund
thoroughfare, a 2,000-plus-yard-long stretch of the waterfront is being razed
and redeveloped. The essence of the Bund, a virtual museum of Western
architecture, flush with classical, Gothic and Art Deco landmarks, will be
preserved, but densely inhabited neighborhoods at its edge are already being
demolished.
This fresh development zone in the heart of central Shanghai, facing the newly
minted skyscrapers of the Pudong district across the river, and every bit as
attention-grabbing, will extend more than 700 yards inland at its widest point,
with sleek halls and pavilions and green spaces.
Nearby, there will also be a modern passenger ship terminal and the world's
fastest commercial train service, a high-speed magnetic levitation line from
Shanghai's international airport, will be extended to Hangzhou, a city 100 miles
to the southwest. The airport, meanwhile, is adding a second terminal whose
futuristic design by the Xian Dai Architectural Design Group, is to complement
the original terminal, designed by the French architect Paul Andreu.
Mr. Wu said that the architectural layout of the riverside project would take
advantage of seasonal winds to assist climate control and that a water
purification project aims to make the river water that flows through a 1.8-mile
canal safe enough for swimming.
If the Expo seems intended to dazzle - and it is - the project is merely the
central nugget of a far larger undertaking, one that will leave very little of
this huge city untouched. Shanghai already boasts 4,000 skyscrapers, nearly
twice as many as New York, and plans to add 1,000 more in the next decade.
Elevated expressways are being built to channel above-ground traffic, and a
gigantic push is under way to expand the subway system.
Many feel, though, that what Shanghai is losing is even more vital than what it
will gain. Shanghai was China's first, and remains its most distinctive,
experiment in modern urbanism, and conservationists say that much of what made
it so special in the last century will soon fall victim to the wrecking ball.
The severe damage begins at the very edge of the Bund, in the crowded
neighborhoods peopled by generations of workers who have migrated here during
more than a century's worth of economic booms. They have fashioned what has come
to be Shanghai's signature urban lifestyle: walkup apartment buildings, often
connected by a network of lanes, and an extraordinarily rich street life steeped
in street cuisine, open-air produce markets and the ever-present bicycle.
Many of these neighborhoods, often starting just a couple of blocks in from the
grand riverfront, or at its northern and southern ends, are already being
demolished. Another area facing destruction soon, the north bank of Suzhou
Creek, is of prime interest both to big developers and to historians and
preservationists. The buildings there are of uneven architectural interest,
though many are considered precious. But the area is considered a vital matrix
of Shanghai's authentic lifestyle.
Chen Guang, an architect who belongs to a civic group involved in conservation
efforts makes clear how precarious the situation is, both for the city's old
neighborhoods and for those who wish to preserve them. "Our group is comprised
of people who share an interest in protecting old neighborhoods," he said,
"although we don't use the word protect in our name, even if this what we dearly
hope to do."
By the time of the World Expo, in 2010, Mr. Chen estimates, only five percent of
the old neighborhoods existing in 2003 citywide will remain. "Suzhou Creek is a
bit special for us, though, because of its special status in Shanghai's history,
and it has many units that are still intact. Suzhou Creek is a complete entity
unto itself, in the same way that the Bund is a unit."
The city's plans call for the leveling of much of the creek's north bank and
building green promenades in place of the old tenements and brick-walled lanes.
In Shanghai, as in the rest of China, where development proceeds largely by
fiat, such things can happen with astounding speed. While rules have recently
been amended to help residents bargain for better compensation from developers,
there is no real choice about moving.
There have been no public hearings, and no votes on the matter. Even budget
estimates are hard to come by. Shanghai's eviction of hundreds of thousands of
mostly low-income people from the city center has caused occasional protests,
and there have been persistent reports of large-scale, high-level corruption
involving politicians and developers.
Shanghai is building no new housing for low-income residents in the city's core.
"Shanghai is a 100 percent private market," said Cheng Yun, chief researcher at
the Shanghai offices of Centaline Property Consultants, a Hong Kong real estate
company. "There is no social development in the central city. This is unique in
the whole world, and it is not healthy."
The city's approach to public information about real estate is also unusual by
the standards of most nations. The press is barred from reporting on ties
between officials and developers, and even detailed maps showing patterns of
demolition and redevelopment are as closely held as secret documents.
The concerns of many of those forced out are much more down-to-earth. "We have
to move to an area which is far away from here, a suburban area, and we don't
want to go there," said Zhu Yumei, 57, a woman who has lived her whole life on
the north bank of Suzhou Creek. City officials say that they are mindful of the
need to preserve a slice of the old town, but that working block by block with
residents in buildings that have suffered decades of decay is impractical.
They contend that although less pronounced than in many Western cities, the
hollowing of the central city is part of a broader regional trend. "From
Singapore to Tokyo, Asian cities are experiencing this emptying out," said Tang
Zhiping, a senior city planner. "It's more appropriate to compare Shanghai to
places like these."
For others, though, that is precisely the fear, that in a few short years
Shanghai will have become just another in a group of largely anonymous Asian
megacities in its haste for sleek modernity.
Zheng Shiling, the dean of urban planners here, and a man who has worked hard to
lobby city officials on the importance of historic preservation, said:
"Government officials like to be promoted according to their achievements, and
that means having something to show. So this is an approach for government
officials, not an urban planning approach."
In the 1960's, Mr. Zheng said, building new things in Chinese cities was
revolutionary. Now it is conservation that is radical. "Once the reform period
started, we wanted to have everything at once," he said. "We were constructing
modernization, but without a clear mind of modernity
(2) Australia becoming China's quarry - and colony?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:36:42 -0400 From: "David Chiang"
<sino.economics@verizon.net>
Trade with China fuels Aussie economy
By ALAN GOODALL Special to The Japan Times
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20060412a1.html
SYDNEY -- Just as Japan switched on the Australian economic miracle a generation
or two ago, so China is giving it a recharge today. And the new source of the
power surge promises implications for the whole Asia Pacific region.
Already a key resource supplier to energy-hungry China, Australia has signed a
deal with Beijing that will allow it to become the dominant supplier of uranium
for China's nuclear-energy industry. The breakthrough signals a far more
intensive era in Beijing-Canberra relations than mere trade, though a free-trade
agreement cannot be far off.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has returned home from Canberra after an extremely
successful visit that saw him jog with Australian Prime Minister John Howard and
sign a nuclear safeguards agreement. The deal will allow Australia, which has 40
percent of the world's known uranium deposits, to supply uranium to be processed
into energy for China's booming nuclear-power industry. The pact also raises
huge questions about Australia's possible involvement in Asia's nuclear-arms
debate.
In money terms, the deal has Australian miners salivating. With an infusion of
Chinese funds and technology, the way is open for more deposits to be found and
mined. Uranium exports are set to rise five-fold in the next decade to an
estimated $ 2.3 billion, depending on price. And that is before a row is settled
with three Labor-controlled states that now ban uranium exports. Those bans,
inherited from the antinuclear furor of ex-Prime Minister Bob Hawke, are
haunting Labor's tottering leader, Kim Beazley. Howard can't wait to see Beazley
toppled in a new uranium debate among a majority wanting to jump on the export
bandwagon.
Once three approved mines in South Australia start producing -- Australian-owned
BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine with a 15,000 tons a year potential export,
U.S.-owned Beverley with 1,000 tons and Canada's Honeymoon with 400 tons --
uranium exports could double to 22,000 tons. Australia will then be in a
position to supply one-third of China's forecast annual needs.
But what will other Asian nuclear powers, notably India and Pakistan, see in
this trend? Sensitive to likely criticism, Howard says exports to China will be
under tighter international controls than those applying to the United States,
which now takes 40 percent of Australian uranium. Under the new deal, China will
have to open any of its jointly agreed nuclear facilities using Australian
uranium to international inspectors.
Beijing is believed to have breached the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1992
through its dealings with Pakistan's non-safeguarded Khushab reactor. But Lance
Joseph, former Australian governor to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
says China has since proved itself to be more responsible.
As more countries gear up for the nuclear millennium, a debate is heating up
here over how to strengthen international safeguards. Warnings from the
antinuclear brigade are getting more and more dire. As one letter writer put it
to a newspaper: "If we export uranium to China and India and after a row we get
it returned as atomic bombs in retaliation for our alliance with the world's
biggest bully, we will only have ourselves to blame."
Leslie Kemeny, an Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear
Energy Academy, is urging Australia to become a main player in the peaceful use
of nuclear energy. "Exporting uranium without value adding is just plain dumb,"
Kemeny says. "And being involved in reprocessing and waste disposal strengthens
Australia's ability to guarantee global nonproliferation."
Wen, a geologist by training, indicated to Canberra he is sensitive to these
arguments. Howard is taking him at his word. The debate is escalating here, as
it will overseas. Into the mix comes belated reports of Australia having signed
earlier this year contracts to supply uranium to China's arch rival, Taiwan.
The contracts with two Australian miners, BHP Billiton and ERA, were signed with
electricity producer Taipower through Taipei's unofficial embassy in Canberra.
Without official recognition, Taipei uses a de facto embassy, providing for
indirect trade through the U.S.
Canberra officials stayed mum while Wen was in town. Though Resources Minister
Ian Macfarlane told one questioner: "There is a strong global uranium market.
Canada has already signed multibillion contracts with China for the supply of
nuclear reactors at the same time as arranging to sell uranium to Taiwan.
"As the largest holder of uranium, Australia can deal into the process of
closely monitoring how it is used or we can just look on as others set rules we
may not think are tough enough."
The Sydney stock exchange is one of many that see big potential value in Wen's
visit. It has hit new records, with mining stocks going ballistic.
With an eye on projections that China will soon oust Japan as Australia's No. 1
export market, Wen made welcoming noises about a free-trade agreement. Howard
demurred. A shrewd judge of voter moods, Howard likes to enjoy the fruits of
cheaper Chinese imports without pushing too quickly for too many Chinese cars,
machinery and clothes. This juggling act will be sorely tested by Australia's
booming consumer hunger.
Like Canberra opinion, one influential newspaper is taking a pragmatic approach
to the China question. "China already has enough social problems at home to
attend to," opined The Australian. "Premier Wen, and his open attitude towards
Australia, India and the U.S., is to be welcomed. It is hoped closer economic
and diplomatic ties between these nations will keep future tensions confined to
the negotiating room."
Pointedly, the paper did not add Japan to the trio. One Australian journalist in
Beijing wrote after interviewing Wen: "The premier said Sino-Japanese relations
were in difficulty. 'This is something we do not want to see,' Wen said. 'The
current difficulty is neither caused by China nor by the people of Japan. It is
caused by the Japanese leader who has made repeated visits to Yasukuni shrine.'
"
Now that is a topic the new-look Sino-Australia relationship will steer clear
of.
Alan Goodall is former Tokyo bureau chief for The Australian.
(3) Lessons of the Opium Wars
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:48:38 +1030 From: "Adelaide Institute"
<info@adelaideinstitute.org>
From: Gamila Zahran [mailto:gzahran@wanadoo.fr] Sent: Friday, 31 March 2006 5:46
PM Subject: England's Opuim Wars on China and the Chinease People
One wonders what is going on today in Afghanistan, would the western "free"
media tell us?! ----
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
The Opium War, also called the Anglo-Chinese War, was the most humiliating
defeat China ever suffered. In European history, it is perhaps the most sordid,
base, and vicious event in European history, possibly, just possibly,
overshadowed by the excesses of the Third Reich in the twentieth century.
By the 1830s, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal
organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can
even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of
criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of
opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea.
This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as
opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the
nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal
activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials
in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were
devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the
early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort
to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and
began to aggressively close down the opium dens.
Lin Tse-hsü
The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly moral official
named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium menace, he maneuverd himself
into being appointed Imperial Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to
cut off the opium trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and
cracking down on British trade in the drug.
He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely invulnerable to
bribery and corruption, he had taken action against Chinese merchants and
Western traders and shut down all the traffic in opium. He destroyed all the
existing stores of opium and, victorious in his war against opium, he composed a
letter to Queen Victoria of England requesting that the British cease all opium
trade. His letter included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade
and consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it should not
export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to Lin, should only be in
beneficial objects.
To be fair to England, if the only issue on the table were opium, the English
probably (just probably) would have acceded to Lin's request. The British,
however, had been nursing several grievances against China, and Lin's
take-no-prisoners enforcement of Chinese laws combined to outrage the British
against his decapitation of the opium trade. The most serious bone of contention
involved treaty relations; because the British refused to submit to the emperor,
there were no formal treaty relations between the two countries. The most
serious problem precipitated by this lack of treaty relations involved the
relationship between foreigners and Chinese law. The British, on principle,
refused to hand over British citizens to a Chinese legal system that they felt
was vicious and barbaric. The Chinese, equally principled, demanded that all
foreigners who were accused of committing crimes on Chinese soil were to be
dealt with solely by Chinese officials. In many ways, this was the real issue of
the Opium War. In addition to enforcing the opium laws, Lin aggressively pursued
foreign nationals accused of crimes.
The English, despite Lin's eloquent letter, refused to back down from the opium
trade. In response, Lin threatened to cut off all trade with England and expel
all English from China. Thus began the Opium War.
The War
War broke out when Chinese junks attempted to turn back English merchant vessels
in November of 1839; although this was a low-level conflict, it inspired the
English to send warships in June of 1840. The Chinese, with old-style weapons
and artillery, were no match for the British gunships, which ranged up and down
the coast shooting at forts and fighting on land. The Chinese were equally
unprepared for the technological superiority of the British land armies, and
suffered continual defeats. Finally, in 1842, the Chinese were forced to agree
to an ignomious peace under the Treaty of Nanking.
The treaty imposed on the Chinese was weighted entirely to the British side. Its
first and fundamental demand was for British "extraterritoriality"; all British
citizens would be subjected to British, not Chinese, law if they committed any
crime on Chinese soil. The British would no longer have to pay tribute to the
imperial administration in order to trade with China, and they gained five open
ports for British trade: Canton, Shanghai, Foochow, Ningpo, and Amoy. No
restrictions were placed on British trade, and, as a consequence, opium trade
more than doubled in the three decades following the Treaty of Nanking. The
treaty also established England as the "most favored nation" trading with China;
this clause granted to Britain any trading rights granted to other countries.
Two years later, China, against its will, signed similar treaties with France
and the United States.
Lin Tse-hsü was officially disgraced for his actions in Canton and was sent to a
remote appointment in Turkestan. Of all the imperial officials, however, Lin was
the first to realize the momentuous lesson of the Opium War. In a series of
letters he began to agitate the imperial government to adopt Western technology,
arms, and methods of warfare. He was first to see that the war was about
technological superiority; his influence, however, had dwindled to nothing, so
his admonitions fell on deaf ears.
It wasn't until a second conflict with England that Chinese officials began to
take seriously the adoption of Western technologies. Even with the Treaty of
Nanking, trade in Canton and other ports remained fairly restricted; the British
were incensed by what they felt was clear treaty violations. The Chinese, for
their part, were angered at the wholescale export of Chinese nationals to
America and the Caribbean to work at what was no better than slave labor. These
conflicts came to a head in 1856 in a series of skirmishes that ended in 1860. A
second set of treaties further humiliated and weakened the imperial government.
The most ignominious of the provisions in these treaties was the complete
legalization of opium and the humiliating provision that allowed for the free
and unrestricted propagation of Christianity in all regions of China.
The Illustrated Gazatteer of Maritime Countries
China's defeat at the hands of England led to the publication of the Illustrated
Gazatteer of Maritime Countries by Wei Yüan (1794-1856). The Gazatteer marks the
first landmark event in the modernization of China. Wei Yüan, a distinguished
but minor official, argued in the Gazatteer that the Europeans had developed
technologies and methods of warfare in their ceaseless and barbaric quest for
power, profit, and material wealth. Civilization, represented by China, was in
danger of falling to the technological superiority of the Western powers.
Because China is a peaceful and civilized nation, it can overcome the West only
if it learns and matches the technology and techniques of the West. The purpose
of the Gazatteer was to disseminate knowledge about the Europeans, their
technologies, their methods of warfare, and their selfish anarchy to learned
officials. It is a landmark event in Chinese history, for it was the first
systematic attempt to educate the Chinese in Western technologies and culture.
This drive for modernization, begun by Lin Tse-hsü and perpetuated by Wei Yüan
would gain momentum and emerge as the basis for the "Self-Strengthening" from
1874 to 1895.
(6) Relations between Hindus and Jews
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:49:58 +0300 From: "G" {name & address withheld}
Shalom and Hag Sameach,
My name is G ... I am an Israeli studying at XXX University in {USA} for my MA
in International Communication. My MA thesis is on relations between Hindus and
Jews. Not an easy topic to cover, but a very interesting one. With the new phase
in relations between India and Israel, the contact between the Hindus and Jews
is becoming unprecedented and growing quickly, in strike opposition to the 3000+
years of living separately from each other (with few exceptions that I consider
as minor).
I somehow found your web page at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/lotus.html,
in which you comment on The Jews in the Lotus. I wonder if you could also
provide me with some insights on the relations between Hindus and Jews, from any
perspective - religious, cultural, social, other. It is my hypothesis that the
new meeting between Hindus and Jews must be producing interesting things; what
those things may be, or already are, is what I am trying to find.
Comment (Peter M): One can only wonder about those "interesting things". I
shudder to think. For a start, how about match-making Yahweh with Kali?
--
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html I
use the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or
transmit them to you. If my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring
me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:03:09 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Fw: U.S. Allies Are Behind The Death Squads And Ethic Cleansing.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0414-25.htm
Published on Friday, April 14, 2006 by the Guardian/UK
US Allies are Behind the Death Squads and Ethnic Cleansing
Iraq's American overlords at last seem to have grasped the danger posed
by their friends' militias. But it may be too late.
by Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Much ink, as well as indignation, is being spent on whether Iraq is
on the verge of, in the midst of, or nowhere near civil war. Wherever
you stand in this largely semantic debate, the one certainty is that the
seedbed for the country's self-destruction is Iraq's plethora of
militias. In the apt phrase of Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in
Baghdad, they are the "infrastructure of civil war".
He is not the first US overlord in Iraq to spot the danger. Shortly
before the formal transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, America's then top
official Paul Bremer ordered all militias to disband. Some members could
join the new army. Others would have to look for civilian work.
His decree was not enforced and now, two years later, this failure has
come back to haunt Iraq. "More Iraqis are dying from militia violence
than from the terrorists," Khalilzad said recently. "The militias need
to be under control."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:32:02 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Fw: The Israel Lobby is the Prime Mover Behind the Campaign to Attack Iran
From: Sean McBride
Friday, April 14, 2006
The Israel Lobby is the Prime Mover Behind the Campaign to Attack Iran
Necon Caroline Glick in the Israeli Jerusalem Post, using precisely the same kind of gasbag rhetoric and broken logic that the neocons used to instigate the Iraq War:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498852297&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
There is simply no end of it.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:34:30 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe? -- Behind the Campaign to Attack Iran
From: Sean McBride
April 14, 2006 4:34 PM
Subject: [political-research] The Israel Lobby is the Prime Mover Behind the Campaign to Attack Iran
[When the Israel lobby denies what is obvious to everyone, it reduces itself to absurdity and inspires contempt. The Lobby is pushing the Bush administration to expand a war that could be enormously damaging for the United States. Given its track record on Iraq, the Lobby is almost certainly getting Iran entirely wrong. If everything goes wrong in both Iraq and Iran simultaneously, the Lobby is inviting a monumental backlash in American domestic politics, one from which it will never recover.]
http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04142006.html
April 14, 2006
Attacking Iran
Hersh vs. Bush: Who Would You Believe?
By KEVIN ZEESE
Seymour Hersh's extensive article describing plans to attack Iran, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, has forced President Bush to respond. Two days after Hersh's article appeared, President Bush came forward to deny any intent to attack Iran--calling such claims 'wild speculation.'
Hersh begins his article in the New Yorker explaining the real purpose of attack on Iran: "There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change."
In response, President Bush said allegations that he plans to use force to halt Iran's nuclear program are "wild speculation." He went on to say that his focus is on diplomacy: "I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy." When Donald Rumsfeld, the embattled Secretary of State, was asked about planning for Iran he was evasive saying "The last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan and why."
Hersh seemed to expect this response writing before Bush spoke:
"The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups."
And when asked about Bush's comments, Hersh told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now: "It's simply a fact that the planning has gone beyond the contingency stage, and it's gone into what they call the operational stage, sort of an increment higher. And it's very serious planning, of course. And it's all being directed at the wish of the President of the United States. And I can understand why they don't want to talk about it, but that's just the reality."
Pressure is Mounting to Attack Iran--a Long-Term Target of the Bush Administration
Adding credibility to Hersh's claims is that removing those in power in Iran has been supported by many neo-cons since before Bush took office. It is consistent with the re-making of the Middle East, called for by the Project for a New American Century, as part of ensuring U.S. military and economic dominance of the world.
In addition, a paper published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in 1996 entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," written for Benjamin Netanyahu, set out a plan for Israel to "shape its strategic environment," beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. With Iraq transformed, they describe a strategic axis of Iraq, Jordan and Turkey that would weaken and "roll back" Syria and divide the Shia'a in Iraq with those in Iran and Syria.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), another hard-line advocacy group, has advocated "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. JINSA's board of advisers has included many Bush administration leaders: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Douglas Feith. JINSA now sees Iran as THE security threat saying in an April 12 JINSA Report entitled "Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran:"
"Whatever we do in Iraq and whatever Iraqi politicians do; whatever we do to Hamas; however hard we look for Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri; whoever runs our port terminals; whatever the price of gasoline; however we secure our borders; whoever leaked Valerie Plame's name - under the shadow of a nuclear-capable Iran, American and allied options are reduced."
Iran, they say, is "the whole list of national security priorities."
The current pressure to attack Iran is building. The hard right Israeli lobby in the United States is advocating attacking Iran to stop the development of nuclear weapons. A full page advertisement in The New York Times on April 4 on page A-15 sponsored by the American Jewish Committee urged an attack on Iran drawing a map with Iran in the center showing how far it is from various countries in Asia, Europe and African asking: "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?"
Just as the pro-Israel lobby beat the war drums for the invasion of Iraq, they are doing the same for Iran. AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israeli lobby has a special page on Iran's escalating threat. The concern of many has been heightened by reported comments by Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenging the reality of the Holocaust and that Israel must be "wiped off the map."
The recent announcement by Ahmadinejad that Iran has enriched uranium in a 164-centrifuge network to 3.5% has heightened the conflict further. Ahmadinejad says Iran must now be treated as a nuclear country and that it plans to continue to develop nuclear power. This is far from the level of enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon--requiring at least 80% enrichment and thousands of centrifuges. Iran says it plans to go ahead and construct a 3,000 centrifuge network at the Natanz facility within a year and eventually expand to 54,000 centrifuges. Developing enriched uranium for nuclear power is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty but the UN Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to suspend uranium enrichment.
Further, much to the chagrin of the Bush administration, the Iraq invasion has strengthened Iran. Noted Middle East commentator, Juan Cole, has described Iran as the real victor in the Iraq War. Iran has been able to establish warm relations with the government in Iraq. To have a member of the axis of evil strengthened as result of U.S. policy is an unintended consequence the U.S cannot let stand.
Problems mounting in Iraq are a two-edged sword. On one side the U.S. military is stretched thin and exhausted and opening another front in the Middle East--with a country four times the size of Iraq--would seem to be physically impossible. And, an air campaign would be a challenge with an estimated 400 sites that would need to be targeted. In addition, there are concerns about an alliance between the Shia community in Iraq and Shia dominated Iran making the difficult Iraq situation even more challenging. Then, there are the unpredictable economic impacts--oil prices, already high could jump higher and the reaction of Wall Street and the markets could also be
But, the other edge of the Iraq-quagmire sword increases the chance of an attack on Iran. Certainly, the administration would prefer to have discussion of war strategy instead of the fighting in Iraq. And video of precision air attacks bombing alleged nuclear facilities in Iran will be preferred to civilian deaths in Iraq. As former national security adviser Norman Birnbaum recently said "I fear what the French term a fuite en avance, a flight in advance, and an attack on Iran."
Is Diplomacy Possible? Is it Really Being Pursued?
Pursuing diplomacy is complicated by President Bush's rhetoric. Four years ago Iran was labeled by President Bush as part of the "axis of evil." Since then the United States has surrounded the country with troops in Afghanistan on its western border, Iraq on its eastern border and the Persian Gulf in the south. And, the rhetoric is escalating.
Since the Iranian Revolution the US has had no formal diplomatic ties with Iran. According to a report in the New York Times, in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, Iran reportedly made an overture to U.S. officials to begin what former U.S. policymaker Flynt Leverett, a former national security adviser, State Department and CIA official says there was 'a diplomatic process intended to resolve on a comprehensive basis all the bilateral differences between the United States and Iran.' The United States did not take up the offer. Leverett says that Bush "is, on this issue, very, very resistant to the idea of doing a deal, even a deal that would solve the nuclear problem." So, is the administration serious about diplomacy?
Leverett's view is consistent with one stated by Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, in a NY Times op-ed on April 6. Zarif made the point that "A solution to the situation is possible and eminently within reach." And, he emphasized that Iran has complied with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, indeed, would like to see it strengthened and enhanced. Further, "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons."
Further, he points out that Iran wants "stability" and "never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation - as United Nations reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years." The article also highlights how Iran has gone above and beyond the inspection requirements of the UN. Zarif concludes saying: "Finding solutions requires political will and a readiness to engage in serious negotiations. Iran is ready."
Not only is the President's rhetoric and record a problem for diplomacy, but so is modern U.S. history with Iran. In 1953, the Eisenhower administration engaged in public rhetorical attacks on Iran when they nationalized the oil industry, seizing a British oil company. The CIA overthrew the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh working with Great Britain and installed the Shah of Iran.
The most recent Democratic Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, excused the U.S. overthrow of Mossadegh saying in 2000 that: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."
Just as Albright excused the overthrow by a Republican president, there is essential silence by the Democrats in response to the Bush administration's talk of bombing Iran. While some Democrats have opposed the use of nuclear weapons, they have not opposed the idea of attacking Iran with non-nuclear weapons. Senator Hilary Clinton has said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House describes Iran as "the greatest threat to Israel's right to exist." Senator John Kerry, told Meet the Press on April 10, that he favored keeping the option of air strikes against Iran on the table. The strongest opposition to attacking Iran has come from Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) who notes there is little resistance in Congress and it appears we have not learned anything from three years in Iraq.
Hersh reports on a Member of the House of Representatives describing meetings where carefully selected Members have been briefed on Iran, he writes: "'There's no pressure from Congress' not to take military action, the House member added. 'The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.' Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, 'The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.'"
If diplomacy means gaining international support then the Bush administration has problems. There is opposition to an attack on Iran around the world. The U.S. may only have Israel as a serious ally in a military attack. The Washington Post reports that the Russians and Chinese won't even go along with economic sanctions. And in the recent security council resolution Russia and China edited out the threat of sanctions if Iran did not stop its enrichment of uranium. Further, Saudi Arabia has asked Russia to use its position on the Security Council to prevent a U.S. military attack on Iran. Even Great Britain is unlikely to participate in an Iran attack.
The consensus seems to be that while many would prefer Iran not to have a nuclear weapon, Iran is certainly not an immediate threat to the U.S. or surrounding countries. U.S. intelligence agencies and Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector have reported that Iran having a bomb is five to ten years away. As author Mike Whitney point out, "IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei has repeatedly stated that his team of inspectors, who've had the opportunity to "go anywhere and see anything," has found nothing to corroborate the assertions of the US or Israel."
Further, would Iran use a nuclear weapon offensively? Iran does not have any modern history of attacking other countries. Certainly, with Israel having 250 nuclear bombs and the U.S. with its large arsenal, would leave Iran to recognize that the use of the bomb would result in the destruction of Iran. A nuclear response would be something that Israel and the U.S. could easily justify and the world would accept.
Hersh is Not Alone Reporting on Iran Attack Planning, Including Nuclear Weapons
Sy Hersh is not the only one reporting on military plans being developed. According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the American Conservative, last year Vice President Cheney ordered the Strategic Command to develop plans to attack Iran if there is another 9-11 type attack on the United States. These plans include a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
Giraldi points out that within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Giraldi reports that several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
Further, the Washington Post also wrote that intense planning was underway including the nuclear option in an article published on April 9. The Post reports that while U.S. officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course they privately are increasingly skeptical that it will succeed. And, that last month the White House's new National Security Strategy labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. They described two levels of air attack--a quick and limited strike against nuclear-related facilities and a more ambitious campaign of bombing and cruise missiles leveling targets well beyond nuclear facilities. The White House is also considering 'nuclear penetrator munitions' to take out buried labs.
Hersh describes specific plans using tactical nuclear weapons stating:
"One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."
Hersh describes the nuclear option as creating "serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," with "some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran-without success . . ." Further "some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue" and "the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran."
Hersh also comments that the Defense Science board, chaired by William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration, which has urged the development of tactical nuclear weapons. Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in January 2001. Hersh states: "The panel's report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability 'for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.' Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security."
While seeking to stop Iran, the Bush Administration has made upgrading US nuclear weapons a key goal. The Los Angles Times reported on April 6 that "The administration . . . wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it claims will no longer be reliable or safe." The last nuclear bomb was built in 1989 but the Bush plan also "calls for a modern complex to design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready in less than four years, allowing the nation to respond to changing military requirements."
Thus, the Bush administration is moving to upgrade U.S. nuclear weapons, develop tactical nuclear weapons and even use nuclear weapons against Iran--in an effort to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The irony (or is it irany) of this hypocrisy will not be lost on the world and it is likely to further weaken U.S. alliances around the world.
Who to Trust Hersh or Bush?
So, back to the original question--who to believe the commander in chief or the investigative reporter. Sy Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who gained international fame for exposing the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and more recently the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
President Bush has most recently been tied to the leak of a CIA agents name in retaliation of her husband's report criticizing claims related to nuclear weapons in Iraq. He has been widely criticized for exaggerating the threat of Iraq regarding weapons of mass destruction. And he has claimed that the United States does not torture people it detains, when photographs and other evidence indicate that it does.
Right now the U.S. public is divided on attacking Iran. The Los Angeles Times reports that 48% would support an attack if Iran continued to develop nuclear weapons, while 40% opposed. In January a Times/Bloomberg poll found 57% support so support is dropping. But, there is loss of trust in Bush, with 54% saying they do not expect him to make the right decision. Bloomberg reports that only 37% of Americans believe Bush when he claims progress is being made on Iraq. And, according to a Washington Post poll, 55% of Americans do not find Bush to be "honest and trustworthy." So, Bush has a lot to overcome to convince the public to believe him on Iraq.
Hersh obviously struck a cord deep enough that the president felt he had to respond. Hopefully, shining the light on the plans to go to war will result in a more informed electorate and opposition in Congress that stops the expansion of the war in the Middle East.
Join CounterPunch, Democracy Rising, Gold Star Families for Peace, CODE PINK, Progressive Democrats of America, Democrats.com, Traprock Peace Center, Global Exchange, Velvet Revolution, Truthout, OpEdNews, Backbone Campaign, Consumers For Peace, Campus Antiwar Network, and The Young Turks in signing a petition to Bush and Cheney opposing the launching of a war of aggression against Iran. The petition, with all the signatures and comments you add, will be delivered to the White House by Cindy Sheehan and many other activists.http://www.dontattackiran.org
Help build a voting bloc to prevent future wars of aggression--sign the voters pledge at www.VotersForPeace.US.
Kevin Zeese is director of Democracy Rising (DemocracyRising.US) and a candidate for U.S. Senate (see ZeeseForSeate.org)
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment