Iran Letter The Media Ignored/Neo-Fascists Planted Iran "Badge" Propaganda
Various | 25.05.2006 23:24 | Repression | World
The media is well aware that Bush/PNAC don't care about any current issue emanating from Iran. They want a war, plain and simple. Why cover such issues, which would only hilight their hypocrisy ... ?
Zionism is at the root of all of this Madness.
Zionism is at the root of all of this Madness.
Bill Scher
The Rohani Letter
Today, NPR did what few mainstream media outlets have done in the past 10 days: tell the public about the recent diplomatic overture from Iran.
Oh last week, you probably heard about the May 8 letter from Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush, which Bush dismissed for not directly addressing the nuclear issue.
But most likely, you haven't heard about the other May 8 letter from Iran, this one from Hassan Rohani, a representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini (who, of course, outranks Ahmadinejad).
It was an open letter to Time magazine (additional Time coverage here and here).
In it, Rohani says, "A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race[,] wastes the scarce resources in the region [and accords] Iran no security dividends." He even argues that there are "Islamic" reasons "not [to] develop and use weapons of mass destruction."
He then lays out an eight-point framework for a negotiated solution, one of which is, "Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections."
The media have largely ignored this significant development. Besides Time, only New York Newsday (here and here) provided any notable coverage last week.
(I wrote about it on LiberalOasis last week. And for those of you subscribing to Air America Radio Premium, you can hear me discuss it on the May 15th edition of The Majority Report.)
Particularly egregious is that yesterday, the NY Times and W. Post (and probably others) reported on Ahmadinejad's snubbing of a forthcoming European proposal, yet did not report on Bush's snubbing of Rohani's proposal, let alone ever mention that there is a Rohani proposal. Such selective reporting is giving Americans a terribly distorted picture of how these negotiations are proceeding.
Of course, the mere fact that a top Iranian official is offering compromises does not mean that the Iranian government is a bunch of sweet guys, or that the proposal can be blindly taken at face value. But it does mean that there is a diplomatic opening worth pursuing.
Last week, Bush publicly dismissed Ahmadinejad's letter because it "didn't address" the nuclear issue. Fair enough. Yet when presented with a letter that did, Bush ignored that one too.
And it was all the easier for Bush to ignore it, when the vast majority of the mainstream media ignores it, and few American citizens know about it.
Now that NPR has shone fresh light on the Rohani proposal, perhaps other reporters might consider asking the White House directly: why isn't this offer worthy of direct talks with Iran?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-rohani-letter_b_21296.html
Neo-Cons planted the Iran story
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
In looking for the possible retraction by Amir Taheri, the author of the National Post story which clearly stated that Iranian religious minorities would be required to wear zonnars, or color-coded badges, I shouldn't have been surprized to discover that Taheri is part of an exclusive group of neo-cons responsible for past propaganda and mis-information campaigns.
Taheri's story has been debunked, yet in his press release of 22 May, he stands by his contention even though he has dubious or unattributable sources. Curiously, it is also an obvious attempt to mollify an editor for producing a story so widely off-the-mark as to embarrass the National Post. But the most interesting part of the release is not in the words but the organization from which it originates.
Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates, outwardly a New York based publicity firm which is, in fact, a neo-con think-tank, speakers bureau and a notorious ultra-right-wing propaganda organ with clear links to the Project for the New American Century.
Benador Associates, founded by Peruvian-born Eleana Benador, advertises a list of members that reads like the who's who of neo-con ideology: James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, Michael A. Ledeen; a key figure in Iran-Contra among other shady involvements; Richard Perle, dubbed "The Prince of Darkness" while serving in the Pentagon and, along with Ledeen, considered one of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq; and Richard Pipes, a former anti-Soviet crusader who brought Paul Wolfowitz into the neo-con fold and has handed over his virulent interventionist activism to his son, Daniel Pipes.
Taheri falls in with a specially identified few on the "A list" of speakers and writers from Benador separated by a comma from Richard Perle and amongst a short list of public figures who advocate immediate military action against Iran. Benador herself comes with a credential which cements her neo-con relationship, having founded Benador Associates after serving as director for Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, a hardline anti-Arab think-tank and foreign policy group.
Daniel Pipes, a signatory of PNAC, was more than a little vocal in his demand for the overthrow of mideast governments before 9/11. It has been said that if he had been heeded 9/11 would never have happened, but the US would have been at war with the entire Arab world.
Benador, established in early 2001, also represents Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who, in a 2000 book, Saddam's Bombmaker, stated that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Benador circulated Hamza until he was challenged on his claim when he admitted that Saddam did not have a nuclear bomb.
Benador was also heavily involved in arranging speaking engagements, media appearances and newspaper articles promoting the 10 Downing Street "dossier" entitled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation", a 16 page document which turned out to be a verbatim plagiarization of articles written by Ibrahim al-Marashi and Robert Rabil in 2002. Those articles had appeared in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, a publication soley owned by Dr. Barry Rubin, an American-born Israeli citizen. Rubin was one of Benador's speakers promoting war with Iraq.
At this point it is worth asking, why the selection of Canada's National Post to plant a deliberately misleading article intended to discredit Iran?
There are several reasons, but primary among them is the knowledge that the National Post has past affiliations with some of the same people in Benador's stable, most notably Richard Perle. Perle, a former co-chair of Hollinger International Inc. (Conrad Black's former company), had used the National Post from his Benador position, along with other Hollinger publications, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq to propagandize the evils of Saddam Hussein. The National Post, already a right-wing publication and controlled by the Israeli-friendly Asper brothers was more likely to view an article discrediting Iran in a favorable light. Amir Taheri has a history of publishing in the National Post's pages and is considered by that journal to be an expert.
What would not have worked would have been publishing the article initially in the Chicago Sun-Times or the Jerusalem Post. Benador and Taheri would have been acutely aware that any such article originating in the US or Israel would raise immediate suspicion.
Publishing in a Canadian newspaper also brought with it some air of respectability. Most people outside Canada are unaware that Canadian media ownership has undergone the same convergence and mass-market ownership as the US. The article therefore, would appear to have some credence if only because it came from a large Canadian publication operating in an unrestricted political environment with an assumed high level of editorial credibility.
The path of least resistance for such a story is the Asper brothers' CanWest-Global Communications Corp, owners of the National Post. CanWest-Global owns 50 percent of the Jerusalem Post plus media outlets in Australasia, Europe and Turkey. The mix of Canadian newspaper, Iranian ex-pat journalist (who lives in Europe) and outrageous legislation would be attractive to news outlets along the CanWest News Service wireline plus those who would acquire the story after publication.
In short, it was a neo-con's wet dream. It was a bonus that Canada's Stephen Harper decided to comment on the similarities of the legislation as reported by Taheri as something akin to Nazi Germany.
Except that Taheri's story was based not on the actual Iranian legislation but on unattributable and unverifiable sources. The convenience of confidential sources inside the Iranian government covered the fact that, without evidence to the contrary, Taheri's article remains a gross exaggeration written by a person who's overwhelming desire to see a complete regime change in Iran and whose affiliation is with the same group who lied to sell an invasion of Iraq colors his view.
Newspapers and media outlets around the world picked up the story and ran with it. To them, the research and verification had been done. They attributed the story to the National Post assuming that paper's editors had done due diligence.
What should have been evident to most other outlets was the lack of official information. Most countries would have intelligence at some level, particularly if there was to be marginalization of religious groups and particularly if any law was even close to resembling the acts of Nazi Germany. And it wouldn't have been difficult to find. It would be regarded as open source intelligence. There was none.
By the time newspapers in New York were carrying the story, Stephen Harper's comments were now a part of it, lending even more credence to its veracity.
So was it a deliberate neo-con plant?
You bet it was. It had one purpose: spread a rumor. Take a law, which is bad enough in its own right, and Hitlerize it. Get the world on side.
Too bad it backfired.
And what of the National Post? What does that make them?
How about a whore? If the National Post was an unbiased news organ and less inclined to unquestioningly sweep up anything with a right-wing bent, this story would never have been published. Instead, they have colluded with and been abused by their neo-con buddies, first with Iraq and now with Iran. If the National Post has lost credibility with this story, they have gotten exactly what they deserve.
And the story? An intentionally planted piece of mis-information from the neo-con propaganda machine.
And I will retract that if anyone can provide me incontrovertible proof to the contrary.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8838510.html
The Rohani Letter
Today, NPR did what few mainstream media outlets have done in the past 10 days: tell the public about the recent diplomatic overture from Iran.
Oh last week, you probably heard about the May 8 letter from Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush, which Bush dismissed for not directly addressing the nuclear issue.
But most likely, you haven't heard about the other May 8 letter from Iran, this one from Hassan Rohani, a representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini (who, of course, outranks Ahmadinejad).
It was an open letter to Time magazine (additional Time coverage here and here).
In it, Rohani says, "A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race[,] wastes the scarce resources in the region [and accords] Iran no security dividends." He even argues that there are "Islamic" reasons "not [to] develop and use weapons of mass destruction."
He then lays out an eight-point framework for a negotiated solution, one of which is, "Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections."
The media have largely ignored this significant development. Besides Time, only New York Newsday (here and here) provided any notable coverage last week.
(I wrote about it on LiberalOasis last week. And for those of you subscribing to Air America Radio Premium, you can hear me discuss it on the May 15th edition of The Majority Report.)
Particularly egregious is that yesterday, the NY Times and W. Post (and probably others) reported on Ahmadinejad's snubbing of a forthcoming European proposal, yet did not report on Bush's snubbing of Rohani's proposal, let alone ever mention that there is a Rohani proposal. Such selective reporting is giving Americans a terribly distorted picture of how these negotiations are proceeding.
Of course, the mere fact that a top Iranian official is offering compromises does not mean that the Iranian government is a bunch of sweet guys, or that the proposal can be blindly taken at face value. But it does mean that there is a diplomatic opening worth pursuing.
Last week, Bush publicly dismissed Ahmadinejad's letter because it "didn't address" the nuclear issue. Fair enough. Yet when presented with a letter that did, Bush ignored that one too.
And it was all the easier for Bush to ignore it, when the vast majority of the mainstream media ignores it, and few American citizens know about it.
Now that NPR has shone fresh light on the Rohani proposal, perhaps other reporters might consider asking the White House directly: why isn't this offer worthy of direct talks with Iran?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-rohani-letter_b_21296.html Neo-Cons planted the Iran story
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
In looking for the possible retraction by Amir Taheri, the author of the National Post story which clearly stated that Iranian religious minorities would be required to wear zonnars, or color-coded badges, I shouldn't have been surprized to discover that Taheri is part of an exclusive group of neo-cons responsible for past propaganda and mis-information campaigns.
Taheri's story has been debunked, yet in his press release of 22 May, he stands by his contention even though he has dubious or unattributable sources. Curiously, it is also an obvious attempt to mollify an editor for producing a story so widely off-the-mark as to embarrass the National Post. But the most interesting part of the release is not in the words but the organization from which it originates.
Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates, outwardly a New York based publicity firm which is, in fact, a neo-con think-tank, speakers bureau and a notorious ultra-right-wing propaganda organ with clear links to the Project for the New American Century.
Benador Associates, founded by Peruvian-born Eleana Benador, advertises a list of members that reads like the who's who of neo-con ideology: James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, Michael A. Ledeen; a key figure in Iran-Contra among other shady involvements; Richard Perle, dubbed "The Prince of Darkness" while serving in the Pentagon and, along with Ledeen, considered one of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq; and Richard Pipes, a former anti-Soviet crusader who brought Paul Wolfowitz into the neo-con fold and has handed over his virulent interventionist activism to his son, Daniel Pipes.
Taheri falls in with a specially identified few on the "A list" of speakers and writers from Benador separated by a comma from Richard Perle and amongst a short list of public figures who advocate immediate military action against Iran. Benador herself comes with a credential which cements her neo-con relationship, having founded Benador Associates after serving as director for Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, a hardline anti-Arab think-tank and foreign policy group.
Daniel Pipes, a signatory of PNAC, was more than a little vocal in his demand for the overthrow of mideast governments before 9/11. It has been said that if he had been heeded 9/11 would never have happened, but the US would have been at war with the entire Arab world.
Benador, established in early 2001, also represents Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who, in a 2000 book, Saddam's Bombmaker, stated that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Benador circulated Hamza until he was challenged on his claim when he admitted that Saddam did not have a nuclear bomb.
Benador was also heavily involved in arranging speaking engagements, media appearances and newspaper articles promoting the 10 Downing Street "dossier" entitled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation", a 16 page document which turned out to be a verbatim plagiarization of articles written by Ibrahim al-Marashi and Robert Rabil in 2002. Those articles had appeared in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, a publication soley owned by Dr. Barry Rubin, an American-born Israeli citizen. Rubin was one of Benador's speakers promoting war with Iraq.
At this point it is worth asking, why the selection of Canada's National Post to plant a deliberately misleading article intended to discredit Iran?
There are several reasons, but primary among them is the knowledge that the National Post has past affiliations with some of the same people in Benador's stable, most notably Richard Perle. Perle, a former co-chair of Hollinger International Inc. (Conrad Black's former company), had used the National Post from his Benador position, along with other Hollinger publications, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq to propagandize the evils of Saddam Hussein. The National Post, already a right-wing publication and controlled by the Israeli-friendly Asper brothers was more likely to view an article discrediting Iran in a favorable light. Amir Taheri has a history of publishing in the National Post's pages and is considered by that journal to be an expert.
What would not have worked would have been publishing the article initially in the Chicago Sun-Times or the Jerusalem Post. Benador and Taheri would have been acutely aware that any such article originating in the US or Israel would raise immediate suspicion.
Publishing in a Canadian newspaper also brought with it some air of respectability. Most people outside Canada are unaware that Canadian media ownership has undergone the same convergence and mass-market ownership as the US. The article therefore, would appear to have some credence if only because it came from a large Canadian publication operating in an unrestricted political environment with an assumed high level of editorial credibility.
The path of least resistance for such a story is the Asper brothers' CanWest-Global Communications Corp, owners of the National Post. CanWest-Global owns 50 percent of the Jerusalem Post plus media outlets in Australasia, Europe and Turkey. The mix of Canadian newspaper, Iranian ex-pat journalist (who lives in Europe) and outrageous legislation would be attractive to news outlets along the CanWest News Service wireline plus those who would acquire the story after publication.
In short, it was a neo-con's wet dream. It was a bonus that Canada's Stephen Harper decided to comment on the similarities of the legislation as reported by Taheri as something akin to Nazi Germany.
Except that Taheri's story was based not on the actual Iranian legislation but on unattributable and unverifiable sources. The convenience of confidential sources inside the Iranian government covered the fact that, without evidence to the contrary, Taheri's article remains a gross exaggeration written by a person who's overwhelming desire to see a complete regime change in Iran and whose affiliation is with the same group who lied to sell an invasion of Iraq colors his view.
Newspapers and media outlets around the world picked up the story and ran with it. To them, the research and verification had been done. They attributed the story to the National Post assuming that paper's editors had done due diligence.
What should have been evident to most other outlets was the lack of official information. Most countries would have intelligence at some level, particularly if there was to be marginalization of religious groups and particularly if any law was even close to resembling the acts of Nazi Germany. And it wouldn't have been difficult to find. It would be regarded as open source intelligence. There was none.
By the time newspapers in New York were carrying the story, Stephen Harper's comments were now a part of it, lending even more credence to its veracity.
So was it a deliberate neo-con plant?
You bet it was. It had one purpose: spread a rumor. Take a law, which is bad enough in its own right, and Hitlerize it. Get the world on side.
Too bad it backfired.
And what of the National Post? What does that make them?
How about a whore? If the National Post was an unbiased news organ and less inclined to unquestioningly sweep up anything with a right-wing bent, this story would never have been published. Instead, they have colluded with and been abused by their neo-con buddies, first with Iraq and now with Iran. If the National Post has lost credibility with this story, they have gotten exactly what they deserve.
And the story? An intentionally planted piece of mis-information from the neo-con propaganda machine.
And I will retract that if anyone can provide me incontrovertible proof to the contrary.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8838510.html
Various
Comments
Hide the following comment
Olmert, Bush agree on Iran deadline
26.05.2006 18:33
Ynet learns that Bush told Olmert US time limit for action to stop Iran's nuclear program fits Israel's own timetable, but American diplomats make it clear diplomacy will be given chance
White House blocks direct talks with Iran
25 May 2006 08:00
The White House on Wednesday ruled out previously authorised direct talks between Tehran and the United States ambassador in Baghdad, which were to have focused on the situation in Iraq. The move marks a hardening of the Bush administration's position, despite pressure from the international community to enter into direct dialogue with Iran.
Anyone who imagines that this administration wants a negotiated settlement with Iran at this point has to be severely delusional, particularly in light of the fact that Israeli news sources have confirmed that the US and Israel have agreed on a 'timetable' for Iran.
At what point will the US stop the diplomacy countdown clock from ticking and say, "time's UP"? Will it be in a week, a month, or will it be Bush's version of an "October Surprise", to rally support for his regime?
Silent partner
Fearful of inflaming opinion in the Middle East, George Bush won't want to discuss Ehud Olmert's unilateralist plans when he visits the White House.
May 26, 2006
Enough Is Enough
People have had it up to here with The Lobby
by Justin Raimondo
Perhaps Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) didn't quite realize what she was getting into when she voted against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, so-called, which would cut off all aid to the Palestinians, impose economic sanctions, and make it impossible for any entity, public or private, to operate in Palestine. Or maybe she's just brave.
A liberal Democrat, Rep.McCollum had always been a strong supporter of Israel, but on the issue of how to deal with the democratically elected Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority, she had real differences with what Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer call "the Lobby," in their pathbreaking and provocative study of "The Israel Lobby," published by Harvard University. In that work, the two professors have this to say about the power of the Lobby over the U.S. Congress:
"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that U.S. policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, 'you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.'"
What AIPAC had been giving out was that the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 was a litmus test – either you voted for it, or, as a local AIPAC representative, Amy Rotenberg, put it to Bill Harper, Rep. McCollum's chief of staff:
"On behalf of [myself] the Jewish community, AIPAC, and the voters of the Fourth District, Congresswoman McCollum's support for terrorists will not be tolerated."
Rep. McCollum's response to this smear has been exemplary – and indicative of a growing backlash against the Lobby. Her letter to AIPAC takes them out to the woodshed and gives them such a thrashing that the sound of it is reverberating throughout Washington. Averring that "During my nineteen years serving in elected office, including the past five years as a Member of Congress, never has my name and reputation been maligned or smeared as it was last week by a representative of AIPAC," McCollum goes on to say in a letter to AIPAC President Howard Kohr that "until I receive a formal, written apology from your organization I must inform you that AIPAC representatives are not welcome in my offices or for meetings with my staff."
Ouch!
That Rep. McCollum would take such a stance, shows, I think, that the power of the Lobby is waning. With an espionage investigation and upcoming trial of its chief Washington lobbyist at hand, the Walt-Mearsheimer controversy, and indications of a growing chasm between Washington and Tel Aviv over the latter's arms sales to China and covert activities in the U.S., the power of the Lobby is being openly challenged as never before. What Walt and Mearsheimer describe as the distortion of American foreign policy in favor of a foreign power – Israel – has now become a major topic of debate. And how that debate has been conducted shows that the future does not bode well for the Lobby…
The response to the Walt-Mearsheimer study, for example, underscores the very point made by the authors: that the motive and purpose of the Lobby is to squelch any debate about U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially as it concerns Israel, and to smear anyone who questions the centrality of the "special relationship" to that policy as an "anti-Semite." The viciousness and volume of the attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer amply illustrate the contention of the authors: but it is the brazenness of the smears, and their complete lack of any relationship to reality, that is particularly striking. The more moderate of these compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; Christopher Hitchens pronounced the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis "smelly," while the New York Sun ran a front page story reporting the "news" that David Duke agreed with it.
On the other hand, the two really memorable responses – because they stand out for their measured reasonableness in a controversy not given to thoughtfulness – came from Tony Judt, in the New York Times, and Michael Massing, in the New York Review of Books (which also reprints the McCollum letter). The contrast with the critics of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis could not be more telling. Not that Judt and Massing are uncritical. Massing, in particular, takes issue with much of what Walt and Mearsheimer have to say – particularly about the historical record of Israel's founding, and the moral questions involved. Yet he goes on to make a quite justified criticism when he avers that the documentation for the contention that the Lobby effectively crushes all opposition to Israel in government and the media is remarkably "thin." He then proceeds to do what Walt and Mearsheimer should have done: document the power and reach of the Lobby, particularly in Washington, D.C.
Massing shows how the Lobby, utilizing an effective combination of money, organization, and relentless insistence on absolute fealty to AIPAC's agenda, runs roughshod over anyone so foolish as to oppose it. Money is pumped into the coffers of its sock-puppets:
"AIPAC itself is not a political action committee. Rather, by assessing voting records and public statements, it provides information to such committees, which donate money to candidates; AIPAC helps them to decide who Israel's friends are according to AIPAC's criteria. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes political contributions, lists a total of thirty-six pro-Israel PACs, which together contributed $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Pro-Israel donors give many millions more. Over the last five years, for instance, Robert Asher, together with his various relatives (a common device used to maximize contributions), has donated $148,000, mostly in sums of $1,000 or $2,000 to individual candidates.
"A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views."
On the other hand, anyone who so much as questions a single part of its legislative program is targeted for political destruction:
"This year, pro-Israel forces are targeting Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. A Republican, Chafee has taken a number of positions that run counter to AIPAC's, including a vote against the Syria Accountability Act, which prepared the way for U.S. sanctions against that country. His challenger in the Republican primary, Stephen Laffey, has taken a strong pro-Israel position, and already he has received $5,000 (the maximum allowed) from the pro-Israel Washington Political Action Committee. In a recent report, the Forward noted that a Providence lawyer and pro-Israel activist named Norman Orodenker was preparing to send out a letter to other pro-Israel PACs praising Laffey's lifelong record of support for Israel."
After describing the Lobby's largely successful efforts to cow the Clinton administration, Massing illustrates a point made by Mearsheimer and Walt, that the Lobby serves as the de facto agent of a foreign power:
"Sometimes, the former Clinton official noted, the pressures on U.S. policy come from domestic groups, sometimes they come from Israel, and sometimes they come from Israel using its allies in the U.S. to influence administration policy. When Bibi Netanyahu was premier between 1996 and 1999, the former official recalls, 'he made the implicit threat that he could mobilize allies on the Hill or on the Christian right if President Clinton did not do what he wanted.' Later, at Camp David, 'Barak made a whole lot of calls when he felt he came under too much pressure – calls to allies in the Jewish community, and to politicians.'"
The success of the Lobby has been achieved by the careful application of pressure at key points: Congress, the executive branch, and the media. Yet the goals of the Lobby – succinctly summed up by Massing as "a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses; enfeebled Palestinians; and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States" – have never been supported by the American people. That is why such a tremendous lobbying effort is required, why so much money and political pressure is brought to bear on politicians to make sure they don't deviate one iota from the AIPAC party line. Because once someone – like, say Betty McCollum – gets away with a display of independence, it could turn into the equivalent of a run on a bank – there will be no stopping it.
Speaking of the Walt-Mearsheimer study, Tony Judt wrote: "I think this essay, by two 'realist' political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind."
And the wind appears to be rising…
Steering Into a Third Intifada
by Patrick J. Buchanan
When there is no solution, there is no problem, observed James Burnham, the former Trotskyite turned Cold War geostrategist.
Jonah Goldberg explains how the Israel lobby works
Neocon Goldberg Mocks Victims of Katrina, by William Hughes.
---
Un-PC Joke [Jonah Goldberg]
A reader sends this along. I've sanitized slightly to meet the exacting standards of the Corner:
A man arrived from Europe at Ben Gurion International Airport with 2 large bags. The customs agent opens the first bag to discover it is full with money in different currencies. The agent asks the passenger, "How did you get this money?"
The man says, "You will not believe it, but I traveled all over Europe, and went into public restrooms. Each time I saw a man peeing, I grabbed his organ and told him: "Donate money to Israel or I'll cut off your [kibbles and bits] off."
The customs agent is stunned and mumbles:" Well...that's a unique and very interesting story...and what do you have in the other bag?"
The man says, "You wouldn't believe how many people in Europe do not support Israel."
Various