Have I got here before a zionist?

Will no 'ant-semite' slur immeadiately follow this article?

Why, that is almost slack ... too many fingers in too many dykes no doubt!

To tell you the truth, we are running a bit of a sweepstake here, at "conspiracynutter.inc", to see how long this article stands ...

But, if you can read me under the "hiden" graphic, future readers, you might try looking further back than this war ...

... Anthony C. Suttons detailed work on the financing of the bolsheviks ("wall street and the bolshevik revolution") and of adolf hitler ("wall street and the rise of hitler") indicate the depth and measure of DECIET with which certain jewish supremacist cult worshippers make WAR - and the level of power they have accrued themselves in terms of money and political clout (just see who you can't criticise with ensueing hysteria).

Shame really, when practiced from a spiritual point of veiw, judaism is a very touching and gentle phenomena. When idily used to drap the bare hide of scoundrals, it becomes just another face of judeochristian/imperialist oppression and sky ghost nonsense ... expecting us to believe that this god chap rides shotgun for ya, and that [you] - his conduit to the earthly plane, must be obeyed ...!!!

... looks like we have a winner ...

..yes, first place goes to has bara and his "shoot the messenger" tactic.

[hidden comment, type ?c=all after the url]

Gregs article is certainly worthy/representative of him Henk, but your article is equally worthy/representative of you - mores the pity.

"certain jewish supremacist cult worshippers"... like to name them? What does this cult worship? Hint: goebbels might be able to help you out here.

And how Henk ever managed to earn a living as a journalist baffles me, given the garbled nature of his writing.

... a late entry smashes all records and goes straight for the 'he's a nazi' shoot the messanger variation ...

I don't know, sceptic, if you want names really ... do you?

The two books I mention, alongside Carol Quigleys 'Tragity & hope', make excellent reading, can be found on am**z**n - or even in pdf form if you know about how to search for shared files -, are scholarly to the point of dryness and contain all the pertinant facts to your enquiry.

[hint: the owners of the private banking corporation and the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (nb the uppercase letters are the only distinguishing differences between this corporation and what everybody usually thinks of as the country) have very ... er ... german sounding names, although they not lutherans]

ps I am a vegetarian also ... the same as hitler ... spooky!

...and go back to spreading the word that the world is being run by 12 foot lizards...

Ze haf German sounding names! Zey run the corporations which run America! This is not a delusion! Ze j*ws are runnnig the world again! Achtung!

... now you are just trying to infer that I have a screw loose, which is a way of digressing from the pertinant facts, which is fully expected of you and the best thing you can do to maintain [your] position vis a vis, the notion that it is beyond the pale to reason that certain jewish supremacist cults (it's called zionism) have an agenda - or even exist.

If you might actually try following the available resources a little deeper you will realise: a] zionism exists b] it was formed by rich humans calling themselves jews c] they have an agenda that is utterly racist d] they operate in the open and you can veiw their handywork by looking at modern Palestine.

That you want to attempt the usual asinine wiggle away from that which is self evident and unfolding is your business. That you would envoke such lurid accusations and insults towards those who would disagree with you is dull.

Zionists, jesuits, the orange order, jihadists the bjp etc etc - everyone of the fuckers claiming temperal rights and power on the back of big daddy and his obscure words whispered into the ears of psychopaths - and you want to deny their existance already!?!

Geeee, what you gotta do in this world to get people to see the naked lunch on the end of their forks?

Lots of very nasty things get done in the name of religion, and we'd be a lot better off without it. Leaping from there to say that America is run by Zionists, fundamentalist Christians, or anything else is another matter. Do you really think that a few Zionists in relatively junior positions are going to be able to manipulate Congress, the Senate, the CIA, the State Department, the Vice President, and the President, to name but a few? Oh, and the press, and the tv, and ...? Because if you do, then I will say you're loopy.

Labor Day
September 6, 2004
Dual Loyalties
The Bush Neocons and Israel

By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA political analysts

[Editors' Note: This is a slightly revised version of essay that originally appeared in CounterPunch in December 2002. The piece also appeared in The Politics of Anti-Semitism.]

Since the long-forgotten days when the State Department's Middle East policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for tilting toward Israel. From the 1920s roughly to 1990, Arabists, who had a personal history and an educational background in the Arab world and were accused by supporters of Israel of being totally biased toward Arab interests, held sway at the State Department and, despite having limited power in the policymaking circles of any administration, helped maintain some semblance of U.S. balance by keeping policy from tipping over totally toward Israel. But Arabists have been steadily replaced by their exact opposites, what some observers are calling Israelists, and policymaking circles throughout government now no longer even make a pretense of exhibiting balance between Israeli and Arab, particularly Palestinian, interests.

In the Clinton administration, the three most senior State Department officials dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all partisans of Israel to one degree or another. All had lived at least for brief periods in Israel and maintained ties with Israel while in office, occasionally vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in Washington before taking a position in the Clinton administration from which he helped make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has headed the pro-Israel think tank since leaving government.

The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president's office.

We still tiptoe around putting a name to this phenomenon. We write articles about the neo-conservatives' agenda on U.S.-Israeli relations and imply that in the neo-con universe there is little light between the two countries. We talk openly about the Israeli bias in the U.S. media. We make wry jokes about Congress being "Israeli-occupied territory." Jason Vest in The Nation magazine reported forthrightly that some of the think tanks that hold sway over Bush administration thinking see no difference between U.S. and Israeli national security interests. But we never pronounce the particular words that best describe the real meaning of those observations and wry remarks. It's time, however, that we say the words out loud and deal with what they really signify.

Dual loyalties. The issue we are dealing with in the Bush administration is dual loyalties -- the double allegiance of those myriad officials at high and middle levels who cannot distinguish U.S. interests from Israeli interests, who baldly promote the supposed identity of interests between the United States and Israel, who spent their early careers giving policy advice to right-wing Israeli governments and now give the identical advice to a right-wing U.S. government, and who, one suspects, are so wrapped up in their concern for the fate of Israel that they honestly do not know whether their own passion about advancing the U.S. imperium is motivated primarily by America-first patriotism or is governed first and foremost by a desire to secure Israel's safety and predominance in the Middle East through the advancement of the U.S. imperium.

"Dual loyalties" has always been one of those red flags posted around the subject of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces horrified gasps and rapid heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish disloyalty to the United States and the common assumption that anyone who would speak such a canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish friend who is not bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject of dual loyalties arises.)

Although much has been written about the neo-cons who dot the Bush administration, the treatment of the their ties to Israel has generally been very gingerly. Although much has come to light recently about the fact that ridding Iraq both of its leader and of its weapons inventory has been on the neo-con agenda since long before there was a Bush administration, little has been said about the link between this goal and the neo-cons' overriding desire to provide greater security for Israel. But an examination of the cast of characters in Bush administration policymaking circles reveals a startlingly pervasive network of pro-Israel activists, and an examination of the neo-cons' voluminous written record shows that Israel comes up constantly as a neo-con reference point, always mentioned with the United States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, always linked with the United States when national interests are at issue.

The Begats

First to the cast of characters. Beneath cabinet level, the list of pro-Israel neo-cons who are either policy functionaries themselves or advise policymakers from perches just on the edges of government reads like the old biblical "begats." Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leads the pack. He was a protégé of Richard Perle, who heads the prominent Pentagon advisory body, the Defense Policy Board. Many of today's neo-cons, including Perle, are the intellectual progeny of the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a strong defense hawk and one of Israel's most strident congressional supporters in the 1970s.

Wolfowitz in turn is the mentor of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff who was first a student of Wolfowitz and later a subordinate during the 1980s in both the State and the Defense Departments. Another Perle protégé is Douglas Feith, who is currently undersecretary of defense for policy, the department's number-three man, and has worked closely with Perle both as a lobbyist for Turkey and in co-authoring strategy papers for right-wing Israeli governments. Assistant Secretaries Peter Rodman and Dov Zackheim, old hands from the Reagan administration when the neo-cons first flourished, fill out the subcabinet ranks at Defense. At lower levels, the Israel and the Syria/Lebanon desk officers at Defense are imports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank spun off from the pro-Israel lobby organization, AIPAC.

Neo-cons have not made many inroads at the State Department, except for John Bolton, an American Enterprise Institute hawk and Israeli proponent who is said to have been forced on a reluctant Colin Powell as undersecretary for arms control. Bolton's special assistant is David Wurmser, who wrote and/or co-authored with Perle and Feith at least two strategy papers for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser, is a co-founder of the media-watch website MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), which is run by retired Israeli military and intelligence officers and specializes in translating and widely circulating Arab media and statements by Arab leaders. A recent investigation by the Guardian of London found that MEMRI's translations are skewed by being highly selective. Although it inevitably translates and circulates the most extreme of Arab statements, it ignores moderate Arab commentary and extremist Hebrew statements.

In the vice president's office, Cheney has established his own personal national security staff, run by aides known to be very pro-Israel. The deputy director of the staff, John Hannah, is a former fellow of the Israeli-oriented Washington Institute. On the National Security Council staff, the newly appointed director of Middle East affairs is Elliott Abrams, who came to prominence after pleading guilty to withholding information from Congress during the Iran-contra scandal (and was pardoned by President Bush the elder) and who has long been a vocal proponent of right-wing Israeli positions. Putting him in a key policymaking position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is like entrusting the henhouse to a fox.

Pro-Israel activists with close links to the administration are also busy in the information arena inside and outside government. The head of Radio Liberty, a Cold War propaganda holdover now converted to service in the "war on terror," is Thomas Dine, who was the very active head of AIPAC throughout most of the Reagan and the Bush-41 administrations. Elsewhere on the periphery, William Kristol, son of neo-con originals Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, is closely linked to the administration's pro-Israel coterie and serves as its cheerleader through the Rupert Murdoch-owned magazine that he edits, The Weekly Standard. Some of Bush's speechwriters -- including David Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" for Bush's state-of-the-union address but was forced to resign when his wife publicly bragged about his linguistic prowess -- have come from The Weekly Standard. Frank Gaffney, another Jackson and Perle protégé and Reagan administration defense official, puts his pro-Israel oar in from his think tank, the Center for Security Policy, and through frequent media appearances and regular columns in the Washington Times.

The incestuous nature of the proliferating boards and think tanks, whose membership lists are more or less identical and totally interchangeable, is frighteningly insidious. Several scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, including former Reagan UN ambassador and long-time supporter of the Israeli right wing Jeane Kirkpatrick, make their pro-Israel views known vocally from the sidelines and occupy positions on other boards. Probably the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Formed after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war specifically to bring Israel's security concerns to the attention of U.S. policymakers and concentrating also on broad defense issues, the extremely hawkish, right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place its members inside conservative U.S. administrations. Cheney, Bolton, and Feith were members until they entered the Bush administration. Several lower level JINSA functionaries are now working in the Defense Department. Perle is still a member, as are Kirkpatrick, former CIA director and leading Iraq-war hawk James Woolsey, and old-time rabid pro-Israel types like Eugene Rostow and Michael Ledeen. Both JINSA and Gaffney's Center for Security Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving Moskowitz, a right-wing American Zionist, California business magnate (his money comes from bingo parlors), and JINSA board member who has lavishly financed the establishment of several religious settlements in Arab East Jerusalem.

By Their Own Testimony

Most of the neo-cons now in government have left a long paper trail giving clear evidence of their fervently right-wing pro-Israel, and fervently anti-Palestinian, sentiments. Whether being pro-Israel, even pro right-wing Israel, constitutes having dual loyalties -- that is, a desire to further Israel's interests that equals or exceeds the desire to further U.S. interests -- is obviously not easy to determine, but the record gives some clues.

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the Middle East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and may be the principal reason for his near obsession with the effort, of which he is the primary spearhead, to dump Saddam Hussein, remake the Iraqi government in an American image, and then further redraw the Middle East map by accomplishing the same goals in Syria, Iran, and perhaps other countries. Profiles of Wolfowitz paint him as having two distinct aspects: one obessively bent on advancing U.S. dominance throughout the world, ruthless and uncompromising, seriously prepared to "end states," as he once put it, that support terrorism in any way, a velociraptor in the words of one former colleague cited in the Economist; the other a softer aspect, which shows him to be a soft-spoken political moralist, an ardent democrat, even a bleeding heart on social issues, and desirous for purely moral and humanitarian reasons of modernizing and democratizing the Islamic world.

But his interest in Israel always crops up. Even profiles that downplay his attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust, in which several of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source inside the administration has described him frankly as "over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel." Although this probably accurately describes most of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is guilty at least by association, he is actually more complex and nuanced than this. A recent New York Times Magazine profile by the Times' Bill Keller cites critics who say that "Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man" and notes that as a teenager Wolfowitz lived in Israel during his mathematician father's sabbatical semester there. His sister is married to an Israeli. Keller even somewhat reluctantly acknowledges the accuracy of one characterization of Wolfowitz as "Israel-centric." But Keller goes through considerable contortions to shun what he calls "the offensive suggestion of dual loyalty" and in the process makes one wonder if he is protesting too much. Keller concludes that Wolfowitz is less animated by the security of Israel than by the promise of a more moderate Islam. He cites as evidence Wolfowitz's admiration for Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel and also draws on a former Wolfowitz subordinate who says that "as a moral man, he might have found Israel the heart of the Middle East story. But as a policy maker, Turkey and the gulf and Egypt didn't loom any less large for him."

These remarks are revealing. Anyone not so fearful of broaching the issue of dual loyalties might at least have raised the suggestion that Wolfowitz's real concern may indeed be to ensure Israel's security. Otherwise, why do his overriding interests seem to be reinventing Anwar Sadats throughout the Middle East by transforming the Arab and Muslim worlds and thereby making life safer for Israel, and a passion for fighting a pre-emptive war against Iraq -- when there are critical areas totally apart from the Middle East and myriad other broad strategic issues that any deputy secretary of defense should be thinking about just as much? His current interest in Turkey, which is shared by the other neo-cons, some of whom have served as lobbyists for Turkey, seems also to be directed at securing Israel's place in the region; there seems little reason for particular interest in this moderate Islamic, non-Arab country, other than that it is a moderate Islamic but non-Arab neighbor of Israel. Furthermore, the notion suggested by the Wolfowitz subordinate that any moral man would obviously look to Israel as the "heart of the Middle East story" is itself an Israel-centered idea: the assumption that Israel is a moral state, always pursuing moral policies, and that any moral person would naturally attach himself to Israel automatically presumes that there is an identity of interests between the United States and Israel; only those who assume such a complete coincidence of interests accept the notion that Israel is, across the board, a moral state.

Others among the neo-con policymakers have been more direct and open in expressing their pro-Israel views. Douglas Feith has been the most prolific of the group, with a two-decade-long record of policy papers, many co-authored with Perle, propounding a strongly anti-Palestinian, pro-Likud view. He views the Palestinians as not constituting a legitimate national group, believes that the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel by right, and has long advocated that the U.S. abandon any mediating effort altogether and particularly foreswear the land-for-peace formula.

In 1996, Feith, Perle, and both David and Meyrav Wurmser were among the authors of a policy paper issued by an Israeli think tank and written for newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that urged Israel to make a "clean break" from pursuit of the peace process, particularly its land-for-peace aspects, which the authors regarded as a prescription for Israel's annihilation. Arabs must rather accept a "peace-for-peace" formula through unconditional acceptance of Israel's rights, including its territorial rights in the occupied territories. The paper advocated that Israel "engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism" by disengaging from economic and political dependence on the U.S. while maintaining a more "mature," self-reliant partnership with the U.S. not focused "narrowly on territorial disputes." Greater self-reliance would, these freelance policymakers told Netanyahu, give Israel "greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure [i.e., U.S. pressure] used against it in the past."

The paper advocated, even as far back as 1996, containment of the threat against Israel by working closely with -- guess who? -- Turkey, as well as with Jordan, apparently regarded as the only reliably moderate Arab regime. Jordan had become attractive for these strategists because it was at the time working with opposition elements in Iraq to reestablish a Hashemite monarchy there that would have been allied by blood lines and political leanings to the Hashemite throne in Jordan. The paper's authors saw the principal threat to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover now, from Iraq and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam Hussein would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria's regional ambitions. In what amounts to a prelude to the neo-cons' principal policy thrust in the Bush administration, the paper spoke frankly of Israel's interest in overturning the Iraqi leadership and replacing it with a malleable monarchy. Referring to Saddam Hussein's ouster as "an important Israeli strategic objective," the paper observed that "Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly" -- meaning give Israel unquestioned predominance in the region. The authors urged therefore that Israel support the Hashemites in their "efforts to redefine Iraq."

In a much longer policy document written at about the same time for the same Israeli think tank, David Wurmser repeatedly linked the U.S. and Israel when talking about national interests in the Middle East. The "battle to dominate and define Iraq," he wrote "is, by extension, the battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run," and "the United States and Israel" can fight this battle together. Repeated references to U.S. and Israeli strategic policy, pitted against a "Saudi-Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-PLO axis," and to strategic moves that establish a balance of power in which the United States and Israel are ascendant, in alliance with Turkey and Jordan, betray a thought process that cannot separate U.S. from Israeli interests.

Perle gave further impetus to this thrust when six years later, in September 2002, he gave a briefing for Pentagon officials that included a slide depicting a recommended strategic goal for the U.S. in the Middle East: all of Palestine as Israel, Jordan as Palestine, and Iraq as the Hashemite kingdom. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld seems to have taken this aboard, since he spoke at about the same time of the West Bank and Gaza as the "so-called occupied territories" -- effectively turning all of Palestine into Israel.

Elliott Abrams is another unabashed supporter of the Israeli right, now bringing his links with Israel into the service of U.S. policymaking on Palestinian-Israeli issues. The neo-con community is crowing about Abrams' appointment as Middle East director on the NSC staff (where this Iran-contra criminal has already been working since mid-2001, badly miscast as the director for, of all things, democracy and human rights). The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes has hailed his appointment as a decisive move that neatly cocks a snook at the pro-Palestinian wimps at the State Department. Accurately characterizing Abrams as "more pro-Israel, less solicitous of Palestinians" than the State Department and strongly opposed to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, Barnes gloats that the Abrams triumph signals that the White House will not cede control of Middle East policy to Colin Powell and the "foreign service bureaucrats." Abrams comes to the post after a year in which it had effectively been left vacant. His predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been serving concurrently as Bush's personal representative to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban and has devoted little time to the NSC job, but several attempts to appoint a successor early this year were vetoed by neo-con hawks who felt the appointees were not devoted enough to Israel.

Although Abrams has no particular Middle East expertise, he has managed to insert himself in the Middle East debate repeatedly over the years. He has a family interest in propounding a pro-Israel view; he is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, one of the original neo-cons and a long-time strident supporter of right-wing Israeli causes as editor of Commentary magazine, and Midge Decter, a frequent right-wing commentator. Abrams has written a good deal on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, opposing U.S. mediation and any effort to press for Israeli concessions. In an article published in advance of the 2000 elections, he propounded a rationale for a U.S. missile defense system, and a foreign policy agenda in general, geared almost entirely toward ensuring Israel's security. "It is a simple fact," he wrote, that the possession of missiles and weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and Iran vastly increases Israel's vulnerability, and this threat would be greatly diminished if the U.S. provided a missile shield and brought about the demise of Saddam Hussein. He concluded with a wholehearted assertion of the identity of U.S. and Israeli interests: "The next decade will present enormous opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East [by] boldly asserting our support of our friends" -- that is, of course, Israel. Many of the fundamental negotiating issues critical to Israel, he said, are also critical to U.S. policy in the region and "require the United States to defend its interests and allies" rather than giving in to Palestinian demands.

Neo-cons in the Henhouse

The neo-con strategy papers half a dozen years ago were dotted with concepts like "redefining Iraq," "redrawing the map of the Middle East," "nurturing alternatives to Arafat," all of which have in recent months become familiar parts of the Bush administration's diplomatic lingo. Objectives laid out in these papers as important strategic goals for Israel -- including the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the strategic transformation of the entire Middle East, the death of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, regime change wherever the U.S. and Israel don't happen to like the existing government, the abandonment of any effort to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace or even a narrower Palestinian-Israeli peace -- have now become, under the guidance of this group of pro-Israel neo-cons, important strategic goals for the United States. The enthusiasm with which senior administration officials like Bush himself, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have adopted strategic themes originally defined for Israel's guidance -- and did so in many cases well before September 11 and the so-called war on terror -- testifies to the persuasiveness of a neo-con philosophy focused narrowly on Israel and the pervasiveness of the network throughout policymaking councils.

Does all this add up to dual loyalties to Israel and the United States? Many would still contend indignantly that it does not, and that it is anti-Semitic to suggest such a thing. In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel's causes may be just that -- zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that still leaves room for primary loyalty to the United States -- and affection for Israel is not in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and emotion -- and, as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate attachment to any country -- have no place in foreign policy formulation, and it is mere hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to another country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment, and emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.

Zealotry can lead to extreme actions to sustain policies, as is apparently occurring in the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith Defense Department. People knowledgeable of the intelligence community have said, according to a recent article in The American Prospect, that the CIA is under tremendous pressure to produce intelligence more supportive of war with Iraq -- as one former CIA official put it, "to support policies that have already been adopted." Key Defense Department officials, including Feith, are said to be attempting to make the case for pre-emptive war by producing their own unverified intelligence. Wolfowitz betrayed his lack of concern for real evidence when, in answer to a recent question about where the evidence is for Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, he replied, "It's like the judge said about pornography. I can't define it, but I will know it when I see it."

Zealotry can also lead to a myopic focus on the wrong issues in a conflict or crisis, as is occurring among all Bush policymakers with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The administration's obsessive focus on deposing Yasir Arafat, a policy suggested by the neo-cons years before Bush came to office, is a dodge and a diversion that merely perpetuates the conflict by failing to address its real roots. Advocates of this policy fail or refuse to see that, however unappealing the Palestinian leadership, it is not the cause of the conflict, and "regime change" among the Palestinians will do nothing to end the violence. The administration's utter refusal to engage in any mediation process that might produce a stable, equitable peace, also a neo-con strategy based on the paranoid belief that any peace involving territorial compromise will spell the annihilation of Israel, will also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry produces blindness: the zealous effort to pursue Israel's right-wing agenda has blinded the dual loyalists in the administration to the true face of Israel as occupier, to any concern for justice or equity and any consideration that interests other than Israel's are involved, and indeed to any pragmatic consideration that continued unquestioning accommodation of Israel, far from bringing an end to violence, will actually lead to its tragic escalation and to increased terrorism against both the United States and Israel.

What does it matter, in the end, if these men split their loyalties between the United States and Israel? Apart from the evidence of the policy distortions that arise from zealotry, one need only ask whether it can be mere coincidence that those in the Bush administration who most strongly promote "regime change" in Iraq are also those who most strongly support the policies of the Israeli right wing. And would it bother most Americans to know that the United States is planning a war against Iraq for the benefit of Israel? Can it be mere coincidence, for example, that Vice President Cheney, now the leading senior-level proponent of war with Iraq, repudiated just this option for all the right reasons in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991? He was defense secretary at the time, and in an interview with the New York Times on April 13, 1991, he said:

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you will do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists. How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

Since Cheney clearly changed his mind between 1991 and today, is it not legitimate to ask why, and whether Israel might have a greater influence over U.S. foreign policy now than it had in 1991? After all, notwithstanding his wisdom in rejecting an expansion of the war on Iraq a decade ago, Cheney was just as interested in promoting U.S. imperialism and was at that same moment in the early 1990s outlining a plan for world domination by the United States, one that did not include conquering Iraq at any point along the way. The only new ingredient in the mix today that is inducing Cheney to begin the march to U.S. world domination by conquering Iraq is the presence in the Bush-Cheney administration of a bevy of aggressive right-wing neo-con hawks who have long backed the Jewish fundamentalists of Israel's own right wing and who have been advocating some move on Iraq for at least the last half dozen years.

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But the style is the same."

The dual loyalists in the Bush administration have given added impetus to the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days. These crazed fundamentalists see Israel's domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel's domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other's policies in administration councils. The Armageddon that Christian Zionists seem to be actively promoting and that Israeli loyalists inside the administration have tactically allied themselves with raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war. The neo-cons seem unconcerned, and Bush's occasional pro forma remonstrations against blaming all Islam for the sins of Islamic extremists do nothing to make this prospect less likely.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All of these factors -- the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian fundamentalists, and oil -- probably factor in more or less equally to the administration's calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli situation and on war with Iraq. But the most critical factor directing U.S. policymaking is the group of Israeli loyalists: neither Christian fundamentalist support for Israel nor oil calculations would carry the weight in administration councils that they do without the pivotal input of those loyalists, who clearly know how to play to the Christian fanatics and undoubtedly also know that their own and Israel's bread is buttered by the oil interests of people like Bush and Cheney. This is where loyalty to Israel by government officials colors and influences U.S. policymaking in ways that are extremely dangerous.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, CounterPunch's new history of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kathleen Christison, a former CIA political analyst, is the author of Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy and Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story.

They can be reached at:  christison@counterpunch.org.

 http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09062004.html

It took a heckler at a peace conference to elucidate Greg Palast on the architects of the Iraq War?

Didn't Palast take the hint when Mayer Rothschild's wife said, "If my sons did not want wars, there would be none."

When Ariel Sharon said, "We, Jews control America, and the Americans know it" did that not give him a clue?

"As long as the Jews remain anonymous, they are secure. The moment they lose their anonymity, the racial problem became acute and required a suitable solution. We certainly do not hold the Jews solely to blame for the German spiritual and economic catastrophe. We all know the other causes that led to the decline of our people. However, we have the courage to recognize their role in the process, and to name them by name.

It was difficult for a time to persuade the people of this, for public opinion was entirely in Jewish hands."

"American public opinion, influenced by the Jews, is trying to interfere to an unacceptable degree in German domestic politics. They think that can use methods against Germany that are normally unheard of in relations between civilized nations.

We know very well who the instigators and beneficiaries are. They are mostly Jews, or people who are in their service and who are dependent on them.

For example, it is not surprising that the New York press attacks Germany so strongly. Over two million Jews live in New York, and economic life there is entirely under their control."

"Given the influence of the Jews on parts of American public opinion, we again stress the shortsightedness and uselessness of such methods, and ask the world this question: "What does America really want?""


Any guesses?

Let's be clear, this isn't about "the Jews". It's about a relatively tiny minority, who are proponents of the violent, supremacist Ideology known as Zionism, and these monsters are the most Extreme of these radical Ideologues.

Right now, they occupy almost every SENIOR position within the Bush/PNAC Regime. These are their policies, and their agenda.

Um ... like President, Vice President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Speaker of the House, head of the CIA, head of the FBI - like those, you mean? Well, if not, then who are you talking about?

Foreign Office, November 2nd,1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour.

I don't know who said that (or in what context).

Tell me.

It's a good enough game to play for a while so;

... put names to these quotes:

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....

" [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs."

"[The Palestinians] would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

BIG HINT: they were all prime minister of a certain country at the time.

Well, they were actually from some of Goebbel's speeches [they can be found on line]. Alter the odd sentence here and there, and they could fit nicely into some of the postings here.

Your sources? try this:

 http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775

or for more fabrications:

 http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=766

Trawl through antisemitic sites and be careful lest you be besmirched with what you find.

... "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a leader in the field of pro-Israeli media watching. It has 55,000 paying members and thousands of active letter writers" ...

Trawl through zionist sites and be careful lest you be besmirched with what you find.

I'm not claiming that the link I've given you is an unbiased one, but at least it does give direct references which you can check out - got references for your quotes, have you?

So, technically, the answer is yes, right?

The Bush/PNAC Regime is filled with Zionist Extremists and "Israel-Firsters" (who, for some reason, don't actually want to LIVE in Israel ...), this is their agenda and their war, and the LIES that were fed to the American People and the world were fed to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans via the Israeli spies connected to AIPAC, who are currently under investigation (to which the Regime is going to extraordinary lengths to let them off the hook for their Treason and Espionage).

Dual Loyalties
 http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09062004.html

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"

Ehud Barak - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

***

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25,1982.

***

"[The Palestinians] would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

***

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

Golda Meir, in a statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June 1969.

***

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

October 3, 2001
(IAP News, AP, reuters, Kol Yisrael radio etc) Ariel Sharon

***

Do you want some quotes from the leading zionist Rabbis of the past 100 years? there is plenty of 'em, and they certainly stand out for there ... er ... originality of expression!?!

Out two anti-semite trolls are back in full swing... surprise surprise, their comments aren't hidden despite being inaccurate and disruptive. But hey they are 9/11 Truth loons and therefore untouchable on IMUK.

Get a fucking grip!

The anti-semite emergency swich has been thrown already, you are johnny come lately on that one.

'Loons and troll' does not an arguement make.

If you have anything of value to contribute, now is the time.

If you wish to trade insults and childish interpretations of complex phenomena, then - GO AWAY.

Stop confusing the voice of your ego - which suggests to you that anything you say, no matter how purile or brief, is marvellous and offers deep insight - with the voice of someone interested in establishing the absolute truth.

Half truths and convienient lies, when exposed, do not make the exposer a troll - it is the people who insist on these half truths and convienient lies to make their racist xenophobic and self serving case when faced with opposition, that are trolls.

Anti-semites are people who are against semites, yes?

Palestinians are by far more representative of semitic speaking people than khazars, having both the appropriate genetic and inhabitation history.

What you probably mean is 'anti-jewish', which is a bit daft, in that the position adopted by anti-zionists comes from a distinctly jewish experience - one that is informed by compassion and religious understanding not fanatical land grabbing secularists.

Your quote:
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25,1982.

The CAMERA site gives the full version of Sharon's speech:

"Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The author posited:

For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as "beasts walking on two legs".

However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was talking, not about "the Palestinians" but about terrorists who target children within Israel.

On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, “his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness.” According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

Kapeliouk neither recanted nor apologized for his deception.

Summary: Distortion by an Israeli critic of a Begin speech discussing terrorism and terrorists. "

Your quote:

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

October 3, 2001
(IAP News, AP, reuters, Kol Yisrael radio etc) Ariel Sharon

and

"Take for example, the following quote (found on anti-Israel Web sites) alleged to have been said by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Israeli parliament in October 2001 and reported on Kol Yisrael radio:

Don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.

The statement also appears as "I control America."

As it turns out, it is a hoax. Sharon never made either statement. Nor did Kol Yisrael ever report that he did.

Yet syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer wrote in her May 10, 2002 opinion column, which appeared in the Chicago Tribune, San Diego Tribune, and other newspapers:

In fact, it [American support for Israel’‘s actions] led Prime Minister Sharon to tell his Cabinet recently, "I control America."

Where did this quote originate and how did it enter the mainstream media?

CAMERA’s investigation found that it started with an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, IAP – the Islamic Association for Palestine, which attributed the quote to a report on “the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael.”

In fact, Kol Yisrael political correspondent Yoni Ben-Menachem, who reports on Cabinet meetings, confirmed to CAMERA that he never made such a broadcast and that Sharon never made such a statement. Nor was it reported by any other news service.

When confronted, Geyer told one editor that she relied on two anonymous Israeli sources for the quotation. She told a second editor the quote came from an alleged Ha’aretz article which she never produced and could not be found. A subsequent editor’s note by Geyer’s United Press Syndicate claimed the quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press (i.e. the IAP, which cited the bogus Kol Yisrael source) but could not be confirmed by independent sources. "


I hold no brief for CAMERA, nor do I know anything about it funding etc. But it does - unlike your assertions - seem to have done some research. Perhaps you can prove them wrong. And, after all, the onus of proof falls on him who makes the assertions or allegation.

I'm sure Zionist Rabbis have said a variety of things - as have various Christian preachers, mullah, ayatollahs and others. The current President of Iran does not set a good example.

But your original statement:
"... Anthony C. Suttons detailed work on the financing of the bolsheviks ("wall street and the bolshevik revolution") and of adolf hitler ("wall street and the rise of hitler") indicate the depth and measure of DECIET with which certain jewish supremacist cult worshippers make WAR - and the level of power they have accrued themselves in terms of money and political clout (just see who you can't criticise with ensueing hysteria)."

is still worthy of Goebbels.

Except this bullshit has been thrashed to death ad nauseum on this very site.

Anti-semite is the recognised teminology for a person who hates Jews despte any silly dilletante historical linguistics cum anthropology you may personally feel is relevant (which doesn't seem to add anything to the debate than pointless pedantry).

Like I said, if you want to counterargument just keep going through 'view all posts' and you'll find plenty- I have already learned you can't persuade these kinds of tosspots to take an objective look at anything.

Personally, I just wish this pair of idiots would fuck off.

of established admitted and documented liars

... does not count as serious rebutal.

***

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."

-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

***

As you say, following the cut and paste from the CAMERA website, you have no idea of the providence or the money behind CAMERA ... seems a little weird that you should rely on them to assert your case then.

But let us move on:

We could go on trading quote and counter quote, but let me quote your quote (enough with the quotes already):

"I'm sure Zionist Rabbis have said a variety of things - as have various Christian preachers, mullah, ayatollahs and others. The current President of Iran does not set a good example."

Precisely the point.

Any argument based on sky ghost nonsense is flawed from the start, add to it a manifest destiny based on genetic [racist] selection, throw in a bit of cash - and you have a fucked up situation. I'm sure I shouldn't like the philosophies that motivate some of the Palestinian fighters very much, but their case is based on the ethics of land and ownership, not 'level of agreeableness to western tastes'.

***

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

***

And it is interesting that yet again you seem to want to pin some 'nazi' tag to me on the basis of your fascination and knowledge of Goebbels.

How can me referencing [3] books - that you have never read probably - justify that?

Or do you perhaps mean to infer that that there are no jewish supremacists?

Perhaps the image of cult worship in relation to WAR and DECEIT is too strong for you?

If so, go and live in la la land where you will not be bothered by the ugly faces of human fascism and intolerance.

It seems amazing to me that in order to relilinquish oneself from the burdon of seeing the truth about certain and particular humans calling themselves jews/zionists, one also has to discount the power of money (so what if the privately owned federal reserve and its thousands of trillions of $$$ is majority owned and controled by the Rothschild empire), the right to historical research (and we won't go there - it's illegal) ...

... and instead accept the notion that just because they say things like 'jews are more important [paraphrasing the statement by the current - moderate[sic] - israeli prime minister]' and call us 'goy' [cattle], they don't really mean it.

***

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

***

What a very tired argument.

Can you not conceive of the concept of hatred of the sin and not the sinner?

Pedentry is necessary when a phrase does not mean what it implies.

When the jewish backgound of a person is exposed, then their criticism becomes 'self-hatred' - how lame is that?

I suppose there are those who hate jews out there, but there are also far more that don't but equally are appalled by the actions of those claiming to act for all jews.

And trolling through the view all posts section reveals that there are even more of your kind ... useless egos jutting in aggressively and without content.

No chance of you fucking off is there?

"so what if the privately owned federal reserve and its thousands of trillions of $$$ is majority owned and controled by the Rothschild empire"


Federal Reserve owned and controlled by the Rothschilds, eh ... [shh - they wouldn't be jews by any chance?]

It's not even privately owned: "The seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate"

 http://www.federalreserve.gov/

The board of governers DO NOT own the federal reserve.

Try harder. You are in denial.

You have tried ridicule.

Is it violent opposition yet?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Now find the word "Rothschild" on that page ...

but then perhaps you're privy to something that the rest of world isn't. Or you've been reading Rense. Either way, you're talking out of your jackside.

is that it does no damage to the Israeli regime. Israel PLC isn't a viable commercial proposition, it's heavily subsidised by your government. If we in the UK boycott Israel it's just going to raise your taxes and you wouldn't want that surely ?

There is a story, perhaps true, about an activist approaching an old lady buying South African oranges at the height of it's apartheid, asking her not to. She said ' No you are quite right, all those dirty black hands that will have touched them'.


Silly story, but it makes the point that boycotts mostly miss their targets. European sporting teams should stop playing Israelis and stop the pretense Israel is a European country. The US should stop writing them blank cheques. Until this happens, nothing will lessen the Israeli oppression.

The Israel chorus has drawn us off-topic again.

The important issue here is the prevailing Ideology of the men and groups involved in creating this War of Choice, and the nature of the current American Regime's relationship with another sovereign state, not the ethnic or religious identity of those who shape the relationship.

Dual Loyalties
 http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09062004.html

... so in answer to the original question (posed in the title of this thread) ...

... NO. The invasion of iraq was not a jewsih conspiracy, but a ZIONIST one.

Using the cover of religion, co-opting those faintly religious to their plans, using archaic and xenophobic ex-post-facto rationalisation with reference to the holy writings (present in all religious endeavors) and provoking the phenomena of anti-semitism, they advance.

It is yet another interesting coincidence (which is to say, it is not!) that the words used to discribe the feelings and expression of anti-jewishness - anti-semitism - come from the root of the ONLY thing that links the present majority of ashkanazi/khazar jews to the holy land.

Semitic languages are spoken by all the people of the middle east - although not as an exclusive mother tongue - including Hebrew, since it is the language of the people of the book, ie jews, christians and muslims, who have quite comfortably [mostly] lived side by side for the two millenia before zionism.

To ascribe the notion of semitism to jews alone is the perfect outcome for a virulently racist supremacist ideolgy, for it both annuls and denies the claim of connectedness of those other semitic people (the Palestinians) and instead presents a false exclusivity on the basis of pseudo classification.

It is not pedentry to point it out, but vital to the eventual neurosis free understanding of the spiritual dimensions of judeaism - which are distinct and wholly inconsistant with zionism.

Away and shit you pair of paranoid racist arseholes.

This site is for activists and this crap is an insult to activism.

Dream on.

Please, Plant, elaborate on how identifying just who was behind the illegal war of choice in Iraq is "anti-activist"? I've been one for decades, so I'm interested in how you think I am not what I am ...

Dual Loyalties
 http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09062004.html

You're not an activist, you are just a paranoid racist.

You aren't exposing anythig but your own grubby agenda.

Cutting and pasting shite from anti-semetic sites and conspiraloon garbage isn't activism. It's a distraction from real activism= an excuse to do nothing by focussing on some stupid theory that renders you impotent.

Go away!

1. anti-semetic

... boring boring boring ... have you really nothing of any worth to say?
That is the redtop newspaper equivalent of understanding.

2. conspiraloon

... v. boring indeed ... and completely uninspiring even, I imagine, to those desparate to avoid any further focus on important activist issues.

You reveal your inner impotence by the suggestion that you and yours are 'real activists' - there is always a few who think theirs is the original and best model - and yet fail to recognise the need for analysis before action.

What is it oh great macho activist that we should ALL be doing ... what is it that you do that we can follow?

Do you even understand what racism is? Because calling me a racist for highlighting the racism of others seems a little weird and incredably childish.

Perhaps we would all make more progress with relieving the sufferring of the Palestinians if we all bought some big boots & balaclavers, eschewed big words and generally looked down on any attempt at intellectual/information exchange ... cause it seems like to me that either you are incredably arrogant to crap on this debate empty handed as it were, or that you are too lazy to contributed enough words to back up your loud mouther opinions.

Why don't you go away ... go watch the wright stuff, or buy the sun or sommit.

If you truly believe this baseless paranoia and amatuer sleuthing constitues "intellectual/information exchange" and that constantly proposing a grand jewish conspiracy (and impossibility of Islamic teerorism) is not racism and fail to notice that no credible experts have presented a case for 9/11 Turth (no named culprits, no cofessions, no eyewitness statements corroborated with incontestable forensics, no evidence, no professional endorsemnt from the global community) than I fail to see there is anything anyone could say to you to dissuade you from your crackpot religion.

Analysis requires an objective approach and the serious testing of hypotheses. No-one here is doing that, so stop kidding yourself on that you are doing anything other than seeing demons in tea leaves.

Go get active in something you care about and that can actually be proven. But I suspect you won't, it's easier to be an "infowarrior" (see: armchair general).

You care about Palestine? DO something about and come back and tell us all about your ACTIONS. How about it?

I'm not holding my breath.

Well, it seems like you have your opinions of me, and I have my opinions of you.

You want me to become 'more like you' and be active in the way that you see it to be effective?

Why don't you tell US what you have done that gives you the right[sic] to claim a 'purer' form of activism?

If you actually manage to avoid just mindless distruction and chanting, how is that? Is it because you have analysed the situation (that you are active for/against) and decided upon a course of action?

"Analysis requires an objective approach and the serious testing of hypotheses"

So you have tested the hypothosis put here then have you? In your objective approach did you follow any links, read any books, dally with the idea that perhaps everything you know is wrong and a lie?

So yours is a profesional approach is it? Who pays you to reseach then?

Or is it that you rely on the word of other professionals - who pays them?

Truth is, you don't really have an argument to present, but you feel the necessity to act out against any presented here that you don't like without actually bringing anything but insults to the table. Is that serious research?

I don't think you understand the nature of racism.

In all the living world, only humans have this pseudo-classification added to it - race. No other species is thus divided. Why?

Is it because, in order to justify the oppression, exploitation and conquering of these other lands peopled by those different from us, our culture had to invent a sound moral reason to allow it to continue its christain duty[sic] to rule the rest?

Then what is so different to he zionist position that the jew is special and chosen?

Nobody is expounding the idea that islamic terrorism is impossible - why claim it?

My actions vis a vis Palestine consist of boycott and spreading the info about how israeli policies ensure that Palestinian goods are sparsley traded and even stolen by israeli bussiness men. It consists of reading and writing, marching and demonstrating, thinking and contemplating the nature of truth and humans patchy relationship with it.

What do you want?

A revolutionary on a white horse, someone that will lead you and guide you? Are you looking for that ephemeral father figure in your politics?

It aint me.

Ask yourself why you hate the concept of intellectuals or 'ordinary' people exchanging infomation?

Do you know what model agnosticism is?

I am a model agnostic ... I don't beleive anything, thus (I hope) am free to speculate upon the data. You would deny the data because you don't like the implications. Who is the crackpot here?

Why don't you come back here and tell us about what you do and upon what basis?

"Where the Torah tells about the creation of the first human being, the most prominent Jewish commentator, Rashi, explains that the earth from which Adam was formed was not taken from one spot but from various parts of the globe. Thus human dignity does not depend on the place of one's birth nor is it limited to one region. The greatness or worth of a person is not measured by his or her outward appearance. Jews believe that Adam was created in G-d's image and that he is the common ancestor of all mankind. At this stage in human history, there is no room for privileged people who can do with others as they please. Human life is sacred and human rights are not to be denied by those who would subvert them for "national security" or for any other reason. No one knows this better than the Jews, who have been second-class citizens so often and for so long. Zionists, however, may differ. This is understandable because Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable: If one is a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist; if one is a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew.

To begin with, a few definitions: Who is a Jew? A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, Jewish religious law. This definition alone excludes racism. Judaism does not seek converts, but those who do convert are accepted on a basis of equality. Let us see how far this goes. Some of the most eminent and respected rabbis were converts to Judaism. Jewish parents throughout the world bless their children every Sabbath and holiday eve, and they have done it in the same way for millennia. If the children are girls, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah." Not one of these matriarchs was born a Jewess; they were all converts to Judaism. If the children are boys, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Ephraim and Manasseh." The mother of these two was an Egyptian woman who became Jewish and had married Joseph. Moses himself, the greatest Jew who ever lived, married a Midianite woman who became Jewish. Finally, the Tanach, the holy writings of the Jew, contains the book of Ruth. This woman was not only not Jewish by birth, but she came from the Moabites, traditional enemies of the Jewish people. This book describes Ruth's conversion to Judaism and is read annually on the holiday commemorating the giving of the Torah, the "Law," i.e. the Pentateuch. At its very end, the book of Ruth traces the ancestry of King David, the greatest king the Jews ever had, to Ruth, his great-grandmother.

Apart from the Zionists, the only ones who consistently considered the Jews a race were the Nazis. And they only served to prove the stupidity and irrationality of racism. There was no way to prove racially whether a Mrs. Muller or a Mr. Meyer were Jews or Aryans. The only way to decide whether a person was Jewish was to trace the religious affiliation of the parents or grandparents. So much for the this racial nonsense.

Racial pride has been the downfall of those Jews in the past who were blinded by their own narrow-minded chauvinism. This brings us to a second definition. Is there a Jewish people? If so, what is its mission? Let us make this completely clear: The Jewish nation was not born or reconstituted a generation ago by some Zionist politicians. The Jewish nation was born on Mount Sinai when the Jews by their response, "let us do and let us hear," adopted the Torah given to them by G-d for all future generations. `This day you become a people," though valid still today, was spoken thousands of years ago.

According to Jewish tradition, there are seven Noahide laws which apply to all human beings. Then there are the Ten Commandments which form basic standard of morality and conduct for adherents of all monotheistic religions. In addition to these, there are 613 laws obligatory for Jews, and every Jew has to observe those which are applicable to him or her according to Halacha. It is the carrying out of these mitzvoth, "commandments," which constitutes the essence of being Jewish, and therefore of the Jewish people and their covenant with G-d.

In what way are the Jews a "chosen people"? Every Jewish man anywhere and at any time when called to the reading of the Torah says, "Who has chosen us from all the peoples and gave us His Torah." This is the way in which the Jews are chosen. The Jewish people are chosen not for domination over others, not for conquest or warfare, but to serve G-d and thus to serve mankind. "And the hands are the hands of Esau," has been traditionally interpreted to mean that while "the voice is Jacob's," the hands- - symbolizing violence - are Esau's. Thus physical violence is not a tradition or a value of the Jews. The task for which the Jewish people were chosen is not to set an example of military superiority or technical achievements, but to seek perfection in moral behavior and spiritual purity. Of all the crimes of political Zionism, the worst and most basic, and which explains all its other misdeeds, is that from its beginning Zionism has sought to separate the Jewish people from their G-d, to render the divine covenant null and void, and to substitute a "modern" statehood and fraudulent sovereignty for the lofty ideals of the Jewish people."

read more:

 http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/greatgulf.cfm