James Stenzel Presents...
This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality

The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History
Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism
We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists, Spies & More
The Jew Watch Project's 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism
An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation
 

Eric MACK interviewed. In the following excerpts from Full Context's conversation with Mack, he and editor Karen Reedstrom discuss Ayn Rand, F. A. Hayek, David Kelley, the "Jewish connection," and libertarianism in academia,
Full Context, May 1997
"QUESTION: Given your Jewish background, can you comment on why Jews appear to have a higher propensity to get tangled up in Objectivism? MACK: I think the explanation has something to do with higher than average intelligence combined with higher than average combativeness. I suppose the alternative and less attractive explanation would have to do with transference or substitution of allegiance from one powerful female figure to another. It’s worth noting—partially as evidence against this second explanation—that individuals from Jewish backgrounds are also very disproportionately represented among libertarian theorists who do not come to these views through Rand. In fact, individuals from Jewish backgrounds are very disproportionately represented among major contemporary political theorists of all ideological stripes. If you find yourself at a meeting involving a dozen of the top social and political philosophers in the English-speaking world, typically five or six or seven of them will come from Jewish backgrounds. That suggests a more fine-tuned analysis of the barriers to further acceptance of libertarian thought—there are still too many Jews on the other side!"

Crean woos Jewish community,
ABC News (Australia), September 1, 2003
"Federal Opposition leader Simon Crean has told Jewish community leaders in Melbourne to ignore criticisms of Israel from his backbench and that his party's support for Israel remains strong. Mr Crean's speech last night to a function in St Kilda canvassed his and Labor's historical support for the Jewish state and the ongoing problems faced in achieving peace in the Middle East. In question time at the end of Mr Crean's speech, members of the audience criticised Labor's backbench, accusing several MPs of anti-semitism and racism. But Mr Crean rejected their concerns. "Too much attention is given to what certain backbenchers say," he said. "The commitment is there from me tonight, it will be stated over and over again, just as it has been over all of my active life in politics, of my support for the state of Israel." While dissenting speakers on Israel had not been allowed to speak during a recent parliamentary debate on the Middle East, audience members asked why Mr Crean allowed members of his party to make anti-Israeli statements. "You're always going to find people in your people in your party who disagree, but what you've got to look to is where the political party and its leadership stands and where its policy stands." But a backbencher says she will continue to speak in support of the Palestinian people and is concerned about Jewish attempts to muzzle her. Julia Irwin says her party succumbed to pressure last month to gag pro-Palestinian Labor members in the parliamentary debate. "There are certain people within the Jewish community that have put pressure on certain people within the Australian Labor Party. You've have two members of the backbench who've been virtually muzzled," she said."

Courting the Jewish vote may not be worth it,
By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz (Israel), September 1, 2003
"Even though the presidential elections in the United States are more than a year away, the race for the presidency is already in full swing. The Democratic candidates are traveling from state to state in an attempt to enlist support in advance of the primaries season, which begins in January, while President George W. Bush and his people are crisscrossing the country to raise contributions and to translate the president's popularity into sure votes at the ballot box in the 2004 elections. In this campaign, American Jews are traditionally considered a leading force, thanks to their considerable electoral weight in a number of key states and, more importantly, because of their strong presence on the lists of donors to the two parties. With President Bush in the midst of an effort, the first during his tenure, to advance the peace process in the Middle East, the question of the Jewish vote is again surfacing. In other words, how far will the president go in applying pressure to Israel to implement the road map, in light of the concern that this pressure will deter Jewish voters and donors? For the Republicans, this is not a matter of secondary importance. They would like to see the 2004 elections go down in the history of American politics as the turning point in which the Jews abandoned their traditional commitment to the Democratic Party and moved into the Republican ranks ... Bush's profound commitment to Israel and his strong stance against Palestinian terrorism have further strengthened Jewish support for him ... Even though quantitatively the Jews constitute only 2 percent of the American population, because of their relatively high rate of voter turnout, they account for 3 to 4 percent of the votes cast. The significance of this is that even if Bush surprises everyone and rakes in 40 percent of the Jewish votes, this would represent a total of 1 percent at most of the voting public. But as the electoral system for the president is by state, the question, as it emerged in 2002, is not how many Americans support the president, but their distribution by state. Jews carry significant weight in a number of states - New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Florida ... The direct electoral significance of the Jewish vote is, therefore, trivial, but there is also the financial side. The idea persists in American political circles, which has not been scientifically verified, that the Jews are responsible for no less than 50 to 60 percent of the campaign contributions to Democratic candidates and for approximately 30 percent of the contributions to the Republicans. In a race that is won by whoever succeeds in garnering more contributions, no one scorns the dollars of the Jews ... A political source close to the Democrats put it this way: "The question will be whether the president will be prepared to give up an international political achievement so as not to annoy some of his Jewish supporters." This sources says that were Bush in a situation in which he desperately needs international successes and the Jewish vote and contribution are, in any case, not decisive, then the Jewish vote will not be the deciding consideration. The Jews, however, did not forgive presidents who pressured Israel. Jimmy Carter, the only president who managed to bring about a peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state, holds the negative record for Jewish support - only 45 percent, as he was perceived as someone who applied pressure to Israel. Bush senior, who refused to give prime minister Yitzhak Shamir's government the guarantees for immigrant absorption because of the continuation of Jewish settlement in the territories, believed that American Jews did not support him because of this."

Sharon is a punk, says ambassador,
By Donald Macintyre, The Independent (UK), September 1, 2003
"The new French ambassador to Israel was involved in a diplomatic row yesterday after a report that he had called Israel a "paranoid country" and its Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, "a punk". Silvan Shalom, Israel's Foreign Minister, ordered its embassy in Paris to seek official "clarification" of the report in Yedioth Ahronoth. The newspaper's Paris correspondent, Boaz Bismout, said that Gerard Araud, who is yet to take up his post in Tel Aviv, made the remarks last week in a private conversation at a cocktail party for senior French diplomats given by Dominique de Villepin, the Foreign Minister. The report said M. Araud had "repeatedly" used the word "voyou" of Mr Sharon and had criticised the controversial fence being built to cut off the Palestinian territories. The dispute may partly focus on the meaning of voyou - a term sometimes used by parents of misbehaving children. Mr Bismout's report says the French-Hebrew dictionary defines the word as "punk, thug, hooligan, criminal, crook".

EPA lifts ban on selling PCB sites,
By Peter Eisler, USA Today, September 1, 2003
"The Bush administration has ended a 25-year-old ban on the sale of land polluted with PCBs. The ban was intended to prevent hundreds of polluted sites from being redeveloped in ways that spread the toxin or raise public health risks. The Environmental Protection Agency decided the ban was "an unnecessary barrier to redevelopment (and) may actually delay the clean-up of contaminated properties," according to an internal memo issued last month to advise agency staff of the change. About PCBs PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are an oily compound that was used widely until 1978 as a coolant and lubricant in electrical equipment because it had insulating qualities and was not flammable. PCBs are considered a probable cause of cancer in people and have been implicated in liver damage. They accumulate in fish and game that feed in contaminated areas and are passed on to people by eating the animals. It was PCB pollution that forced the abandonment 25 years ago of the Love Canal community in Niagara Falls, N.Y. The decision, already in effect, has not been made public. It is being treated as a "new interpretation" of existing law, according to the memo, which was obtained by USA TODAY. As such, no public comment was required. Some EPA staffers have raised concerns that the change could make it hard to track the sale of PCB sites and ensure that buyers don't spread contamination by developing property before it's cleaned up, EPA officials say. The decision also is likely to upset environmentalists and their congressional allies who contend that the administration is easing environmental rules to promote development. ... The new interpretation was developed under EPA general counsel Robert Fabricant, who issued the Aug. 14 memo informing EPA staff."

American Jews want more minorities in America as a legitimate expression of "multiculturalism." Meanwhile, Israel builds a literal WALL to keep Palestinians OUT of the "Jewish state."
Jews Want Open Doors For Refugees,
by E.B. Solomont, Baltimore Jewish Times, SEPTEMBER 03, 2003
"As it becomes even more difficult for foreigners to enter a United States wary of terrorism, several Jewish groups are urging immigration authorities to relax rules for asylum seekers. A coalition of 15 Jewish groups is raising a red flag about the practice of turning away asylum seekers who have used false documents. They argue that refugees fleeing persecution in their home countries are being denied the right to "due process" when they come to the United States. The groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, have identified 200 cases in which asylum seekers were arrested before their claims were processed. In some cases, the refugees were carrying fake passports. For their part, immigration authorities say asylum seekers are afforded due process — though it may be while they're already while in detention. Prosecuting asylum seekers in the United States poses a complicated problem. Using fraudulent documents is illegal, yet many refugees must use illegal means such as fake passports to escape dangerous situations in their home countries. The plight of asylum seekers touches a particular nerve in the Jewish community. During World War II, many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were saved by Raoul Wallenberg and others who provided them with forged papers and passports to get out of Germany. "Jews have been refugees themselves. We understand what this is about," said Amy Weiner, assistant legislative director at the AJCommittee. "This issue of prosecuting asylum seekers just because of false documents struck a nerve because during the Holocaust Jews resorted to the use of false documents to get into this country."

It's straight out of a George Orwell horror movie: the merging of Zionist Judeo Centered Mind Control and our growing Police State as one. Some have said the ADL teaching "ethical conduct" in the shadow of its mother Israel is like Jack the Ripper teaching dance lessons.
ADL Awarded U.S. Justice Department Grant To Expand Holocaust Training For Law Enforcement,
Anti-Defamation League, September 3, 2003
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been awarded a $100,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to support a joint ADL/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum training program for law enforcement professionals. The grant will enable ADL to expand the initiative to three additional cities in 2004. ADL's Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust brings law enforcement officers to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., for an intensive program that challenges them to examine their relationship with the public and to explore issues of personal responsibility and ethical conduct. Launched in 1998, the program has reached more than 14,000 officers in nine Washington, D.C. regional law enforcement agencies and is currently part of the mandatory training for all new FBI agents. "By witnessing firsthand the horrors of the Holocaust, police officers can better understand how their personal decisions can have life-or-death implications," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor."

The Rest of the Story,
by Mark Glenn, Information Clearinghouse, September 3, 2003
"[T]he racists who run our media and, by default, have assumed the power of doing our thinking for us have painted the religion of Islam as something organically inimical to Christianity and Christian culture. One in particular, and lately much discussed is a rabid Zionist and unapologetic racist by the name of Daniel Pipes (recently appointed by Bush to sit in on the Board of the United States Institute of Peace) has made his living and his fame over the period of the last decade with publications whose one and only purpose was to slur the peoples of the Middle East, all done principally for the reason of benefiting his co-religionists in the nation of Israel, whose racist ideology he seems to embrace without any detectable reserve. Were any other person foolish enough to voice only some of the opinions that Pipes has been bold enough to put down on paper, they would have been run out of the business, if not worse. The fact that he has endured and has in fact been rewarded for such sentiments speaks volumes about what is the double standard which exists in the United States today as pertains race and religious issues, particularly when they are applied to the situation involving Israel and the Middle East. For those who are still holding out on whether or not to accept the “conspiracy crackpot theory” that the US government and media have been captured and are dominated by racist ideologues who worship before the golden calf of Zionism, consider some of the following quotes which Pipes has authored, and allow reason to weigh in on the fact that this man has not endured the standard treatment that others receive when they voice sentiments that only appear to be racial in nature. "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene.” A quick translation of the above statement would read like this: Muslims are the worst of immigrants, who, smelling bad and having an unusual palate, are not welcome in white societies. The Golden Boy of the Zionist establishment has not limited his remarks to only these mentioned. In other writings he accuses Muslims of being parasites on society, being disproportionately engaged in criminal behavior, (most notably the crime of rape) of having unacceptable customs and seeking to take over the country. In short, this is the stuff of the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Replace the word “Muslim” with “black” or “nigger,” and the comparison is without equal. How then is it possible for such men to possess the amount of prestige and influence as he does, without being subject to the same backlash that would result from someone else engaging in such behavior? Quite simply, he is an example of the “politically correct” racist, meaning, a racist in favor of Israel and Judaism, and, unfortunately, he is only one of many who work diligently in keeping Americans from hearing the rest of the story. Only in a nation whose government, media, and culture have been hijacked by the interests of an ideology such as Zio-naziism could such statements have been made by an individual without any resulting serious repercussions. In a nation where someone is attacked in an overtly coordinated effort for merely speaking out against the verifiable history of Israeli violence and duplicity (or for that matter, simply making a film concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) the fact that individuals such as Daniel Pipes could get away with saying such things speaks volumes about what is the deplorable state of intellectual dishonesty in American society."

Where's the everywhere Jewish-enforced "separation of Church and state? The "separation of Synagogue and State" is, apparently, a non-issue.
In deference to Jewish justices, Supreme Court to delay opening,
By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Sept. 4, 2003
"The only pleas Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer will be hearing the first Monday of this October are their own, for atonement. For the first time in its 28-year tradition of opening its sessions on the first Monday of October, the Supreme Court will forego arguments in deference to its two Jewish judges, who will be observing Yom Kippur. Instead, the seven other judges will convene only to admit new attorneys to the highest court’s bar and to announce which cases they have decided to hear in the new season and which they have rejected. Arguments will begin only on Tuesday. This is not the first time the court has suspended arguments for the holiday. In 1995, the court suspended arguments when Yom Kippur fell on the first Wednesday of October ... This year’s announcement said the decision was made “so that Yom Kippur may be observed.” According to a clerk of Justice Felix Frankfurter in the mid-1940s, Louis Henkin, such deference was unimaginable in the time of Frankfurter, a Jewish justice who served on the court from 1939 to 1962. Jews were just happy to be employed by the court and would never have dreamed of asking for the day off, he said. “Things have changed. Religious demands have become more open, more insistent,” said Henkin, who is Sabbath observant and lives in New York."

Diplomatic disgrace, US Ambassador Charles Shapiro in hot water again,
VHeadline.com (Venezuela's Electronic News), Septembr 7, 2003
"President Hugo Chavez Frias has again criticized the visit by US Ambassador Charles Shapiro the National Electoral College (CNE) headquarters in Caracas as "flagrant interference in the domestic policies" of Venezuela as a sovereign and independent State. Speaking on his weekly radio/TV talk show 'Alo President,' Chavez Frias aimed sharp criticism directly at Shapiro saying "this is a sovereign country, Mr. Ambassador, you are obliged to respect this country." While drawing short of an outright declaration of the interfering US diplomatic busy-body as "persona non grata," Chavez Frias' intention was clearly one of resentment that Shapiro continues his campaign to undermine Venezuela's domestic policies ... "what he has done is clearly an interference by the United States in the domestic concerns of Venezuela." He says it is questionable that the CNE board should even have received the US Ambassador under such circumstances. "It really reeks very badly, smells very bad indeed that the Ambassador of the United States was indeed received there ... why not the Spanish or the Colombian Ambassadors ... why not convene all the ambassadors of the world and make an assembly out of it? What prerogative does Mr. Shapiro have to be received by the CNE, above all ahead of responsible national authorities ... and then to hold a press conference at CNE HQ ... this is a clear attitude of interference. But the blame does not just rest on Mr. Shapiro, the blame is fair and square on the CNE itself for allowing such audacity!"

Anti-Zionist Stirrings in America's Hinterlands,
by William Hughes, Media Monitors, Monday, September 08, 2003
"Question: Have the cumulative effects of the following: Israel's murderous attack, in 1967, on the USS Liberty, its 2003 killing of Rachel Corrie, its extraction, since 1948, of hundreds of billions of dollars from our treasury, its oppression of the Palestinian people, its creating more enemies for America in the Islamic World, and its manipulating President George W. Bush into the Iraq War, finally begun to stir anti-Zionist resentment in America's hinterlands' Columnist Ralph Peters thinks so. In a "NY Post" article, (09/03/03), Peters blasted Jonathan Pollard, the convicted Israeli spy, as "a traitor." The scummy Pollard was in a federal district court in Washington, DC, on Sept. 2nd, looking for a reduction in his life sentence. Peters didn't buy any of Pollard's lame excuses for betraying his native land, America, to an ungrateful Israel. Peters said, that Pollard, a genuine Zionist fantastic, "should have been executed for his crimes" against the American Republic. He stated, "No American may ever place the welfare of another state, or a religious group or ethnicity, above his or her obligation to our Constitution and our national security. No exceptions. None. Never." Now, this was all so very refreshing, especially since it came from the pages of a Rupert Murdock rag known for its shameless shilling for the Ariel Sharon Gang. However, it was Peters' reference to the fact that the egregious conduct of some of the Pentagon-connected Zionists wasn't playing well "in the hinterlands," which caught my attention. Peters, an ex-Army Intel officer, wrote: "Israel deserves U.S. support on many counts... But blind support leads to blind folly. Honest criticism is a higher form of loyalty than being a dupe. Some American Jews may not understand what a precarious time this is beyond Manhattan's bridges and tunnels. The appearance that a number of appointees at the upper reaches of the Pentagon allow their loyalty to Israel to excessively influence American foreign policy decisions does not play well in the hinterlands. This is not a matter of anti-Semitism. Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But they are first and foremost, pro-America' ... We have yet to see, however, what the reaction of the patriots in the American hinterlands will be when they reach the tipping point with respect to the chicanery of the Israel First Brigade."

Old, but relevant today. A former State Department officer actually tells the truth...
Oral History Interview with Edwin M. Wright General staff G-2 Middle East specialist, Washington, 1945-46; Bureau Near East-South Asian-African Affairs Department of State, since 1946, country specialist 1946-47, advisor U.N. affairs, 1947-50, advisor on intelligence 1950-55. Wooster, Ohio July 26, 1974,
by Richard D. McKinzie, Truman Presidential Museum and Library
"PREAMBLE Mr. Wright has asked that this letter be included as a preamble to his interview ... Dear Mr. Fuchs ... The material I gave Professor McKinzie was of a very controversial nature--one almost taboo in U.S. circles, inasmuch as I accused the Zionists of using political pressures and even deceit in order to get the U.S. involved in a policy of supporting a Zionist theocratic, ethnically exclusive and ambitious Jewish State. I, and my associates in the State Department, felt this was contrary to U.S. interests and we were overruled by President Truman. At the time I gave the interview, I had to relate many personal incidents for which, at the time, there was no evidence. In the past 30 months, a great deal of relevant material has been published which corroborates my story. Especially useful has been the publication of Foreign Relations of the United States 1948 Vol. V on the Near East, Part 2 by the Department of State which gives the original documents from which I quoted from memory. So I have added footnotes where verification is now available. In addition, Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists have frequently used the Hebrew Bible as an authority for justifying a Jewish State. As late as summer 1976, Candidate Jimmie Carter stated, "I am pro-Israeli, not because of political expediency, but because I believe Israel is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy." So the Bible--and belief that it is God's Holy Word and infallible, became a useful tool in Zionist propaganda. I take the point of view that the Bible is a mixture of Hebrew legends and myths and cannot be used as an element in U.S. foreign policy ...The Zionists were very successful in using religion for political purposes. This is prohibited by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states the Government should recognize no "religous establishment." In the case of Zionism and Israel, the U.S. has recognized and supported a religious establishment--viz: the State of Israel which in turn discriminates against all non-Jewish religions ... When I mailed to Professor McKinzie a typewritten statement to explain some of the documents I gave him, a group of my friends urged me to expand the material and publish it as an independent document. So I completely rewrote the material and published it as The Great Zionist Cover-Up. It is a much fuller statement of how the Zionists operate. I enclose a copy with the transcript. It also includes many references to books where a fuller treatment of the material may be obtained. Finally, my opposition to Zionism was on purely pragmatic grounds. I was convinced the Arabs would fight a Zionist Exclusive Expansionist Jewish State--because they saw it in operation during the period of the British mandate. So did I. I felt it was folly for the United States to support a State composed of such neurotic groups as I witnessed in Palestine (1942-46). The Orthodox Rabbis wanted to turn the clock back to 1200 B.C. Theocracy--and were really fanatic. They have produced such irrational and Expansionist groups as the Gush Emunim group, who openly defy the Israeli government and cannot be disciplined because they are so "Holy' ... Zionists, since Truman's decision in 1947-48, have lived in a Fool's Paradise. They assumed their control of the US government, press and public was permanent and based an "moral" values--therefore, the US at all times would give Israel total support. Zionists seem to live in a dream world of their own creation and think the rest of the world should accept their dream. ... Time is vindicating the point of view of those State Department specialists whom Truman said he could not trust because they were "anti-Semitic." His barb hurt and has left scars. Thank you for your patience and trouble. Sincerely, Edwin M. Wright."

AIPAC Policy Conference 2003 Transcripts,
AIPAC

Jewish Members of the 108th Congress,
Virtual Jerusalem
Senate (11— 2 Republicans, 9 Democrats)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Russ Feingold (D-WI) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)* Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Charles Schumer (D-NY) Arlen Specter (R-PA) Norm Coleman (R-MN)* Ron Wyden (D-OR) House (26— 1 Republican, 24 Democrats, 1 Independent)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY) Shelley Berkley (D-NV) Howard Berman (D-CA) Eric Cantor (R-VA) Ben Cardin (D-MD) Susan Davis (D-CA) Peter Deutsch (D-FL) Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)* Eliot Engel (D-NY) Bob Filner (D-CA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Martin Frost (D-TX) Jane Harman (D-CA) Steve Israel D-NY) Tom Lantos (D-CA) Sander Levin (D-MI) Nita Lowey (D-NY) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Steve Rothman (D-NJ) Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Adam Schiff (D-CA) Brad Sherman (D-CA) Henry Waxman (D-CA) Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Robert Wexler (D-FL)
*New members

Edward Teller, 'Father of H-Bomb,' Dies,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), September 10, 2003
"Edward Teller, who played a key role in U.S. defense and energy policies for more than half a century and was dubbed the "father of the H-bomb" for his enthusiastic pursuit of the powerful weapon, died Tuesday, a spokesman for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory said. He was 95. Teller died in Stanford, Calif., near the Hoover Institute where he served as a senior research fellow. Teller exerted a profound influence on America's defense and energy policies, championing the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, nuclear power and the Strategic Defense Initiative. Among honors he received were the Albert Einstein Award, the Enrico Fermi Award and the National Medal of Science. Yet Teller also will be remembered for his role in destroying the career of his one-time boss, Robert Oppenheimer - which alienated Teller from many of his colleagues - and for pushing the H-bomb and the Strategic Defense Initiative on grounds that, in the opinion of critics, were sketchy or dubious. Teller's staunch support for defense stemmed in part from two events that shaped his dark, distrustful view of world affairs - the 1919 communist revolution in his native Hungary and the rise of Nazism while he lived in Germany in the early 1930s ... Witty and personable, with a passion for playing the piano, Teller nevertheless was a persuasive Cold Warrior who influenced presidents of both parties. In 1939, he was one of three scientists who encouraged Einstein to alert President Franklin Roosevelt that the power of nuclear fission - the splitting of an atom's nucleus - could be tapped to create a devastating new weapon. Two years later, even before the first atom bomb was completed, fellow scientist Enrico Fermi suggested that nuclear fusion - fusing rather than splitting nuclei - might be used for an even more destructive explosive, the hydrogen bomb. Teller quickly took to the idea. Teller's enthusiasm and pursuit of such a bomb - he called it the "Super" - won him the title, "father of the H-bomb," a term he said he hated ... While Teller was beginning his work at Livermore, he began attacking Oppenheimer, who had directed the Manhattan Project. Teller claimed he had slowed development of the H-bomb, allowing the Soviet Union to catch up. In two secret interviews with the FBI in 1952 - made public under the Freedom of Information Act in 1977 - Teller made statements casting doubt on Oppenheimer's actions. The allegations became the basis for the most serious charges brought against Oppenheimer in 1954 when his security clearance was lifted. In his memoirs, Teller remained critical of Oppenheimer, but said the hearing was a mistake and he was stupid to testify ... Teller was right about the feasibility of the H-bomb, but he repeated the same pattern of seeming to oversell technology in 1983 when he persuaded President Reagan that space-based laser weapons could provide a secure anti-missile defense. Reagan bought the idea and proposed the multibillion-dollar Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed "Star Wars." Computer experts raised doubts early on about the reliability of the complex software required for a Star Wars system. But even as the evidence mounted that Star Wars would cost billions more than originally expected and would take years longer to develop, Teller continued to support it."

Neocons and Democrats,
by Alexander Cockburn, Free Press, September 10, 2003
"Beating up on neocons used to be a specialized sport without wide appeal. With all due false modesty, I offer myself as an earlier practitioner. Back in the mid-to-late '70s, when I had a weekly column in the Village Voice, I used to have rich sport with that apex neo-con, Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary ... Now here we are on the downslope of 2003, and George Bush is learning, way too late for his own good that the neo-cons have been matchlessly wrong about everything. One can burrow through the archives of historical folly in search of comparisons and still come up empty-handed. The neo-cons told Bush that eviction of Saddam would rearrange the chairs in the Middle East to America's advantage. Wrong. They told him it would unlock the door to a peaceful settlement in Israel. Wrong. They told him (I'm talking about Wolfowitz's team of mad Straussians at DoD) that there was irrefutable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Wrong. They told him the prime Iraqi exile group, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, had street cred in Iraq. Wrong. They told him it would be easy to install a U.S. regime in Baghdad and make the place hum quietly along, like Lebanon in the 1950s. Wrong. And, of course, the neocons, who have never forgiven the United Nations for Resolutions 242 and 338 (bad for Israel), told Bush that he should tell the U.N. to take its charter and shove it. Bush, who appreciates simple words and simple thoughts, took their advice, and last Sunday night had it served up to him by his speechwriters as crow, which he methodically ate in his 18-minute speech, saying the United Nations has an important role in Iraq."

Howard Dean isn't an anti-Zionist Savior, probably because his wife is Jewish, and they've been active in pro-Israel causes.
Lieberman accuses Dean of anti-Israel bias during presidential debate,
By JANINE ZACHARIA, Jerusalem Post, September 10, 2003
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut accused Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean of seeking to break the US-Israel alliance during a debate among presidential hopefuls on national television Tuesday night. Lieberman over the weekend criticized Dean, a former Vermont governor, for saying last week that it was not America's place "to take sides in the conflict." Dean also said that an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements must go. The criticism prompted further comments by Dean on Monday, in which he advocated on a morning news program that the US take a "middle path" if it wants to be an honest broker of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. In the debate Tuesday night in Baltimore, hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, Lieberman accused Dean of turning his back on Israel. "Howard Dean's statements break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republicans and Democrats, and members of Congress of both parties have supported our relationship with Israel based on shared values and common strategic interests," Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, said. Dean said he recognized the special relationship between the US and Israel but that "we need to be trusted by both sides. He claimed his position was no different from that of former president Bill Clinton. "Not right," Lieberman said, interrupting Dean. "We do not gain strength as a negotiator if we compromise on support of Israel," Lieberman said. Dean replied: "We need peace. It doesn't help, Joe, to demagogue this issue." Lieberman, who trails far behind Dean in the polls, appeared to be appealing to the American Jewish vote with his attack on Dean."

Folly Taken To A Scale We Haven't Seen Since WWII,
By Robert Fisk, The Independent (UK), September 2003
"When the attacks were launched against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon two years ago today, who had ever heard of Fallujah or Hillah? When the Lebanese hijacker flew his plane into the ground in Pennsylvania, who would ever have believed that President George Bush would be announcing a "new front line in the war on terror" as his troops embarked on a hopeless campaign against the guerrillas of Iraq? Who could ever have conceived of an American president calling the world to arms against "terrorism" in "Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza"? Gaza? What do the miserable, crushed, cruelly imprisoned Palestinians of Gaza have to do with the international crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania? Nothing, of course. Neither does Iraq have anything to do with 11 September. Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, any al-Qa'ida links with Iraq, any 45-minute timeline for the deployment of chemical weapons nor was there any "liberation". No, the attacks on 11 September have nothing to do with Iraq. Neither did 11 September change the world. President Bush cruelly manipulated the grief of the American people - and the sympathy of the rest of the world - to introduce a "world order" dreamed up by a clutch of fantasists advising the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. The Iraqi "regime change", as we now know, was planned as part of a Perle-Wolfowitz campaign document to the would-be Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu years before Bush came to power. It beggars belief that Tony Blair should have signed up to this nonsense without realising that it was no more nor less than a project invented by a group of pro-Israeli American neo-conservatives and right-wing Christian fundamentalists. But even now, we are fed more fantasy. Afghanistan - its American-paid warlords raping and murdering their enemies, its women still shrouded for the most part in their burqas, its opium production now back as the world's number one export market, and its people being killed at up to a hundred a week (five American troops were shot dead two weekends ago) is a "success", something which Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld still boast about. Iraq - a midden of guerrilla hatred and popular resentment - is also a "success". Yes, Bush wants $87bn to keep Iraq running, he wants to go back to the same United Nations he condemned as a "talking shop" last year, he wants scores of foreign armies to go to Iraq to share the burdens of occupation - though not, of course, the decision-making, which must remain Washington's exclusive imperial preserve. What's more, the world is supposed to accept the insane notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - the planet's last colonial war, although all mention of the illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank and Gaza have been erased from the Middle East narrative in the American press - is part of the "war on terror", the cosmic clash of religious will that President Bush invented after 11 September. Could Israel's interests be better served by so infantile a gesture from Bush? The vicious Palestinian suicide bombers and the grotesque implantation of Jews and Jews only in the colonies has now been set into this colossal struggle of "good" against "evil", in which even Ariel Sharon - named as "personally" responsible for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre by Israel's own commission of inquiry - is "a man of peace", according to Mr Bush. And new precedents are set without discussion. Washington kills the leadership of its enemies with impunity: it tries to kill Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and does kill Uday and Qusay Hussein and boasts of its prowess in "liquidating" the al-Qa'ida leadership from rocket-firing "drones". It tries to kill Saddam in Baghdad and slaughters 16 civilians and admits that the operation was "not risk-free". In Afghanistan, three men have now been murdered in the US interrogation centre at Bagram. We still don't know what really goes on in Guantanamo. What do these precedents mean? I have a dark suspicion. From now on, our leaders, our politicians, our statesmen will be fair game too. If we go for the jugular, why shouldn't they? ... Not since the Second World War have we seen folly on this scale. And it has scarcely begun."

Justice Breyer is Jewish. Two of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Jewish -- an overrepresentation, per their American population percentage, of about 1,000%. America has become "Jewish" in too many respects. To give Gentile the same representation on the Supreme Court as Jews now have, American would need to increase the court to hold 98 Supreme Court Justices on the Bench so the 2 Jews would equal their demographics. Some say any other solution is undemocratic and quite likely racist.
Breyer Says U.S. Could Learn From Israel,
By ANNE GEARAN, Guardian (UK, from Associated Press), September 12, 2003,
"The United States could learn from compromises Israeli courts have struck to balance terrorism and human rights concerns, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Friday. Israeli judges have adopted what Breyer called ``intermediate solutions'' that acknowledge the security risks the country faces, the justice told an audience at Columbia Law School. ``There are many solutions that ... solve nothing to everyone's satisfaction but are not quite as restrictive of human rights as an extreme solution, nor as dangerous as some other extremes,'' Breyer said ... Without mentioning the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Breyer said the Israeli experience is especially relevant to U.S. courts now. He stopped short of endorsing Israeli solutions but praised Justice Aharon Barak, president of the Israeli Supreme Court, who also spoke at Columbia. ``He's had to implement that kind of system, and when I read what he's done in particular cases, I think, yes, we have something to learn that could prove to be topical.''

The Only Way Out Is Forward,
By Col. Mike Turner, Newsweek, September 2003
" It's hard to overstate how profoundly the Vietnam War shaped America's political and military thinking for decades after that conflict ended. I spent my entire military career living and working within its shadow. Vietnam's aftermath changed our tactics, our command-and-force structure and our understanding of the significant analysis and planning, both military and political, that must precede every major, modern military operation. In Vietnam, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and Gen. Colin Powell experienced firsthand the colossal hubris of our political leaders and watched their mistakes kill tens of thousands of American troops. The so-called Powell Doctrine was born in those jungles, in the crucible of that nightmare, and it wasn't until Operation Desert Storm that these two remarkably gifted Americans, as much statesmen as warriors, were able to demand from our political leadership the kind of prudent restraint, fact-based analysis and broad international support upon which any modern global military action must be based. Without this kind of due diligence, it is extremely difficult to truly win the war, but it is impossible to win the peace. The point is, though it took all of us 20 years to fully absorb the lessons of Vietnam, we learned them. The stunning and absolute victory of Desert Storm was no accident. It was based squarely on the lessons of Vietnam: before you commit U.S. troops, know and isolate your enemy, precisely define military success, precisely define how and when you will disengage U.S. troops and, most importantly, whenever possible obtain U.N. sanction and long-term, multinational, multiorganizational support to share the burden ... . All that is why what is now occurring in Iraq is so profoundly and viscerally offensive to those of us who thought we had moved past this point in American history. It is simply inconceivable to me that a U.S. administration could have made so many of the same mistakes made by the Johnson-McNamara group of thirty years ago. In a word, I'm outraged. This is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. And this Administration should be held responsible for its conduct in the next election. Once again, the politicians have handed the military the nightmare scenario. ... Retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner was a personal assistant to Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf and served as the air operations briefing officer in the war room in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during Desert Storm. From 1993-1997, Colonel Turner worked as a Middle East/Africa politico-military policy planner on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, working for two years for then Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark."

Carter Urges U.S. on Mideast Peace Push. Former President Carter Urges Bush to Push Harder, Be Evenhanded in U.S. Push for Mideast Peace,
ABC News, September 15, 2003
"The Bush administration must push harder and be evenhanded to revive sagging peace hopes in the Middle East, former President Carter said Monday. In an Associated Press interview 25 years after the Camp David accords, Carter said Israel and the Palestinians had not only abandoned the U.S.-backed road map for peace but had violated it Israel by threatening the "removal" of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He suggested the Bush administration was tilted toward Israel. "At this point, prospects are dismal," Carter said. "The U.S. does not seem to be making any strong effort to implement" the road map outlined by President Bush, and the other parties to the blueprint the United Nations, the European Union and Russia are not very involved, he said ... "The United States is not being evenhanded," Carter said by telephone from his home in Plains, Ga. "You have to have a mediator, willing to negotiate freely with both sides, and equally firmly with both sides"... Israel's official decision to "remove" Arafat, which Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested Sunday might mean killing, exile or isolation, also drew strong criticism from Carter. "It just sends a wave of increasing animosity not only through the Palestinians but the entire world," he said. "That statement and others are totally contrary to the position of the U.S. government, as well. The road map is supposed to preclude exile."

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2002 Congressional Candidates,
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003
"Top Ten 2002, Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds House: Current Cycle Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) Davis, Artur (D-AL) Majette, Denise (D-GA) Gephardt, Richard (D-MO) Cantor, Eric (R-VA) Hastert, J Dennis (R-IL) Levin, Sander (D-MI) Maloney, James (D-CT) Swett, Katrina (D-NH) Engel, Eliot (D-NY) House: Career Gejdenson, Sam (D-CT) Gephardt, Richard (D-MO) Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) Obey, David (D-WI) Frost, Martin (D-TX) Engel, Eliot (D-NY) Levin, Sander (D-MI) Lowey, Nita (D-NY) Gilman, Benjamin (R-NY) Evans, Lane (D-IL) ... Senate: Current Cycle Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Cleland, Max (D-GA) Levin, Carl (D-MI) Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Carnahan, Jean (D-MO) Baucus, Max (D-MT) Durbin, Richard (D-IL) Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Smith, Gordon (R-OR) Senate: Career Levin, Carl (D-MI) Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) Specter, Arlen (R-PA) McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Durbin, Richard (D-IL) Baucus, Max (D-MT) Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) Robb, Charles (D-VA)"

The Genetically Modified Bomb,
by Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams, September 10, 2003
"Imagine a bomb that only kills Caucasians with red hair. Or short people. Or Arabs. Or Chinese. Now imagine that this new bomb could be set off anywhere in the world, and that within a matter of days, weeks, or months it would kill every person on the planet who fits the bomb's profile, although the rest of us would be left standing. And the bomb could go off silently, without anybody realizing it had been released - or even where it was released - until its victims started dying in mass numbers. Who would imagine such a thing? Paul Wolfowitz, for one. William Kristol for another ... Thus, anybody who's part of a group with a shared genetic profile may be at risk in the future, suggest the authors of The Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" ... Consider the political leverage a nation would have if they could credibly threaten the extinction of all people worldwide with almond-shaped eyes, or the sterilization of everybody with a gene that tracks them back to a common ancestor or region. Three years ago, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and their colleagues suggested this is something the Pentagon should be thinking about. Not just germ warfare, but gene warfare. And it's not limited just to warfare: Imagine how genetic terraforming could replace diplomacy, could even render the United Nations irrelevant if entire ethnic groups were wiped out or could be controlled by the threat of extinction. Or how it could change the face of politics if an organism got loose that killed off all the people of a particular minority who tend to vote for a particular political party. Genetically targeted weapons could change world politics forever, according to PNAC. "And," their report notes, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." Given that Kristol, Wolfowitz, and their conservative PNAC associates like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, and John Bolton have already brought us two of their early 1998 recommendations - the seizure of Iraq and a huge increase in defense spending - it's tempting to wonder if this is another of their other politically useful ideas being explored by the Pentagon. Or maybe we'd rather not know. At least not those of us with politically problematic relatives."

Yet another wolf guarding the henhouse. "Amit Yoran" is Israeli. Interesting fact: "Adjusting for the number of Internet users in each country, the intensity of attacks from Israel is nearly double the attack intensity rate of any other individual country."
White House Names Yoran as Cybersecurity Chief,
By Roy Mark, siliconvalley.internet.com, September 15, 2003
"Amit Yoran, the founder of an Internet government security firm and a current vice president at Symantec, has been named by the Bush administration to head the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) cybersecurity division. In his new role, Yoran will be responsible for implementing the administration's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a report issued by the White House in February that depends more on private industry cooperation than government mandates and regulations ... Yoran is the co-founder of Riptech, an Alexandria, Va.-based firm that focused on government cybersecurity. In July of last year, Symantec bought Riptech for $145 million and Yoran stayed on as vice president for managed security services. Before joining Riptech, Yoran was director of the vulnerability assessement program for the Defense Department's computer emergency response team."

If Israel can ignore the IAEA, why should anyone else listen?,
Daily Star (Lebanon), September 16, 2003
"Media reports on Monday suggested that this week’s annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will include a serious discussion of Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. One can only hope that this takes place, that the long-running grievances of Arab and other countries are finally given their just due. With accusations relating to weapons of mass destruction having been a large part of the US pretext for invading Iraq and Iran now facing heavy pressure over similar claims, the double standard involving the Jewish state ­ which has steadfastly refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ­ has become too obvious to ignore any longer. None of this has deterred the Israelis, though, from speaking out against the alleged ambitions of others. In fact, Israel has been at the forefront of countries demanding that the IAEA get tough with Iran. The Israelis are not at all embarrassed that Tehran is a signatory to the NPT and they are not; nor does it bother them that no one thinks the Islamic Republic has nuclear weapons, while the Jewish state is estimated by experts to possess something in the order of 200-300 warheads, not to mention a variety of air-, land- and sea-based delivery systems. The unbridled hypocrisy of Israeli policy and rhetoric on this issue constitutes a major test for the IAEA, and indeed for two cornerstones of modern diplomacy: arms control and collective security. If the presumed violations of some countries are to be “punished” pre-emptively while those of others go unchecked, there is little point in cooperating with the co-opted organization that enforces its own regulations according to Washington’s whim. Israeli impunity relies on America for its sustenance, and the nuclear question is a case in point: US law is very clear in banning foreign aid to countries that either do not sign or fail to obey the NPT, but somehow more than $3 billion in illegal funds gets from Washington to Israel every year with nary a word of protest on Capitol Hill. If America is unwilling to comply with its own laws when these do not suit Israel’s purposes, why should anyone trust it to undertake an accurate accounting of international security arrangements? And if the IAEA is unwilling to assert its independence in the face of pressure from Washington, why should any of its members bother to help maintain the pretense that signed agreements mean anything at all?"

Having a Jewish wife won't save Dean,
By Zev Chafets, Jewish World Review, Septembr 16, 2003
"Many Jews aren't laughing at his latest outburst Last week, in the presidential free-for-all in Baltimore, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) blasted [Vermont governor and candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency] Dean for saying during a campaign stop a few days earlier that he wouldn't take sides in the Middle East. Dean added that he'd be "evenhanded," which in standard State Department English means pro-Palestinian. Later, Dean pleaded ignorance of the significance of the coded phrase. If so, his lack of diplomatic sophistication makes the pre-presidential George W. Bush look like Henry Kissinger. Lieberman also accused the Vermont Volcano of breaking a tradition of bipartisan presidential support for the Jewish State that goes back to Harry Truman. ... Dean's unmistakable ideological resemblance to Carter won't help the Vermont Democrat among supporters of Israel. Here's a hint to the Dean campaign: He won't be able to hide behind Bill Clinton — or Dr. Judith Steinberg. On a campaign stop in Iowa, Dean was asked by a woman named Norma Jean Sharp about his position on Israel. According to The Weekly Standard, Dean replied, "They'll be all right. ... I'm not going to let anything happen to Israel. My wife is Jewish." Jewish relatives are a dime a dozen in this year's Democratic field, from John Kerry's long-lost grandparents to Wesley Clark's departed Yiddishe papa. Heck, even Joe Lieberman has a Jewish wife."

Dean-Lieberman dustup reflects focus of Israel as political issue,
By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 16, 2003
"[Presidential candidate Joseph] Lieberman seized his opportunity when a reporter overheard [Democatic rival Howard] Dean’s comment to a supporter at a Santa Fe, N.M. rally. “I don’t find it convenient to blame people. Nobody should have violence, ever. But they do, and it’s not our place to take sides,” Dean said. Lieberman was soon chiding Dean at a debate. “Howard Dean’s statements break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republican and Democratic, members of Congress of both parties, have supported our relationship with Israel, based on shared values,” he said. Attacking Dean on Israel made sense for Lieberman, Wrighton said, because it’s an issue with which the Jewish senator from Connecticut is comfortable. “Lieberman has to differentiate himself, and he has experience here, and it’s an issue that is dear to one of his constituencies,” he said. Another factor was Dean’s front-runner status ... Supporters in Congress of another candidate, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri — who likely will face a tough challenge from Dean in the Iowa caucuses in February — wrote Dean a letter, saying: “We believe it is wrong to say the U.S. should ‘not take sides’ in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.” They wrote, “In these difficult times, we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel’s survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement.” For his part, Dean said, “I’ve learned that ‘even-handed’ is a sensitive word in certain communities.” He added, “perhaps I should have used a different euphemism.” Speaking to a CNN interviewer last week, he accused his political rivals of “demagoguery” and said, “What Joe and others are doing on Israel is despicable,” singling out Lieberman ... “Answering a question in the backyard is not a way to explain Israel policy,” said Steve Grossman, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, who is a close adviser to Dean. “There will be no light” between Israel and the United States in a Dean administration, he said. However brutish the debate, such exchanges can prove useful in clarifying positions and educating the candidates. Dean’s willingness to learn is a positive outcome, and suggests he’ll pay better attention to nuance, said the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, who wrote Dean asking for a clarification. “When I first met Gov. Bush, we discussed a lot of issues and he said, ‘I hadn’t thought about that,’” Foxman recalled. “It’s a learning curve. Dean’s sensitivity, and his understanding that this caused a lot of anxiety, is what’s important.”

U.S. May Study Israel Occupation Tactics,
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Yahoo! News, (from Associated Press), September 18,. 2003
"In an apparent search for pointers on how to police a hostile population, the U.S. military that's trying to bring security to Iraq is showing interest in Israeli software instructing soldiers on how to behave in the West Bank and Gaza, an Israeli military official said Thursday. Using animated graphics and clips from movies like "Apocalypse Now," the software outlines a "code of conduct" for avoiding abuse of civilians while manning roadblocks, searching homes and conducting other activities, said Lt. Col. Amos Guiora, head of the School of Military Law. Israeli troops have frequently faced criticism from Palestinian and human rights groups. Two weeks ago, Amnesty International said in a report that Israeli military checkpoints and curfews violate Palestinians' human rights. U.S. soldiers have also faced criticism in Iraq, where they have been accused of using excessive force. In a reflection of tensions in Iraq, guerrillas ambushed two U.S. military convoys Thursday, wounding two soldiers. And a nervous American patrol shot at a wedding party late Wednesday, killing a 14-year-old boy and wounding six other people after mistaking celebratory gunfire for an attack, witnesses said. Guiora told The Associated Press that U.S. military officials had recently seen the software, which was developed this year, and expressed interest. As a result, he said, the military is now working on an English version for them."

Latest contender for president comes from long line of rabbis,
By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 17, 2003
"Raised a Southern Baptist who later converted to Roman Catholicism, Gen. Wesley Clark knew just what to say when he strode into a Brooklyn yeshiva in 1999, ostensibly to discuss his leadership of NATO´s victory in Yugoslavia. "I feel a tremendous amount in common with you," the uniformed four-star general told the stunned roomful of students. "I am the oldest son, of the oldest son, of the oldest son — at least five generations, and they were all rabbis." The incident could be a signal of how Clark, who became the 10th contender in the Democratic run for the presidency on Wednesday, relates to the Jews and the issues dear to them. Apparently Clark, 58, revels in his Jewish roots. He told The Jewish Week in New York, which first reported the yeshiva comment in 1999, that his ancestors were not just Jews, but members of the priestly caste of Kohens. Clark´s Jewish father, Benjamin Kanne, died when he was 4, but he has kept in touch with his father´s family since his 20s, when he rediscovered his Jewish roots. He is close to a first cousin, Barry Kanne, who heads a pager company in Georgia. Clark shares more than sentimental memories with Jews. He couples liberal domestic views that appeal to much of the Jewish electorate with a soldier´s sympathy for Israel´s struggle against terror. Appearing in June on "Meet the Press" on CBS, Clarke said he agreed with President Bush´s assessment that Israel should show more restraint, a reference to the policy of targeting terrorist leaders for assassination. "But the problem is," Clark continued, "when you have hard intelligence that you´re about to be struck, it´s the responsibility of a government to take action against that intelligence and prevent the loss of lives. It´s what any society would expect of its leadership. So there´s a limit to how much restraint can be shown." Speaking to the New Democrat Network this year, Clark said that dismantling Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat´s Ramallah headquarters was "a legitimate military objective from their perspective. "For the Israelis, this is a struggle really for the existence of Israel," Clark said in remarks quoted on a support group´s Web site. Clark is also tough on neighboring Arab states, expecting more from them in nudging the Palestinians toward peace ... One of the leaders of the Draft Clark campaign said Clark´s strength on foreign policy would neutralize an advantage President Bush now has with Jews, and would bring the debate back to domestic issues, where the Bush administration is weaker with Jews. "It makes him credible and allows him to focus on domestic policy," Brent Blackaby said in a telephone interview from Clark´s campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Ark. Two of Clark´s top advisers are Jews who had prominent roles in the Clinton and Gore campaigns. Eli Segal was a top adviser to President Clinton in his first term; Ron Klain helped run Vice President Al Gore´s 2000 campaign."

Thinking About Neoconservatism,
By Kevin MacDonald, VDare, September 18, 2003
"Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so? The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure. Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that “the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest: “[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry. For example, it is certainly true that the neocons’ foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S. Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives — but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community. Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof. We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one. Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world. But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion. Now, however, as the U.S. acquires an empire in the Middle East, this ban must inevitably fall away. My views on these issues are shaped by my research on several other influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements, including the Boasian school of anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, Marxism and several other movements of the radical left, as well as the movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional immigration. My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work. I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests. In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All center on charismatic Jewish leaders—people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud— who are revered as messianic, god-like figures. Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee) ... Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration: (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan). As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker: “I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish ‘Question’.” Strauss has become a cult figure—the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples. While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives — and have even claimed to be simply “conservatives”— there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel. But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests. Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived. But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science—languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principle actors."

Why Israel?,
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, [Editorial], September 19, 2003
"Putting aside the second-class citizenship of the non-Jews in Israel and the spying of Jonathan Pollard and who knows how many others and the stealing of enriched uranium for their nuclear bombs, it is granted that Israel has some kind of representative government. So does Palestine. So what? The U.S.A. has given Israel $100 billion directly and the second Iraqi war is being fought for the benefit of Israel. The total cost to us is on the order of a quarter of $1 trillion. What has Israel ever done for us? Now comes Senator Joseph Lieberman, who says it is a tradition for us to support Israel; therefore, I guess, we support Israel. Can one imagine him as President making decisions on that basis?"

Dean Mideast Gaffes Seen Hurting Chances Frontrunner issues ‘mea culpas,’
by James D. Besser, Jewish Week, September 19, 2003
"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the frontrunner in the crowded race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, was furiously backtracking this week after demanding that the United States not “take sides” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But that might not be enough to avoid a costly backlash from some pro-Israel campaign donors and voters in several key states, observers say ... Several leading political scientists and Jewish politicos say Dean’s defense — that he doesn’t yet understand the nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — could add to his problems, especially with Jewish givers. “So far this is being followed by just a narrow circle, mostly inside the Beltway,” said Kenneth Goldstein, a University of Wisconsin political scientist. “But part of that circle are campaign contributors. And even if their fears are allayed in the short term, his comment that he said that because he’s really inexperienced and not very careful with his language could come back to hurt him.” A top pro-Israel fund-raiser put it in starker terms. “We have very long memories,” this source said. “I don’t think he can recover from it. If his best defense is that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s going to have a lot of trouble with the people in our community who write the checks.” Dean’s woes, this source said, could bolster GOP fund raising among Jewish donors, which Republican sources say has been rising rapidly in recent weeks. The controversy started two weeks ago at a campaign stop in New Mexico when Dean, in response to a question, said the U.S. must be more “evenhanded” in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that “it’s not our place to take sides.” He also said Israel must abandon “an enormous number” of settlements. That prompted sharp attacks from Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts, two of Dean’s top rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lieberman, who is struggling to keep up in a party that seems to be shifting to the left, accused Dean of advocating a “reversal of American foreign policy for 50 years.” Kerry used the controversy to reinforce his claim that Dean is not ready for prime time. Even more telling was a letter from 31 House Democrats, authored by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.). “This is not a time to be sending mixed messages,” the lawmakers wrote. “On the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel’s survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement.” In a CNN interview, Dean acknowledged that he “could have used a different euphemism” for describing his view of the proper U.S. stance toward the region ... Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, said the continuing controversy is unlikely to play much of a role in the Democratic primaries. “But the general election is something else again,” he said. “A Democrat needs about 75 to 80 percent of the Jewish vote, and the contributions that come along with the support. Should Dean or any Democrat fall to 60 to 65 percent, even though that is a large majority, the Republican would have enough to win in key states.”

Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV,
by Paul Craig Roberts, LewRockwell.com, September 20, 2003
"It is now absolutely certain that the American public and President Bush were bamboozled into invading Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, an unsavory assortment of lesser neo-Jacobin notables who inhabit the higher reaches of the Bush administration, and their neo-Jacobin allies in the Likud Party controlled media in New York City and Washington DC. On September 17 President Bush confessed his folly: "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Yet according to polls, a majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Whose propaganda led Americans to this utterly mistaken belief? An extensive search in Iraq has failed to turn up any evidence of any weapons of mass destruction, much less nuclear weapons. The image of "mushroom clouds going up over American cities," which was used to panic Congress into accepting an invasion of Iraq, has turned out to be – as every expert knew at the time – nothing but propaganda worthy of Heinrich Himmler and Paul Joseph Goebbles. The fabrications about Iraq’s intentions toward the US rival Hitler’s declaration that Poland had attacked Germany. Consider the implications if Saddam Hussein really had possessed WMD – especially ones that could be deployed in 45 minutes as asserted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair: the entire US-British invasion force, concentrated in a tiny area of Kuwait, could have been destroyed by one or two weapons. If Bush really believed Iraq had WMD, he was criminally negligent for making sitting ducks out of our troops. Senator Ted Kennedy is correct when he said on September 18 that the case against Iraq was "a fraud" made up to give Republicans a political boost. As much as I hate to admit it, the evidence is on Senator Kennedy’s side. However, being caught red-handed in fraud does not deter neo-Jacobins with an agenda. Clutching firmly to their propaganda that Iraqis are desperate to shower US troops with flowers and kisses but are prevented by dead-enders among the Saddam Hussein remnants, neo-Jacobins now agitate for invading Syria and Iran. On September 16, Undersecretary of State John Bolton in testimony before Congress declared Syria to be a "rogue state" armed with weapons of mass destruction and called for "regime change." On September 17, Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter testified to Congress that Iran has the ability to launch missiles with biological warheads and that Iran’s nuclear program is a genuine threat both to the Middle East and the US. On September 19, Paul Bremer, head of the US occupation government in Iraq, suggested in an interview with The Telegraph (UK) that Iran was involved in the bombings and killings of occupational forces in Iraq, echoing neo-Jacobin Michael Ladeen’s assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq unless it overthrows Iran. Here we go again. The same propaganda. Only the targets are new. Where will the troops come from to invade Iran and Syria? ... Yet, President Bush’s anti-Arab policymakers want to greatly multiply the attacks on our troops by inserting them into Syria and Iran! Are the neo-Jacobins in charge of the US government totally delusional? Are they totally disconnected from reality? Or is this more fraud to start two more wars before the American public wakes up to the neo-Jacobin agenda? The neo-Jacobins are rushing to get America involved in a general Middle Eastern war before Americans have time to think. The terrorist scare which worked the first time is being employed again. Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons. If the American public falls for the second round of neo-Jacobin propaganda, neither do they deserve, nor will they have, liberty and democracy. The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads. Israel has the real thing, not a mere desire for a program that might produce a weapon in the future. It is Israel – not Iran – who has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is Israel that occupies by force of arms parts of Syria and Palestine. Arabs do not occupy Israeli territory. It is Israel that treats Palestinians the way National Socialists treated Jews by bottling them up in ghettos and assassinating them at will. On September 18 President Bush declared: "Arafat has failed as a leader." What Bush means is that Arafat, unlike Bush, has failed to carry out Israel’s orders. Arafat’s support in Palestine far exceeds Bush’s support in the US or Sharon’s support in Israel. Every day the Israelis bite off another piece of Palestine. Arafat is a "failed leader" because he has not led Palestinians off into the wilderness for 40 years, the better to deliver Palestine up to Israel. The root of the Middle Eastern problem is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise. Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly in their disputes with Arabs. The inability of the US to impose an evenhanded settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the breeding ground of terrorists. The US invasion of Iraq has bred more terrorists. Bush’s neo-Jacobins will not be content until they have 600 million enraged Muslims at our throats. How did maniacs dead set on World War IV get in control of the US government?"

Israel Rejects U.N. Resolution on Arafat,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), September 20, 2003
"Israel dismissed a U.N. resolution demanding it retract threats to remove Yasser Arafat while the Palestinian leader hailed the vote Saturday, calling it an important sign of support for the Palestinians. The overwhelming vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Friday - 133 nations endorsed the measure - came as the incoming Palestinian prime minister vigorously defended Arafat, saying he is key to peace efforts and the United States should treat him as a real partner. Prime Minister-designate Ahmed Qureia's criticism of U.S. policy was the strongest sign yet he does not plan to challenge Arafat, whom Israel and the United States tried to circumvent by pressing for the creation of the post of prime minister. Instead, Arafat appears to have maintained a central role, handpicking Qureia after the resignation of the first prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, and moving to shape a Cabinet of loyalists from his Fatah party. Bush said Thursday that Arafat "had a failed as leader" and accused him of forcing out Abbas, who resigned Sept. 6 after wrangling with Arafat for months. Qureia called Bush's statement "regrettable" and said it "does not serve the peace process." "Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinian people and represents the will of these people," Qureia told The Associated Press on Friday. "President Arafat is a real partner." Arafat also responded Friday. "You have to know we are the authority of the Palestinians that has been recognized by all the Palestinians," he told ABC News. Bush "has to remember that President Clinton was dealing with me, his father was dealing with me. And he was in the beginning with me." Arafat's popularity soared after Israel's decision on Sept. 11 to "remove" him at an unspecified time. Israeli officials have suggested he may be exiled, killed or simply isolated at his shattered compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah. A first attempt at the United Nations to condemn the Israeli decision was thwarted by the United States, which vetoed a Security Council resolution because it did not censure the Palestinians for suicide bombings that have killed more than 400 Israelis in nearly three years of fighting. But Friday in the General Assembly, Palestinian diplomats won the support of the European Union and many African states by adding a condemnation of suicide bombings to match language in the resolution deploring Israel's "extrajudicial killings and their recent escalation" ... Only two other countries - Micronesia and the Marshall Islands - joined Israel and the United States in opposing the resolution, though 15 nations did abstain. General Assembly resolutions - unlike those of the powerful U.N. Security Council - aren't legally binding. But they do carry symbolic weight."

THE NEO-JACOBINS. Why the neocons abhor the spotlight,
by Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, October 1, 2003
"Surely it isn't modesty that makes the neocons shy away from the spotlight. Yet how else can we explain Joshua Muravchik's shock at the sudden discovery that entering the term "neoconservative" into Lexis-Nexis will cause an aborted search because "the number of entries exceeds the program's capacity"? That's what's so unique about the neocons: any other political movement would welcome all that publicity. But not them. Oh no: quite the contrary. Until very recently, most neocons denied their very existence as a coherent faction. Irving Kristol, author of Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, is the only self-admitted member of the species, and, as such, to him has fallen the task of issuing pronouncements in its name, such as this recent manifesto. But the neocons have been outed, so to speak, by their own success: not in building a mass movement, but in penetrating the top echelons of the U.S. government. As our great "victory" in Iraq turns out to have been purely Pyrrhic, people are casting about for some explanation. How did we fall into this quagmire quickly becomes: who dragged us in? A surprising number of ideologically diverse writers have come up with a similar answer: the neocons. Spanning the spectrum, from left to right, they include Michael Lind, Elizabeth Drew, Pat Buchanan, Joshua Micah Marshall, Jim Lobe, Paul Craig Roberts, to mention just a few. But Muravchik, writing in Commentary [September 2003], protests ... Muravchik scoffs at the idea that the neocons owe much of anything either to the cult of Leo Strauss, the philosopher of the "noble lie," or to Leon Trotsky, whose legacy informed such proto-neocons as Max Shachtman, Philip Selznick, and Irving Kristol. I will pass, for the moment, on the subject of the Straussian connection, since I have never been able to read a single one of Strauss's books all the way through. I am told that he is boring on purpose, because, you see, only the dogged few will get the true – esoteric – meaning. This seems fitting for a philosophy that, from what I can tell, is founded on the primacy of deception. Clearly this methodology is tailor-made for the gang that lied us into war ... But there is plenty to see, first and foremost the Trotskyist DNA embedded in the neocon foreign policy prescription. ... Albert Wohlstetter, the grand-daddy of what Lind calls the "defense intellectuals" – and who has a conference center named after him over at Neocon Central, the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, D.C. – was a member of the League for a Revolutionary Party (LRP), a Trotskyist grouplet founded in the 1930s by B. J. Field, a labor leader who led the New York hotel strike of 1934. (A close associate of his at the Rand Corporation has confirmed this to me.) Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seymour Martin Lipset, Martin Diamond, all were members of Max Shachtman's Workers Party, and then split into their own faction, the "Shermanites," who upheld an ostensibly revolutionary socialist doctrine that was, nonetheless, avowedly "anti-Bolshevik." And what about Sidney Hook, who never renounced socialism and yet was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Ronald Reagan: what is he, chopped liver? It's not like the neocons' Trotskyist legacy is any big secret. Even Jonah Goldberg knows about this. Jeanne Kirkpatrick's reminiscences of her education in the Young Peoples' Socialist League (YPSL, known as Yipsels) were a matter of public record until the Social Democrats USA took it off their website. Speaking of the YPSL, Muravchik is the past national chairman of that group. If he is saying that he knows of only one leading neocon with any roots in the Trotskyist movement, then perhaps he ought to be introduced to – himself ... If Muravchik wishes to deny that the neocons pursue the Likud party line with as much alacrity as the old Communist party cadre once followed the Soviet line, then I challenge him to come up with a single instance in which a prominent neocon criticized the government of Israel. In any dispute between Israel and the U.S., when has any neoconservative taken the American side? The answer is: never. Muravchik makes much of the Jewish heritage of many neocons, and tries to conflate anti-neocons with anti-Semities. But the ethnic factor is a historical accident: the really significant factor is the intellectual history of the neoconservative idea, especially as it relates to American foreign policy."

AP: FBI Sent Hamas Money in Late 1990's,
Yahoo! News (From Associated Press), Oct 6, 2003
"While President Clinton (news - web sites) was trying to broker an elusive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the FBI was secretly funneling money to suspected Hamas figures to see if the militant group would use it for terrorist attacks, according to interviews and court documents. The counterterrorism operation in 1998 and 1999 was run out of the FBI's Phoenix office in cooperation with Israeli intelligence and was approved by Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI officials told The Associated Press. Several thousand dollars in U.S. money was sent to suspected terror supporters during the operation as the FBI tried to track the flow of cash through terror organizations, the FBI said in a rare acknowledgment of an undercover sting that never resulted in prosecutions. "This was done in conjunction with permission from the attorney general for an ongoing operation, and Israeli authorities were aware of it," the bureau said. One of the FBI's key operatives, who has had a falling out with the bureau, provided an account of the operation at a friend's closed immigration court proceeding. AP obtained and reviewed the court documents. Arizona businessman Harry Ellen testified he permitted the FBI to bug his home, car and office, allowed his Muslim foundation's activities in the Gaza Strip to be monitored by agents, arranged a peace meeting between major Palestinian activists and gained personal access to Yasser Arafat during more than four years of cooperation with the FBI. Ellen's FBI handler in the late 1990s was Kenneth Williams, an agent who later became famous for writing a pre-Sept. 11 memo to FBI headquarters warning there were Arab pilots training at U.S. flight schools. The warning went unheeded. Ellen, a Muslim convert, testified he was taking a trip to the Gaza Strip to bring doctors to the region in summer 1998 when Williams asked him to provide money to a Hamas figure ...Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, said in an interview that the White House wasn't informed of the FBI activities. "We were not aware of any such operation," Berger said. Ellen testified the operation ended abruptly in early 1999 when he and Williams had a series of disagreements over the operation, disputes that began when Ellen angered the FBI by having an affair with a Chinese woman suspected of espionage. FBI officials said they tried to get Ellen to end the relationship and his work was terminated for failing to follow rules."

U.S. Should Tell Israel It's on the Wrong Road,
by James Klurfeld, Newsday, October 9, 2003
"Just as trying to be an honest broker in the Middle East does not mean giving equivalence to every act committed by Israel and the Palestinians, being a friend to Israel does not mean that the United States should condone everything and anything Israel does. If you see a friend going down a dangerous road, you have an obligation to warn the friend. I've criticized the media when they equated Israel's reaction to terrorism with the acts of terrorists themselves. There is no equivalence between terrorism and self-defense. The tendency to give equal condemnation to both is not only factually inaccurate but also morally wrong. But when Israel goes down a path that is fraught with negative consequences - both for it and for the United States - Washington has an obligation to say so. Israel's decision to send a warning shot across Syria's bow this week is such an example. Attacking Syria is a step that Israel has not taken in at least 20 years and represents a step down a slippery slope that does not appear justified by recent events. Does Syria provide a safe haven for leaders of terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad? Obviously. Would both the Israel and the United States be better off if it stopped that support? Yes. But the most recent atrocity committed against Israel, the bombing in Haifa that killed 19, was staged and organized from within the West Bank not Syria, according to almost all reports. There is a Curly, Moe and Larry quality to the Israeli reaction - if the guy on the left hits you, hit the guy on the right. That is disturbing. But my concern is much more with the Bush administration for giving Israel a green light for this action and, by implication, further actions. Israel, after all, is being asked to absorb an intolerable level of violence. The attack on Syria borders on the reckless. It opens the possibility of an escalation of hostilities that could lead to large-scale bloodshed in the region and is almost certainly not in the United States' interest given the task it faces in Iraq ... [T]he Bush administration seems to be backing [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon on anything he does. A measure of how radical a departure this administration's foreign policy is that it has abandoned any pretense of being a fair broker in the region and has consistently sided with Israel. The same neo-conservative group of officials that brought us the war in Iraq seems to be behind the Israel-is-always-right policy of the administration."

[Klayman is a Jewish convert to Christianity.]
Larry Klayman Enters Fla. Race for Senate,
ABC News, October 9, 2003
"What do Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro have in common? Each has been sued by Larry Klayman. The prosecutor-turned-watchdog also has brought cases against Iraq, the State Department, the Teamsters even his mother. Now, after nearly a decade of legal activism, Klayman is turning his attention to politics. He has entered the race for the Republican nomination for the Florida Senate seat held by Bob Graham, who ended his Democratic presidential bid this week ... Klayman's penchant for litigation is so pronounced it is difficult to find people to talk about him; some are afraid of being sued. "He opens up all the elephant guns in cases that perhaps don't really require that," said Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University. Born in Philadelphia, the 52-year-old Klayman is a former Justice Department lawyer and international trade attorney. He became renowned - critics say infamous - after founding the conservative, Washington-based watchdog group Judicial Watch in 1994."

Supreme Court Justice Breyer Is No John Marshall,
By William Hughes, Media Monitors, October 9, 2003
"There are nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest legal authority in the land. Unfortunately, one of them is an apologist for Zionist Israel and the regime of Ariel Sharon. His name is Stephen G. Breyer. He acts like he wants to "compromise" our civil and legal rights away and to undermine the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, too. Breyer spoke at the Columbia Law School, in NYC, on Sept. 12, 2003. He said the U.S. could learn from "compromises Israeli courts have struck to balance terrorism and human rights concerns." He insisted Israeli jurists have adopted "intermediate solutions" (Anne Gearan, AP, 09/12/03). Keep in mind that Breyer is hyping Israeli "justice" only six months after the murder of American activist, Rachel Corrie, by an Israeli bulldozer operator, at the Rafah refugee camp in Occupied Gaza. In Aug., 1994, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton appointed Breyer, who is Jewish, to the high court. This is the same president, who on his last day in office, Jan. 20, 2001, pardoned, at the urging of the Zionist Cartel, the billionaire fugitive, the Belgian-born Jew, Marc Rich ... At the Columbia Law School conference, [Breyer] didn't bring up anything about Israel's fragrant violation of Palestinian human rights. There was no mention of Israel's notorious death squads, the holding of detainees without trial or charges, the torturing of suspects, the lack of any meaningful due process rights for individuals, whose lands are subject to confiscation, and of Israel's imposition, too, of collective punishment on towns and camps, like at Jenin ("Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group," www.phrmg.org.). Breyer, in defending Israel's arbitrary practice of barring defendants from choosing a lawyer, whom the Israelis suspect might carry "terror instructions" from behind bars, made this dubious statement, "Maybe to have a lawyer not of your choice (is better) than none at all." In light of the Sixth Amendment's right of a defendant to the "assistant of counsel for his defense," in a criminal case, of his or her own choosing, Breyer's view on this important constitutional issue is truly appalling. What makes it even more relevant, however, is that famed criminal defense lawyer, Lynne Stewart, is facing preposterous criminal charges, drummed up by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, that she had helped "a jailed Egyptian cleric direct terrorism from prison." After visiting Israel in May, 2002, Breyer bragged that it was "a democracy," that believes in "civil rights," and the "protection of individuals by the rule of law." He also added, while ignoring the Israelis' brutal occupation of the Palestinians, that the U.S. shares with Sharon's Israel, "a common war against terror." Sure, Justice Breyer! On the legislative front, the Israel First Brigade in the Congress, has also been busy eroding our precious liberties at every opportunities. In the late 90s, it was then House member, and now the U.S. Senator from NY, Charles Schumer, who along with Sen. Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter (R-PA), that introduced the Star Chamber scheme of "secret trials based on secret evidence." Recently, it was two other rabid fans of Sharon, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Ct), that pushed the draconian "USA Patriot Act" into law, and without a public hearing, too."

US hawk warns Iran threat must be eliminated,
by Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian (UK), October 10, 2003
"An American official warned yesterday that the potential threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme had to be "eliminated" and predicted Tehran would try to "throw sand" in the eyes of the world to avoid a confrontation at the UN. John Bolton, deputy under secretary of state for arms control, who is regarded as the state department's chief hawk, was speaking to journalists in London where he reaffirmed the Bush administration's notion of "rogue states" which threatened US interests. Top of the list were Iran and North Korea, he said. "There is awareness of the threat posed by Iran and consensus that threat has to be eliminated," he said referring to the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr ... He said the existing non-proliferation treaty needed to be strengthened to deal with Iran which, he speculated, could have a nuclear weapons capability "probably towards the end of the decade". He said North Korea was being dealt with by multilateral talks conducted by China, and that Pakistan had denied trading in nuclear materials with North Korea. "We take them at their word," he said. Asked about Israel's nuclear weapons capability, he replied: "The issue for the US is what poses a threat to the US." On Iraq, Mr Bolton said "the purpose of military action was to eliminate the regime ... The real security risk was the regime".

Sec. Council postpones separation fence hearing to Tuesday,
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz (Israel), October 10, 2003
"The UN Security Council on Friday agreed to a U.S. request to postpone to next Tuesday an open discussion on the separation fence Israel is building in the West Bank and around Jerusalem. The decision was reached during a closed dicussion of Security Council members on the fence, which marked the first time the UN has addressed the issue. All UN member states will have the right to speak at Wednesday's hearing. During Friday's discussion, Syria presented a draft resolution condemning Israel. The Palestinians warned Washington on Friday that the Middle East peace process would be doomed if a U.S. veto allows Israel to continue building the fence. If Israel is allowed to continue construction, "this will mean the end of the two-state solution, and that will take us to either a more drastic and radical solution or perpetual conflict. It should be looked at that seriously," Palestinian UN envoy Nasser al-Kidwa said. Al-Kidwa called for a UN Security Council vote on Tuesday on a draft resolution seeking to bar Israel from building the fence on Palestinian land and denouncing plans for more than 600 new homes in Israeli settlements. After initial closed-door talks on the Palestinian request, diplomats said there was broad support in the 15-nation council for a resolution on the security barrier, although changes in the Palestinian draft were likely. Most members feel the wall "is illegal, and they want to say something about it," Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said. But U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte suggested Washington would use its veto to kill the measure."

Israel wants US to start a new war in West Asia,
by Dr M PUTRAJAYA, Utusan (Malaysia), Oct 11, 2003
"Israel is egging the US to start a new war in West Asia by invading Syria, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Saturday. "Israel has been urging America to invade Syria, but America seems to be reluctant. So, in order to force the hands of America, Israel is going to invade Syria. "When that happens, the Americans will have to support Israel due to domestic political reasons that make Jewish votes a major factor in its presidential election," he said when asked to comment on the recent Israeli attack on Syria."

Jewish Lobby achieves racist objective of Hatred and Intolerance Prevention, which some scholars regard as anti-European reinvention of Education for strickly minority interests.
Anti-Defamation League Commends Gov. Davis for Signing Legislation for Teacher Training on Hatred and Intolerance Prevention,
U.S. Newswire, September 11, 2003
"The Anti-Defamation League commends Governor Davis for signing AB 1250 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) today allowing teachers, instructional aides, and teaching assistants to receive hatred and intolerance prevention training. Assembly Bill 1250 adds the subjects of hatred and intolerance prevention training to the existing Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform Program, and does not require any new state funding. "Now, more than ever, it is our responsibility to provide a safe learning environment free from harassment, discrimination, and violence for all students in California. I applaud Governor Davis, Assemblymember Laird, and the legislature for approving this critical legislation, " said Jonathan Bernstein, director of ADL's Central Pacific Region."

Labor leader lining up cash for recall of Schwarzenegger,
Mercury News, October 12, 2003
"After Arnold Schwarzenegger obliterated his opponents in the recall like he has so many action-movie adversaries, most Democrats at least paid lip service to the idea of cooperating with the new governor. Most, but not all. Bob Brownstein, the brains behind much of the local labor establishment's political agenda, says he has already lined up $30,000 to recall Schwarzenegger, and ``I think I can get to $50,000, no problem.'' Ideally, the ex-chief of staff to former San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer says, the recall would go on the presidential ballot in November 2004. All of this depends, he adds, on other liberal activists around the state joining the cause. ``I am serious about it,'' Brownstein insisted."

Peru's Outspoken First Lady Redefines a Traditional Role,
By MARC PERELMAN, [Jewish] Forward, October 10, 2003
"Eliane Karp does not match the usual job description for first lady of Peru. In a country where machismo is alive and well, the first lady is expected to be native-born, Catholic, dark-haired and (very) quiet. Karp is Belgian-born, Jewish, red-haired and (very) outspoken. But she does not mind challenging people's expectations. "They see this strange animal, which is not Peruvian, not Catholic, totally different, very opinionated, who works with her husband as a partner and not in the background," Karp told the Forward in a recent interview in New York, where she was accompanying her husband, President Alejandro Toledo, to the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. "This is difficult to swallow for many people" ... Karp, a former kibbutznik and an anthropologist deeply involved in issues affecting Peru's indigenous peoples, only added to Toledo's mystique when she appeared by his side ... While Karp admits that the last two years have been "very difficult" and that the president has lost some support, she claims he is more popular than polls show. She claims that the polling institutes and the press are linked to the "mafia" and the Fujimori "dictatorship," two words she used repeatedly during an hour-long interview ... While Toledo has faced opposition as president, Karp has faced negative press herself as first lady. Two years ago, the press reported that her husband had fathered a daughter out of wedlock. Toledo and Karp initially denied the allegations and blasted his political opponents for engineering a nasty political maneuver. But he has since admitted publicly he was the girl's father. Karp, who was separated from Toledo for several years in the 1980s and 1990s — she spent those years working for Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv — is still visibly uneasy discussing the incident and its coverage, noting, "This should have been dealt with within the family." Last year, she was forced to step down from a well-paid adviser job with a bank following allegations of influence-peddling. She said she held the job prior to the election and saw nothing wrong with keeping it after becoming first lady. But she said she reluctantly resigned to avoid further controversy. What has mortified Karp even more than sniping from the couple's political enemies, she says, are the attacks on her from Peru's small Jewish community. Several prominent Jewish businessmen — she cited the Wolfenson, Winter and Stone families — have been charged with illegal business dealings under Fujimori, thrown in jail and put under house arrest or forced into exile since Toledo took over. The businessmen and their supporters accused Karp of orchestrating a witch-hunt; some rabbis have echoed these sentiments. "I often expressed my ill feelings about a community that was not able to uphold ethical standards and was doing some nonkosher deals with the dictatorship," she said. "Several of those families have influence in the media and have launched a campaign against me with the mafia. So you have Jews waging a campaign against the first Jewish first lady... This is really an ugly situation." Karp was naturalized as a Peruvian a year ago, but her personal history is international. After spending her childhood in Brussels and Paris, where she was active in the leftist Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair, Karp moved to Israel and settled on Kibbutz Baram."

Panel Eyes Homeland Spy Service,
CBS, Oct. 14, 2003
"A former CIA director and a former deputy national security adviser on Tuesday advocated major changes to the U.S. intelligence establishment in testimony before the independent commission studying the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. John M. Deutch, CIA director from 1995-1996, and James B. Steinberg, deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, endorsed two structural reforms: appointing a director of national intelligence separate from the CIA, and creating a domestic security service modeled after Britain's MI5. "Although some progress has been made," Deutch said in written remarks to the commission, "I doubt that it will be possible to obtain the intelligence capability this country and its citizens deserve without a dramatic realignment that creates an executive authority that places national security first." In an interview on the eve of his testimony, Steinberg said U.S. counterterror efforts remain hampered by decades-old walls separating by law the work of the FBI and CIA. The FBI operates domestically and traditionally focuses on catching law-breakers; the CIA works abroad and focuses on learning secrets. "The beauty of the MI5 model is it breaks down both those walls," said Steinberg, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution ... Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed legislation to split the duties of the current director of central intelligence into two jobs: a CIA director and a national intelligence director. The national intelligence director, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a 10-year term, would oversee all intelligence agencies, setting priorities for collecting information and monitoring cooperation. The CIA director's duties would be limited to running that one agency. The idea of a new U.S. domestic security agency gained momentum last year when Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge visited MI5 headquarters in Britain. But Ridge said he doubted the Bush administration would create a similar agency because MI5's powers would be unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution. FBI Director Robert Mueller also opposes the idea of an American MI5. MI5 describes itself as Britain's defensive security intelligence agency."

Is "Zionist Occupation Government" (ZOG) a myth of the Far Right? Some scholars have said that the wars in the Middle East are really rooted in the one-sided propaganda war in America, where Zionists and Judeocentric sycophants have a lock on U.S. foreign policy.
See Israel in Record Numbers Visiting Congressmen Speak Out About Security Fence, Terrorism,
By ELLI WOHLGELERNTER, [Jewish] FORWARD, September 5, 2003
"When members of Congress returned to their offices this week and were asked what they did on their summer vacation, a record number had a shared answer: I went to Israel. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, made headlines for a strongly pro-Israel speech he gave to the Knesset at the end of July. A bipartisan delegation of lawmakers led by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, went in August as part of a fact-finding trip that also took them to Iraq. A group led by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York included three New York congressmen, Eliot Engel, Gregory Meeks and Anthony Weiner. Two partisan trips were sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, the nonprofit educational arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which pays out some $5,000 for each participant. Aipac has been bringing congressional delegations for more than 20 years, but none larger than the 30 Democrats who came in early August, led by Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic whip. That delegation was followed two weeks later by a Republican one, 19 representatives led by Tom Reynolds of New York and Eric Cantor of Virginia. All told, more than 100 members of Congress — almost one-fifth the total — have visited Israel this year ... Some critics charge that the congressional delegates get a skewed view of the political situation because they are being hosted by the conservative Aipac. The Tikkun Community, a left-wing group sponsored by Tikkun magazine, has urged its members via e-mail to contact Congress members who visited Israel in order to "present a different view of the Middle East conflic' ... Many members of Congress who came seemed reluctant to speak out on issues. Some, for example, were hesitant to say anything that did not conform to the policy of President Bush. But some Republicans were willing to speak out on the controversial issue of the security fence, as well as on the State Department's reported plan to penalize Israel for building the barrier by deducting an equal amount from the $9 billion in loan guarantees. McCain said he backed the idea of the fence, a position at odds with the Bush administration as well as Palestinians, who object to the barrier that they say cuts across farmlands and separates Palestinians from their communities. McCain also said he would oppose penalizing Israel for building the fence. Many Democrats also spoke out. Hoyer said the fence makes sense for Israel and would promote peace. "The fence is a rational response to securing safety, and in my opinion — to the extent that it stops terrorist acts from occurring — it will further the peace process, because terrorist acts will inevitably undermine the peace process." Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat, said he supports the fence ... Rep. Joe Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, said he was learning the differences between Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the distinction within Hamas between the group's terrorist wing and its charitable wing. "What in particular was interesting to me to find out was that the Palestinian Authority does not have control over its security forces," Wilson said, "that indeed Yasser Arafat still controls the security forces, which then puts the prime minister in an awkward position." These meetings with the prime minister are not seen as frivolous photo-ops, but as a perfect opportunity to forge stronger relations with members of Congress, where Israel's strongest allies sit. Bobby Brown, who was in charge of Diaspora affairs under former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remembers how seriously he would take these meetings. "Bibi viewed them as extremely important," Brown said. "He considered [them] as strategically important as almost any other area of effort on behalf of the State of Israel." Moreover, Brown said, it was not always the congressional leaders learning about Israel. One time a governor told Netanyahu how his state had privatized everything, including prisons. "Bibi was absolutely fascinated with the idea that government could sub-contract out various governmental duties. I don't think anyone felt like student to teacher. It was more like a meetings of the minds, and a meeting of friends discussing how they could help each over periods of difficulties and crises."

Mahathir condemned for 'anti-Semitic' speech,
ABC, October 17, 2003
"Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, has been widely criticised for comments that "Jews ruled the world by proxy". In a speech opening the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in Malaysia on Thursday, Dr Mahathir said the Jewish people had an influence in the world that far outweighed their numbers, because of their relationship with the United States. He claimed that "Jews rule this world" and "get others to fight and die for them" and called on Muslims to use brains, not brawn, to fight them. A US State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, has condemned the remarks. "The remarks are offensive, they are inflammatory, and we view them with the contempt and derision they deserve," Mr Ereli sai ... The head of Jewish human rights organisation the Simon Weisenthal Center, Efraim Zuroff, says the enlightened world should silence Dr Mahathir for his remarks. "It is time that the democratic, enlightened, liberal world mobilises to stop him from continuing to openly call for the hatred of Jews," Mr Zuroff said."

We are all Jews now,
By GILBERT PORTER BLYTHE, The Last Ditch, October 19, 2003
"Since September 11, 2001, George W. Bush has made no attempt to understand the motives of people who hate us. A few hours after the World Trade Center collapsed, he announced that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." Two days later, he spoke of terrorists who "hate our values" and "hate what America stands for." President Bush has never deviated from this theme. He insists that attacks on our soldiers in Iraq are led by people who "hate freedom." In Mr. Bush's view, Arabs, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Muslims all around the world do not hate us because we have hurt them or harmed their interests in any way. They hate us because they hate freedom, and America stands for freedom. It is only a small step to conclude that they hate us because we are good and they are bad. Some of the president's less simple-minded advisors paint a slightly more complex picture: Arabs are jealous of America's cultural and economic success, and their oppressive regimes channel internal discontent into hatred for America and Israel. It is convenient but dangerous for Americans to convince themselves that their enemies have no real grievances, but want to kill us only because they hate our goodness and blame us for their own failures. If they really hate us for what we are rather than what we do, they cannot be reasoned with but must be treated as dangerous madmen. We need not think seriously about their motives or consider what we may have done to injure or offend them. The almost deliberate blindness required for this point of view is particularly evident in the president's insistence that Iraqis attack our soldiers because the attackers "hate freedom." What they hate, of course, is occupation by foreigners, rule by infidels, daily humiliation, and the steady stream of Iraqi casualties added to the estimated tens of thousands we killed during the initial phase of the war. They do not hate freedom; they seek freedom from occupation and humiliation. To insist that Osama bin Laden also hates freedom is equally obtuse, in light of his clearly stated reasons for opposing the United States: the presence of American troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, economic sanctions against Iraq, and especially our unwavering support for Israel. In his October 18 message to Americans he was quite explicit: "We are counting our dead, may God bless them, especially in Palestine, who are killed by your allies the Jews. We are going to take revenge for them from your blood, God willing, as we did on the day of New York." Mr. bin Laden has frequently denounced what he describes as the cultural and moral decadence of the West, but he has never cited it as a reason to kill us. It is only by convincing ourselves we are the blameless victims of unfathomable hatred that we can justify acts that shock the world and that even our European allies oppose: preemptive war, unilateral violence, and detention without charges. We are so convinced of our own purity and of the irrational wickedness of our enemies that we turn on our former friends, most strikingly against the French, if they fail to understand that we are in a struggle of pure good versus pure evil. There is a not-coincidental similarity between the president's views of good and evil and the Jewish preoccupation with anti-Semitism. Jews have always insisted that if gentiles dislike them it is because of who they are, not what they do. Adopting a view like that of Mr. Bush's view of attacks against the United States, they refuse to consider whether their own actions may cause hostility. In the United States, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and countless smaller organizations are on constant alert for anti-Semitism anywhere in the world, yet the ADL and the Wiesenthal Center are silent as to why anyone would dislike Jews. The Steven Roth Institute of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University has extensive files of reported anti-Semitism but nothing to say about what causes it. For those organizations, anti-Semitism is like Mr. Bush's conception of Osama bin Laden: an irrational upwelling of pure evil ... The most common view among Jews is the one expressed by the World Union of Jewish Students in its brief Internet discussion of the causes of anti-Semitism, in which it concludes it is a "persistent hate without logic." That is an almost perfect expression of Mr. Bush's view of anti-American terror: it, too, is "hate without logic." The Jewish dismissal of gentile grievances is just as sweeping and self-serving as Mr. Bush's dismissal of Arab and Muslim grievances against us. Human beings do not "hate without logic." Sustained hatred takes too much energy for it to be wasted on millions of innocents. Over the centuries, Jews have been disliked because of their clannishness, contempt for non-Jews, disrespect for national institutions, disloyalty, sharp business practices, and many other things people do not like. But just as Mr. Bush has convinced himself that the Iraqis who attack our soldiers "hate freedom," Jews have convinced themselves they are blameless targets of irrational hatred. For many Jews, any criticism of Jews or of Israel is hatred and bigotry. Practically the entire world deplores Israel's treatment of Palestinians, yet the Israeli authorities refuse to examine their own motives or behavior. Instead, they insist their critics are anti-Semites, meaning, presumably, that if any other group treated Palestinians as they do, the world would approve ... If we were to think about the motives of terrorists rather than dismiss them as delusional murderers, we might reconsider our support for Israel. That would be anathema for Jews, many of whom make no secret of their passionate commitment to Israel. For the many influential Jews in Mr. Bush's circle and in the media, that is why it is important to encourage Americans to think like Jews, that is, to ignore or downplay the concrete reasons others may have to hate us, and to think of them as irrational fanatics who respond only to force. It is in the interest of Jews for gentiles to think like Jews, to see the world as a black-and-white battleground of the virtuous against the wicked, rather than as a complex tangle of competing claims in which there may be legitimacy on both sides. George W. Bush is only the most important and powerful convert to that view of the world. It would be entirely in keeping with our increasingly Jewish way of thinking to invent a new word, analogous to anti-Semitism, to describe those who hate freedom ... Only America stands with Israel in a world filled with anti-Semites. Only the United States defended Israel when it bombed what it said was a terrorist camp in Syria in retaliation for a Palestinian suicide bombing in October. Only the United States and its client states — Micronesia and the Marshall Islands — voted with Israel against a UN General Assembly resolution in September urging Israel to withdraw its threat to "remove" Yasser Arafat. No fewer than 133 nations voted the other way. In 2001, when delegates to a conference on racism in South Africa criticized Israel, only the Americans walked out in solidarity with Israel. It is no surprise that the Arab world sees America and Israel as joint enemies. Muslims burn American flags at the same rallies at which they burn Israeli flags, and chant "death to America" with almost as much as passion as they chant "death to Israel." Mr. Bush may as well announce that American and Israeli interests really are indistinguishable, and that attacks on the United States are really attacks on Israel, motivated by the same blinkered hatreds. Let us therefore use the word that most readily comes to mind, and recognize that those who hate us are, first and foremost, anti-Semites and that hatred of America is simply another form of "the longest hatred." More than ever, in our thinking and in our behavior, we are all Jews now."

In Support Of Malaysian PM's Comments On Jews,
by Elias Davidsson [email commentary circulated by Israel Shamir]
Shamir says: "The daring speech of the Malaysian PM, Dr Mahathir brought many responses, but the best and most lucid is that by our good friend, a native of Jerusalem, Elias Davidsson. He wrote:
As a Jew myself (but opposed to Zionism) I need no encouragement from Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad to observe what should be obvious to the blatant eye: Namely that Jews effectively rule US foreign policy and thus determine to a great extent the conduct of most countries. If an empirical observation is defined as "antisemitism", then this would apply also to any other empirical observation, whatever its nature. When I say "the sun shines today", it would also amount to "antisemitism" and you will find people dispute whether the existence of an undetermined number of clouds, sometimes hiding the sun, invalidate the proposition. So it is with the proposition that Jews control the world. Surely they do not control every single action; surely it does not mean that every Jew participates in the "control". But for all practical purposes the proposition holds. The very fact that a mere statement of this type causes outrage in the chancelleries of the most powerful nations (while the death of half a million children in Iraq between 1990 and 2001 has not), the fact that dozens of nations could change by 180 degrees their opinion of what Zionism is (in 1975 they adopted a UNGA resolution that Zionism is a form of racism whereas after the demise of the Soviet Union they simply, and without any arguments rescinded that resolution), the fact that to obtain US credits one country after the other takes up diplomatic relations with the State of Israel and shows great "sympathy" to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, the fact that in order to be voted into the Congress, an American must demonstrate his or her allegiance to the State of Israel, all of these and many more facts demonstrate that the Jews indeed have the power referred to my Malaysian PM. This observation has nothing to do neither with the exotic Protocols of the Elders of Zion nor with esoteric interpretations of the Talmud. It is based on publicly available evidence and has little to do with conspiracy theories. Why Jews wield such power is again another question. Perhaps because Jews emphasize so much education, perhaps because Jews feel solidarity with each other and care much more for their "nation" than many others. Mahathir has neither asked to discriminate against Jews, let alone to kill Jews. It is shameful to equate him to the Hitlerites. He urges Muslims to fight Jews by adopting modern methods, technology and educate themselves, in other words to surpass Jews in excellence. What's wrong with that? By this he is doing service to the Muslims (over 1 Billion people) and to humanity. Jews must know their place and content themselves with influence derived from their small number. Jews must learn some humility... Elias Davidsson edavid@simnet.is

Bush Condemns Malaysian Remarks on Jews,
By PATRICK McDOWELL, Las Vega Sun (from Associated Press), October 20, 2003
"President Bush on Monday personally condemned the Malaysian prime minister for his statement that Jews rule the world, pulling Mahathir Mohamad aside at an international economic meeting to tell him the remarks were "wrong and divisive," Bush's spokesman said. White House press secretary Scott McClellan quoted Bush as telling the Malaysian leader, "It stands squarely against what I believe in." Bush confronted Mahathir between meetings of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, McClellan said, inserting himself into a simmering controversy. Earlier Monday, Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, signaled Bush's disapproval as he sat down in the same room with Mahathir and 19 other leaders. It is the last of the annual forums that Mahathir will attend before retiring Oct. 31 after 22 years in power. Mahathir, Asia's senior statesman in Asia whose pugnacious, articulate speeches against globalization and U.S. policy in the Middle East have a strong following, triggered an uproar last week at a summit of Islamic countries by stating that "Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." The thrust of his address was that the world's 1.3 billion Muslims had been outmaneuvered by "a few million Jews" and needed to give up violence in favor of using greater unity and improved education to defend their interests peacefully. But the comments about Jews prompted outrage from Washington, Australia and the European Union. "Everyone thinks the comments were hateful, they are outrageous," Rice told reporters ... The outraged Western reaction was in marked contrast to the standing ovation Mahathir received from the leaders of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference - including several U.S. allies. Mahathir has contended that his remarks about Jews were "stating the facts" ... The tone between Kuala Lumpur and Washington has deteriorated since Bush invited Mahathir to the White House in May 2002 and praised him as an ally in the war against terrorism. In the weeks before the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Mahathir denounced the United States as preparing a racist attack against nonwhite Muslims."

Mahathir: Jew comment out of context,
by Pichai Chuensuksawadi, Bangkok Times, October 15, 2003
"Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad says his comments about Jews during a speech at an Islamic summit last week, which prompted harsh criticism in the West, had been taken out of context. ``In my speech I condemned all violence, even the suicide bombings, and I told the Muslims it's about time we stopped all these things and paused to think and do something that is much more productive. That was the whole tone of my speech, but they picked up one sentence where I said that the Jews control the world,'' he told Bangkok Post in an exclusive interview yesterday, which covered aspects of his 22 years as leader of Malaysia, as well as his straight-forward views on terrorism, democracy and US policy. Dr Mahathir added, however, that ``the reaction of the world shows that they [Jews] do control the world''. During a speech at the Organisation of Islamic Conference in Malaysia last week, Dr Mahathir said Jewish people, because of their ties with the United States, had an influence in the world which far outweighed their numbers. ``It cannot be that there is no other way; 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews,'' he said. The United States, Israel, Australia and the European Union have accused Dr Mahathir of anti-Semitism. Dr Mahathir said the Americans and Europeans were out to condemn him. The European Union had done nothing when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Burlesconi made a statement calling Muslims terrorists. ``Did the European Union pass a resolution to say that this was against Muslims? Why is it that when people condemn Muslims the European Union does not try to say anything?'' Dr Mahathir said his comments about Israel and Jews were true. ``Israel is a small country. There are not many Jews in the world. But they are so arrogant that they defy the whole world. Even if the United Nations say no, they go ahead. Why? Because they have the backing of all these people.'' Dr Mahathir said that in his speech he urged Israelis and Arabs to stop the killing and to think, pause and settle. ``I even quoted from the Koran, which says that when the enemy offers to make peace you must accept. I told the Muslims you must accept even if the terms are bad. You have to negotiate. This is the teaching of Islam. All that was in my speech... But those things were blacked out,'' he said."

Jewish Lobby Does 'Rule' The US,
By Shahanaaz Habib, The Star Online (Malaysia) October 21, 2003
"And why was there no attempt by the Western media to prove [Mahathir] wrong by showing that the Jews are not proxy rulers? Instead, they just indulged in bashing, name-calling and tagged him as anti-semitic." Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's opening speech at last week's Organisation of Islamic Conference Summit in Putrajaya has been criticised by many in the West as being anti-Jew, disgusting and repulsive. Is this a correct perception? No, really. Which bit of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's speech at the opening of OIC summit is inflammatory, offensive, repugnant and deserving of contempt? That he called on Muslims to use their brains and not just brawn to fight their enemies? That he told them to stop blowing themselves up? And not act out of anger as irrational acts only beget more violence? Or that the Malaysian leader told Muslims they could learn a lesson or two from the Jews? And that numbers alone do not make strength? This means unity - something the 1.3 billion Muslims lack and the few million Jews have. Or was it his remarks that the Jews have become arrogant and arrogant people make mistakes? Or that the Jews rule the world by proxy and get others to fight and die for them? Now, really, which of these are untrue? Just take the Jewish-rule-the-world by proxy comment. Why the uproar about it? Isn't this a known fact? The difference perhaps is that others have not expressed it in such blatant terms as the plain-speaking Malaysian Prime Minister. But many have studied and written on the powerful Jewish lobby in the US administration, their control of the media, influence on economy and even Hollywood. A number of Jews sit in key positions in the US administration and they steer much of the US foreign policy. Just take the current George W. Bush administration. There's Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary and close advisor of foreign policy, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defence Policy Board, the Pentagon's advisory panel. Perle comes with a colourful past. In the 1970s, he was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office for passing highly-classified documents to the Israeli embassy. And later, he worked for an Israeli weapons firm, while Wolfowitz is said to have close ties with the Israeli military. Another intriguing character is Elliot Abrams, who is in the National Security Council (NSC), the principal forum for security and foreign affairs for the US president. Hawkish, very pro-Israeli, Abrams is best known for his role in the Iran Contra scandal where arms were illegally sold to Iran to fight Iraq. He pleaded guilty in 1991 about lying to Congress over the affair and a year later received a full pardon from Bush senior. And today Abrams advises Bush junior on Middle East affairs and gets to present papers on policy to Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor. There's also Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defence and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon whose appointment caused quite a stir in the Arab world. Arab-American Institute president Dr James Zogby called it a "dangerous appointment" because having Feith, known for his extreme anti-Arab bias, as a chief architect of the US foreign policy was bad news for the Middle East. There are also others like Dov Zekheim the under-secretary of Defence, Richard Haas ñ director of planning at the state department and a strong advocate of the bombing of Iraq, Marc Grossman under-secretary for political affairs, James Schelesinger, an advisor to the Pentagon, Lincoln Bloomfield assistant secretary of state for political military affairs and Robert Zoellick and Robert Satloff. With so many pro-Israeli American Jews in the US administration, why is there a problem when someone states the obvious? And questions who is really in charge? And puts in perspective why US policies are always skewed in favour of Israel no matter how unfair? One should not also forget the 60,000-strong American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the influential Jewish lobby group with deep pockets which funds election and re-election campaigns of senators, congressmen and presidents. Although Jews make up only 2% to 3% of the US population, Jewish political scientist and author Benjamin Ginsberg points out that close to half of America's billionaires are Jews. Just take Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996. A member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations was quoted in a Jerusalem Post report that Jews alone had contributed 50% of funds for Clinton's campaign. Therefore it is hardly surprising when Dr Fahed Fanek, a leading Jordanian economics and media consultant, writes that AIPAC has "enough clout to make or break politicians." Bush "trembles with fear" at AIPAC which can "easily set the US media against him," he says. That fear is understandable since the Jews own a great chunk of the media and, in those they don't, they wield considerable influence. Ginsberg notes the three major television networks in the United States have Jews as chief executive officers and that Jews own the nation's largest newspaper chain and the influential newspaper New York Times. Kevin McDonald's of California State University in his study on Jews and the Media writes that the extent of Jewish ownership in media is remarkable. These include holdings in major media companies like CNN, Time magazine, CBS, ABC, Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. As for non Jew-owned media such as Fox News and NBC, he says ethnic Jews hold major managerial roles there. There is also coercion of the media. Dr Fahed cites the example of the Los Angeles Times losing 1,000 subscriptions in a single day for printing reports deemed not sufficiently supportive of Israel's military action in the West Bank. Another popular newspaper, he says was forced to apologise to readers for printing a photograph of a pro-Israeli rally that had a few anti-Israel demonstrators in the background! Even former US joint chiefs of staff Admiral Thomas Moorer was once so exasperated with the Israeli- Jewish hold on the United States and that no US president dared to stand up to them. "If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our Government, they would rise up in arms. "Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on," he had said. So wasn't Dr Mahathir at the OIC summit then just calling a spade a spade and telling it as it is? And why was there no attempt by the Western media to prove him wrong by showing that the Jews are not proxy rulers? Instead, they just indulged in bashing, name-calling and tagged him as anti-semitic. Syrian editor Fuad Mardoud who listened to Dr Mahathir's opening speech at the summit says anyone who read or listened to the speech would not get a feeling of anti-semitism from it. So he thinks the Western media take on the speech is a deliberate attempt to defame the leader. "Dr Mahathir is rising as a great Islamic leader. "The West anticipates that he will gain big results for the Muslim world so this is their way to cut it short," he says."

Bailing out Brazil – Or Robert Rubin?,
by Patrick Buchanan, World Net Daily, August 14, 2002
"What has happened to Paul O'Neill? Our tough-love treasury secretary seems to have undergone a road-to-Damascus conversion to the Clintonite policy of bailing out bankrupt Third World regimes. Last month, O'Neill scoffed at the idea of bailing out Latin America. The money, he said, would probably wind up in Swiss banks. But last week, Uruguay got $1.5 billion to stop a run on its banks. Then came a $30 billion dollar IMF bailout of Brazil. Now, the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank are offering Brazil another $7 billion. This $37 billion comes on top of $15 billion the IMF sent Brazil last year and a $41 billion Brazilian bailout in 1998. Why is Uncle Sam bailing out these deadbeats – yet again – when Americans have gotten zero help from the government while a two-year bear market has gutted their 401(k)s and stock portfolios? Read Friday's New York Times and you will find the answer. Sam isn't bailing out Brazilian peasants, he's bailing out big banks. Last week, Brazil was in a panic, on the verge of default, and reporter Edmund Andrews explains why this was so "frightening." "Brazil's ... external debt of $264 billion is more than double that of Argentina's, and American banks like Citigroup, FleetBoston and J. P. Morgan Chase have much greater exposure to Brazilian loans than to Argentine ones." How great is the exposure? "American banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. Citigroup, the biggest lender to Brazil, has $9.7 billion in Brazilian loans." That's right. Forty percent of the U.S. bank exposure in Brazil is the fault of America's biggest and dumbest bank. And who is the resident financial wizard at Citigroup? "Robert H. Rubin, who was treasury secretary under President Clinton and engineered international rescue packages for Mexico, Russia and many Asian countries, is now a Citigroup director." Andrews pointedly adds, "A representative for Citigroup could not say whether bank executives had lobbied in favor of a rescue package for Brazil." But the day the Brazilian bailout was announced, Citigroup's stock shot up 6 percent. The career of Robert Rubin is instructive. As lead pony at Goldman Sachs, he led that investment bank into plunging billions into Mexican bonds. As head of the White House Economic Security Council, he failed to see the Mexican default barreling up the tracks. But as treasury secretary, he was able to shovel billions of U.S. dollars down Mexico way, thus saving the Goldman Sachs investments. Last fall, we learned Rubin phoned Treasury to suggest to a friend that he might call Moody's to urge them not to downgrade the credit rating of Enron. Citigroup had loaned Enron $750 million. Yet, the committee investigating Enron, chaired by Joe Lieberman, has yet to call Rubin to explain what exactly he was up to and what other calls he made on Enron's behalf."

Pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill,
BBC (UK), May 8, 2003
"Both the Labour party and Jewish organisations have reacted angrily to allegations by the longstanding gadfly, Tam Dalyell, that Tony Blair is unduly influenced by what he called a cabal of Jewish advisors. Untrue, they say. But it is received wisdom in much of the Arab world that a so-called Zionist lobby has a stranglehold on American foreign policy. Washington denies that, too. But now, Newsnight has had access to the man described as 'the most influential private citizen in American foreign policy'. His name's Malcolm Hoenlein. Tom Carver looked at the strength of the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill.
... TOM CARVER: The most well-known face of the Jewish political groups in this country is AIPAC, which calls itself a pro-Israel lobby. It helped to organise this demonstration on the Capitol steps last year. AIPAC doesn't give interviews easily and turned down our requests. But you can glean a lot about the way it works from public records. AIPAC itself is not a donor. What it does is encourage its many members to donate as private individuals to the campaigns of hundreds of politicians ... TOM CARVER: Hard facts are difficult to pin down, but 80% of the Senate received money from pro-Israeli political action committees in the last election, and that doesn't even include individual donations. Look at Amy Friedkin, AIPAC's president. Before her appointment last May, she gave money as a private citizen to more than 40 members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Among them, several of the Democrat presidential candidates like John Edwards, the Democrat leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, the Republican leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, and the Republican speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert. JJ GOLDBERG [Editor of The Forward]: Everybody will tell you, in American politics, access is everything. The other everything is money. If you have 60,000 people, all of whom make it their business to donate and raise money for their favourite candidates, candidates remember you when you walk in with a bundle of cheques. That is a network of influence. TOM CARVER: There are bigger donors than the pro-Israeli lobby, but none equal its commitment and organisation. To the extent that few politicians now dare oppose it. DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD: (Legislative Director, AIPAC 1988 - 89) AIPAC has one enormous advantage. It really doesn't have any opposition. TOM CARVER: When he was AIPAC's legislative director, Douglas Bloomfield found that Arab-Americans who opposed Israel had an uphill struggle ... TOM CARVER: What really alarms the likes of Tam Dalyell is the purported Jewish influence in the White House. There's certainly a close alignment between the neo-cons in the Republican Party and those in the Jewish community. The most powerful intellectual advocate of the war in Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, is Jewish. So is Bill Kristol, one of the most influential Republican journalists. His father, Irving Kristol, was an early neo-con in the '70s with Norman Podhoretz, who just happens to be the father-in-law of Eliot Abrams, George Bush's key Middle East advisor. But these connections don't make a conspiracy - after all, the Clinton White House had its fair share of Jewish intellectuals too. Whatever influence someone like Norman Podhoretz has is not because he's persuaded George Bush, but because his and the president's world view happen to coincide. NORMAN PODHORETZ: The only way to ensure a victory against terrorism and our own safety, is to do what Vice-president Cheney said, to drain the swamps in which terrorism breeds. By "swamps", he means the despotism of the Middle East. They and we look forward to regime changes in that part of the world. TOM CARVER: How successfully does Ariel Sharon exploit all these connections? Again it's not as straightforward as it seems. Because he's such a good friend of Israel, it's difficult for Sharon to criticise George Bush publicly. So Jerusalem resorts to backroom tactics. At Forward, one of the most respected newspapers in the Jewish community, journalists have uncovered instances of Jerusalem using the American lobby to apply pressure on the White House. JJ GOLDBERG: There have been times when American Jews have been presented with a far more alarmist version than Canadian or British Jews. The Israeli embassy in Washington was putting out material substantially different from other Israeli embassies. I have to conclude that was a decision that American Jews have a huge influence in Washington and therefore in the Middle East. Canadian Jews are less crucial, so you might as well treat them as people. TOM CARVER: Tell them the truth? JJ GOLDBERG: Yes ... TOM CARVER: But in the heart of Manhattan we met a different type of lobby. Malcolm Hoenlein's been called the most influential member of America's Jewish community. Every major Jewish group belongs to his organisation. He is supposed to represent their views. His critics claim he uses the platform to push his own right-wing views. What no one disputes is that, after 16 years operating behind the scenes, he has unrivalled access to the political establishment. Does the road map have a future, in your view? MALCOLM HOENLEIN: It could. It depends upon the actions of the Palestinians in terms of compliance. The mistake of the past has been to have time-driven deadlines and targets, not performance-driven. TOM CARVER: For several years in the '90s, Malcolm Hoenlein raised money for Bet El, one of the most militant of settlements just outside Ramallah."

Jewish lobbying polite, says Carr,
The Australian, October 23, 2003
"NSW Premier Bob Carr today said lobbying by the Jewish community for him to withdraw from presenting a peace prize to a Palestinian advocate had been polite and reasonable. Mr Carr will present the Sydney Peace Prize, awarded by Sydney University, to Palestinian MP Hanan Ashrawi at a dinner on November 6. The premier today told Sydney radio station 2UE that members of the Jewish community had approached him and asked him not to award the prize to Dr Ashrawi, who has been an outspoken critic of Israeli government policy. "There has been lobbying," Mr Carr said. "It's been polite. It's been reasonable. "But I have got a lot of friends in the Jewish community who have said (to the lobbyists): `Hang on, don't attack Bob, over this. He's been a long time supporter of the Israeli cause'." Yesterday, Sydney Lord Mayor Lucy Turnbull announced she would not attend the ceremony in an official capacity, despite the council being main sponsor of the event, because of Dr Ashrawi's criticisms of the Israeli government. Mr Carr today said he was disappointed Ms Turnbull planned to boycott the ceremony honouring Dr Ashrawi ... NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden and Vaucluse MP Peter Debnam, whose electorate has a large number of Jewish voters, have called on Mr Carr not to present the award."

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), October 22, 2003 09:59 PM EDT
"A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident. In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for years because he's a military man, and "when orders come ... I follow them." He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded the attack was unintentional. The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War. In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded. Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States. After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it was an accident. It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins. "Why in the world would our government put Israel's interest ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack. Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate ... Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned. David Lewis of Lemington, Vt., was on the Liberty when it was attacked. In an interview, he said Israel had to know it was targeting an American ship. He said a U.S. flag was flying that day and Israel shot it full of holes. The sailors on the ship, he said, quickly hoisted another American flag, a much bigger one, to show Israel it was a U.S. vessel. "No trained individual could be that inept," said Lewis of the Israeli forces. In Capt. Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have ordered a cover-up. Later in a phone interview from his home in Coronado, Calif., Boston said Johnson may have worried the inquiry would hurt him politically with Jewish voters. Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war."

'Israelization' of U.S. Middle East policy proceeds apace,
By DAVID HIRST, The Japan Times, October 23, 2003
"Few disputed at the time that Israel was a factor that pushed U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war on Iraq. Just how much weight it had among all the other factors was the only controversial question. But what is clear, six months on, is that Israel is now a very important one indeed in the stumbling neoimperial venture that Iraq has become. This "Israelization" of U.S. policy crossed a new threshold with the two blows dealt Syria in the past fortnight -- Bush's endorsement of Israel's Oct. 5 air raid on its territory and the Syrian Accountability Act passed by the House of Representatives last week. A community of U.S.-Israeli purpose pushed to unprecedented lengths is now operational as well as ideological. For the U.S., the main battlefield is Iraq, and any state that sponsors or encourages resistance to its occupation; for Israel it is occupied Palestine, its "terrorists" and their external backers. These common objectives converge on Syria. Of course, with his raid, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had his own specifically Israeli agenda, growing out of frustration at his failure to crush the intifada. Breaking the "rules" that have "contained" Israeli-Syrian conflict these past 30 years, he signaled his readiness to visit on Israel's Arab neighbors the same punitive techniques he uses on the Palestinians. But whereas such an escalation might have had some deterrent logic when these neighbors truly did sponsor or harbor Palestinian resistance, it doesn't now. An essential feature of the intifada is that, spontaneous and popular, it derives almost all its impetus from within; nothing illustrated that like Hanadi Jaradat, the young woman from Jenin whose very personal grief and vengeance prompted, on Oct. 4, the atrocious, self-sacrificial deed that in turn prompted the raid. So, other than brief emotional gratification to the Israeli public, Sharon's action achieved nothing. But that will not deter Sharon. Having embarked on this course, he has little choice but to continue it; more importantly, violence has always been the indispensable means by which, in the guise of fighting terror, he pursues his long-term aims, the building of "Greater Israel" and the crushing of any opposition to it. But Sharon is also, he believes, serving an American agenda. At least no one in Washington says he is not. There was a time, even under the current U.S. administration, the most pro-Israeli administration ever, when America would have strenuously distanced itself from such an act by its protege; a time when, mindful of the linkage between the two great Middle East zones of crisis, it would have recognized that too close an identification with the aims and actions of Israel in Palestine and its environs would complicate its task in Iraq. No more, apparently. Now these aims and actions either matter little to America, or even, in Syria's case, complement its own. True, constraints persist even now. Bush still balks at Israel's projected "removal" of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. On the other hand, he has effectively "disengaged" once more from the peacemaking, endorsed the Israeli view that Arafat alone is responsible for its breakdown and left Sharon a freer hand than ever to conduct the Israeli share of their common "war on terror." It was partly because he couldn't go after Arafat that Sharon turned on Syria instead. Again, Bush urged caution -- but then called it legitimate "self defense" of a kind America itself would have resorted to. It was Palestinian "terrorists" Israel struck, but in American eyes, these are a piece of those other "terrorists" -- Arabs or Muslims -- whose passage into Iraq Syria supposedly permits or does little to impede. Bush's endorsement of the raid -- together with his signaled readiness to sign into law the Syrian Accountability against which he has long held out -- means that, where Syria is concerned, he has now veered strongly in favor of the neoconservative wing of his administration. Its members are so closely linked, personally, ideologically and even institutionally, to the Israeli rightwing that it is impossible to disentangle what is American in their thinking from what is Sharon and the Likud's -- and nowhere, Western diplomats in Damascus say, is this more obvious than it is with regard to Syria."

Mahathir says Bush knew what he meant about Jews,
Taipai Times, Oct 24, 2003
"Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has said President George W. Bush came close to apologizing to him for the strong language that the US administration had used to criticize his claims that Jews rule the world. Bush, however, has told reporters he made it personally clear to Mahathir that his remarks were "reprehensible" as well as "divisive and unnecessary." "He did not rebuke me," Mahathir said in an interview during a visit to Indonesia and published yesterday in Malaysia's New Straits Times newspaper. "He came very nearly to apologizing to me for the strong words used." In a speech to a summit of Islamic leaders last week, Mahathir said: "Jews rule the world. They get others to fight and die for them." The comments attracted criticism from around the world. Bush and Mahathir had a brief exchange about the Malaysian leader's words a few days later on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Thailand ...In the New Straits Times interview, Mahathir said Bush had read the speech containing his comments about Jews "and he understood."

Megawati applauded Mahathir attack on Jews,
By Mark Riley, Tom Allard and Matthew Moore, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), October 18, 2003
"The Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, joined a standing ovation for her Malaysian counterpart, Mahathir Mohamad, after he called on Muslims to consider Jews as their enemy, it has been revealed. All 57 leaders at a Conference of Islamic Nations summit applauded the comments, which have renewed regional tensions ahead of next week's APEC leaders' conference. Among them were several key figures in the post-September 11 world, including Ms Megawati; the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Dr Mahathir's speech was met with a chorus of condemnation from leaders of non-Islamic states yesterday, including the [Australian] Prime Minister, John Howard. The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, last night snubbed Malaysia's Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, declining to invite him to a dinner to discuss Islam and the fight against terrorism at the Australian ambassador's residence in Bangkok ... Dr Mahathir told the meeting of Islamic leaders in Malaysia on Thursday that "Jews rule this world by proxy". He accused Jews worldwide of "getting others to fight and die for them" and called on Muslims to fight back with their brain and brawn ... An Indonesian Government spokesman, Marty Natalegawa, expressed support for Dr Mahathir's statement and declined to condemn his remarks about Jews ruling the world."

Caplin denies plan for book on Blairs,
by Mark Scodie, Jewish Chronicle (UK, paper copy), September 19, 2003, p. 10
"Carole Caplin, the controversial 'lifestyle guru' to [the prime minister's wife] Cherie Blair, this week refuted newspaper claims that she would be writing a 'tell-all' memoir about the life at 10 Downing Street ... Ms. Caplin has provided Cherie Blair with lifestyle advice since they met at a gym 11 years ago. She has attracted political and media attention for embarrassing the Blairs, most notably when her then boyfriend, convicted conman Peter Foster, helped Mrs. Blair buy two flats in Bristol."

Legal Globalization Why U.S. Courts Should Be Able to Consider the Decisions Of Foreign Courts and International Bodies,
By NOAH LEAVITT, CounterPunch, Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003
"What would happen if American lawyers began to cite decisions from courts in other countries, and from international courts? Would it enhance our judicial system - or bring chaos? Even asking this question makes many lawyers nervous. After all, many have long assumed that federal, state and local law comprise the totality of our legal system. However, I will argue that utilizing law from jurisdictions outside our borders is not only possible, but also may, in the near future, become a highly significant legal development. Indeed, this past weekend, October 11-12, several hundred attorneys gathered in Atlanta to discuss this very subject, at a conference organized by the ACLU. There, several high ranking members of the judiciary - including the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - spoke to the group. While they had very different views on the subject, the judges tended to agree that, at a minimum, they would like more education about international and foreign law. That is because they seek to better understand these arguments when attorneys raise them in their courts, as they increasingly have been doing. The Supreme Court Is Looking Toward International and Foreign Law The reality is that American attorneys are already beginning to practice this type of legal advocacy - and they are often doing so with the Supreme Court's and some lower courts' blessing. Immigration lawyers in Illinois are citing decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Criminal defense lawyers in Michigan are citing decisions of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. And especially last Term, Supreme Court advocates referred to foreign and international sources, and found the Court receptive. Indeed, last Term the Court favorably cited international and foreign law in three landmark decisions - and not in dissents, but rather in majority opinions or concurrence ... In their important concurrence, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer implied that U.S. laws that agree with their international equivalents are more likely to be upheld by the Court than those that disagree. The two Justices stated that "[t]he Court's observation that race-conscious programs 'must have a logical end point'… accords with the international understanding of the office of affirmative action." They noted that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by the United States in 1994, endorses "'special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.'"

Don't allow Jews to blackmail us, says Mahathir,
By DEVID RAJAH SUBANG, The Star Online (Malaysia), October 26, 2003
"Malaysians should not allow themselves to be blackmailed by calls by a Jewish group for a boycott of foreign investments into the country, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He said although the country would be affected “a little” economically by such a move, Malaysia and Malaysians should stand up for the truth. “The question is, do we allow ourselves to be blackmailed or do we stand up for what is right, and I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be blackmailed by them,” he said yesterday after arriving from Papua New Guinea at the RMAF base here. The influential US-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish lobby group, has called for a boycott of investments and tourism in Malaysia over what it described as Dr Mahathir’s “serial anti-Semitism.” It made this call in response to the Prime Minister’s speech at the recent Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in which he said the Jews ruled the world by proxy. Dr Mahathir said businessmen would know what was good for them. “The truth is, the Jews now control the world through proxy. If you say anything against them, then they are going to accuse you of being anti-Semitic. “And they may try to stop investments from coming into this country, and this is the kind of pressure that they apply,” he said. Dr Mahathir also said the media which had distorted his speech were controlled by the Jews because they belonged to them. “Their power is so great that people are afraid to criticise them as if they are beyond criticism,” he said. The MCA backed Dr Mahathir on his statement, saying the Prime Minister was entitled to speak his mind. MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said Dr Mahathir was merely giving his views and had no intention of lashing out at Jews. “They must be rational. Malaysia will stand firm on what we view is true and needs to be said. “Malaysians will stand together and continue a policy of non-interference in the affairs of others but at the same time hold true to our principles,” Ong said. He added that there was no need for any group to be confrontational as Dr Mahathir was merely stating a historical fact. MCA vice-president Datuk Chua Jui Meng said those calling for an economic boycott came from a small portion of radical Jews. “Their actions are illogical. It was a balanced speech by Dr Mahathir, who criticised those who had abused their power and also Muslims,” he said. In Dungun, Umno Youth chief Datuk Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the youth wing would continue to champion and defend Dr Mahathir's criticism of the West as this was based on facts. “This is the advantage Dr Mahathir has, his strength comes from us, the people at the grassroots level who have given him the confidence to speak up against the injustice and oppression taking place in the world today,” Bernama quoted him as saying. DAP also condemned the call by the US-based group. “Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, should unite to deplore the intolerable boycott call by the group, to send out a clear message to the world that the 23 million Malaysians are united as one in the defence of national interests,” its national chairman Lim Kit Siang said in a statement yesterday."

With Friends Like These... Cover-up of the Attack on the Liberty,"
By SARAH WEIR, CounterPunch, October 24, 2003
"A new report released on Capitol Hill today by former officials from the highest level of the American military and government reveals that Israel "committed acts of murder against American serviceman and an act of war against the United States" when it deliberately attacked the American Navy Ship USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 and wounding 172 American crewmembers. Israel had alleged that the two-hour attack with napalm, missiles, and torpedoes was a mistake. The release of the Independent Commission of Inquiry's findings is a major step in debunking the myth that Israel is a friend to the United States and the American people, said Alison Weir, Executive Director of If Americans Knew, an organization dedicated to providing information on issues misreported in the American media. "The fact that this Independent Commission of Inquiry was made up of prestigious American leaders will encourage the largely misinformed American public to take a closer look at the relationship between Washington and Israel. It is likely that once they examine this 'friendship,' Americans will demand a change in their government's policies, which empower the brutal oppression of the Palestinians," Weir said. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and four-star Admiral Thomas Moorer is outraged at the cover-up of the attack and the fact that this is the only attack on a US ship that has never been investigated by Congress. "Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked. "Does it continue to do so? This is an important issue that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government. Our own Independent Commission of Inquiry findings have grave implications for our national security and for the American people. In order to confront this problem, the American people and our elected officers will need to overcome their fear of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States." Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry have now been joined by the Chief Attorney in the Navy's original 1967 Court of Inquiry into the case. After remaining silent for more than three decades, Captain Ward Boston describes in a sworn affidavit how he and many others were ordered to never speak about the attack on the USS Liberty. "I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd [president of the Court of Inquiry] that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary," states the affidavit. Captain Boston said he felt compelled to "share the truth" because of "recent attempts to rewrite history."

Top: Jewish Occupied Governments: United States

JEW$ AND GOVERNMENT
12 FILE FOLDERS OF NEWS & REPORTS

File 1 | File 2 | File 3 | File 4 | Part 5 | File 6 | File 7 | File 8 | File 9 | File 10 | File 11 | File 12