Saturday, March 24, 2007

Taming Leviathan by Kevin Kallaugher for The Economist

Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in.

Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for years—there are probably about 3.5m of them—and who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.

But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups.

War on Iraq: Not Oil, but Israel by Stephen Sniegoski for The Last Ditch

We must recognize that the arguments regarding oil and American global power require far more speculation than the neconservative/Likudnik argument. The former arguments deny that terrorism had anything to do with the war, alleging that it was instead predicated on the desire for profit or global power, while the neocon/Likudnik argument assumes that fighting terrorism was the goal and that fighting terrorism consisted of eliminating Middle East regimes hostile to Israel, which are de facto deemed terrorist. Neoconservatives openly advocated the elimination of these regimes, which included Iraq. Furthermore, neoconservatives explicitly admit that they want to advance Israel's security.

There is no evidence that any group, other than the neoconservatives, had so marked Iraq for attack; the oil interest and the foreign-policy establishment certainly had not. No conspiracy was necessary; rather, the neocons openly advocated such a policy, as did Ariel Sharon's government, and it was in line with long-held Likudnik thinking. Sharon's government not only supported the war but also helped to facilitate it through bogus intelligence.

Pelosi's Capitulation by Patrick J. Buchanan

Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress – before launching all-out war.

Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.

For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?

Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes [John] Nichols [of The Nation].

Mark Weber: The Israeli Lobby's Campaign for War: What Every American Should Know

A few months after the attack, President Bush denounced as “revisionists” and “revisionist historians” the skeptics who questioned his claims that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons so vast and so dangerous that the US had to act quickly to attack and occupy that country. On that occasion, Bush was unintentionally telling the truth. Those who question government claims, particularly wartime claims, are indeed “revisionists” – that is, thinking men and women who question dogma, propaganda and political orthodoxy.

Today, virtually the entire world is “revisionist.” Regardless of what President Bush and his friends may snidely suggest, the revisionists were and are right, and revisionism – that is, thoughtful skepticism of official claims – is an honorable and essential feature of any free society.

In recent years, awareness of the Jewish-Zionist role in the war, of the reality of Jewish-Zionist power, and of its hold on US policy, has grown everywhere – an awareness that, once grasped, is obvious and confirmed anew each day with the unfolding of events

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Dr. Kevin Barrett's MUJCA site for 9-11 Truth

Dr. Kevin Barrett's Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9-11 Truth is one of the more fascinating web sites in the so-called 9-11 Truth Movement. To access the site, click here.

Dr. Kevin Barrett
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9-11 Truth (MUJCA)
POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556

Friday, March 16, 2007

The Jewish Week: Pastor John Hagee Gets Prime AIPAC Speaking Slot

Rabbi Barry Block of Temple Beth El in San Antonio—the home of the John Hagee Ministries and to his 18,000-member Cornerstone Church—said he hopes the minister’s presence will be balanced by “Christians who support Israel but who do not share the ‘end of days’ theology and extremist anti-Palestinian positions and anti-Muslim prejudice so often spewed by Pastor Hagee.”

Rabbi Block, who said he is an “AIPAC supporter” and participates in local activities of the lobby, added that “there are those I love and respect in my community who believe we should work with Pastor Hagee on the important concern we share—the welfare of the state of Israel. However, despite what may be good intentions, I don’t think Pastor Hagee’s activism is good for Israel.”

Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, cofounder of a We site that opposes Christian right church-state policies, said that Hagee’s AIPAC appearance will mark a “decisive point when the costs of a relationship with Hagee couldn’t be clearer. AIPAC has to know that Hagee’s push for an attack on Iran is not based on a logically constructed policy but on cherry-picked biblical verses. And it is only the first step to the end-times scenario that Hagee enthusiastically predicts will engulf Israel in a devastating war.”

A former AIPAC official said giving Rev. Hagee a key speaking slot represents one more step toward an AIPAC embrace of the Evangelicals that began more than two decades ago, and warned that it has political risks.

AIPAC Conference Videos: Jerusalem Post

# The Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz

# US Vice President Dick Cheney

# MK Binyamin Netanyahu

# Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh and Former CIA Director James Woolsey

# AIPAC President, Mr. Howard Friedman

# AIPAC impact on the youth, Aaron Applbaum

# Pastor John Hagee, Founder and Senior Pastor, Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, Texas

# From Campus to the Capitol

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The New Republic's Odd New Owner (the pro-Zionist CanWest Communications and Asper Family: Media Matters

Unfortunately, when it comes to reporting on the Middle East, CanWest outlets seem averse to "open public debate," with the Asper family often demanding editorial purity on the topic. CanWest is "unabashedly" pro-Israel, company executive Murdoch Davis once famously announced.


Following a deadly, anti-Israeli terrorist attack in Jerusalem in 2001, a CanWest chain-wide editorial announced "Howsoever the Israeli government chooses to respond to this barbaric atrocity should have the unequivocal support of the Canadian government" [emphasis added]. CanWest deplored "the usual hand-wringing criticism about 'excessive force' " and declared, "Nothing is excessive." (Papers were instructed not to publish columns or letters to the editor taking issue with that editorial.)

During an October 2002 speech, Izzy Asper eviscerated media coverage of the Middle East, complaining that "lazy," "sloppy," "stupid," and "anti-Semitic" reporters suffer from a pro-Palestinian bias. "'They have adopted Palestinian propaganda as the context of their stories. They have become partisans in, and not providers of, knowledge about this war against Israel," said Asper.

Where Have You Gone, Ali Reza Azkari?: Israel Insider

Ali Reza Azkari has disappeared. Gone. Vanished. No sign, no trace. The last time Azkari was seen was in Istanbul, disembarking from a plane.

Who is Ali Reza Azkari? For those who know the languages of the Middle East it is obvious from his middle name, Reza, that Ali is Iranian. Those who follow Iranian political history will know that he was a former Iranian deputy defense minister. And for many years Ali Reza Azkari was the highest ranking Iranian intelligence officer in Lebanon.

February 7th is the last time Ali Reza Azkari was sighted. Iran has sent a team to Turkey to investigate the situation. Iran has asked Interpol to intercede and help find their man. Iran has asked local Turkish authorities for their eyes, ears and assistance. To date, there are no leads. Nothing, just dead ends.

The one thing Iran has not done is issue an official statement speaking of the disappearance of one of their top officials and most valued diplomats. Iran has not yet officially recognized the disappearance, the probable kidnapping, of a man who holds - in his head - the secrets of the nation of Iran.

Azkari's plane originated in Damascus, Syria and touched down in Istanbul, Turkey. He was either grabbed from the airport or from his hotel. He was a former Iranian deputy defense minister. And for many years Ali Reza Azkari was the highest ranking Iranian intelligence officer in Lebanon.

Who would do such a thing? The Mossad.

I'll tell you who else -- the good ol' red, white and blue CIA, in a plan coordinated with the Mossad. The CIA has a vast set of resources and a large operation working out of Istanbul. The Mossad has the language skills and the cultural ease and know-how necessary to do the job.

Not Oil, but Israel: Stephen J. Sniegoski for The Last Ditch

The most popular argument of the critics of the Iraq war has been that the United States went to war for oil — that is, that the war had nothing to do with combating terrorism. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor before the war, Brendan O'Neill reported that "for many in the antiwar movement, the idea that the Bushies' plan to invade the Gulf to get their greasy hands on more oil has become an article of faith, an unquestionable truth repeated like a mantra." [1] Among those believers is America's preeminent left-wing war critic, Noam Chomsky: "Of course it was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question. Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world. It has the second largest reserves and it's right in the heart of the Gulf's oil-producing region, which U.S. intelligence predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in coming years." [2]

That goes against what I regard as the fundamental reason for the war: the war was led by neoconservatives and fought in the interests of Israel, at least as Likudniks envision Israel's interests. It is all well-documented, though the neocons imply that Israeli interests coincide with those of the United States. But as I point out in my article on the subject — and this fact is on the public record, too — the original idea for the war was conceived in Israel. Moreover, the war achieved the goal hoped for by the Likudniks — destabilization of the Middle East.