Monday, December 06, 2010

The 'ARAB LOBBY' = most powerful in the world (e. g. U.S. lost to Qatar)

The 'ARAB LOBBY' = most powerful in the world (e. g. U.S. lost to Qatar)


Still doubting the 'power' of the ARAB LOBBY, after the giant U.S. lost to 'bad sportsmen' of Qatar?


Think again!

US World Cup snub shows Qatari lobbying power | ProSports Colorado Dec 2, 2010 ... In Qatar, FIFA officials saw an opportunity to accomplish two goals in ... The reality is that Qatar is the uber-elite of the Arab world, ...
http://www.prosportscolorado.com/2010/12/02/3839-us-world-cup-snub-shows-qatari-lobbying-power/



And this is just a tip of the iceberg of global Arab lobby. Of course it's not just about sports.


Now, understand how the [international arena, like: the] United Nations and Amnesty work, and for whom - most of the time.

Or Human Rights Watch's crippling of U.S. security or its failure to criticize strong enough the human rights abuses, racism and Islamic apartheid in the Muslim world, yet, is so quick to categorize Israelis struggle againt genocidal Arab-Muslim bigots as "violations."


Related:



www.mitchellbard.com/lobby.html


New book: Arab lobby rules America - New book by Mideast expert Mitchell Bard claims Arab lobby, headed by Saudis, 'has unlimited resources to try to buy what they usually cannot win on merits of their arguments.'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3944579,00.html





Google up


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labels: , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 10:37 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 31, 2008

Palestinian Terrorism Created Need for Roadblocks, Expert Says (tell it to the Arabized UN)

Palestinian Terrorism Created Need for Roadblocks, Expert Says (tell it to the Arabized UN)
cns ^ Mar-31-08

Palestinian Terrorism Created Need for Roadblocks, Expert Says CNSNews.com, VA - Mar-31-08 By Julie Stahl (CNSNews.com) - Palestinian terrorism that developed as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process created the need for Roadblocks... http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200803/FOR20080331e.html

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...



Technorati -

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 6:43 PM 0 comments

Sunday, February 24, 2008

As Islamic bigots' dirty money (and Islamic lobby) contaminate Barack Obama - Will the real Obama stand up???



As Islamic bigots' dirty money (and Islamic lobby) contaminate Barack Obama

Will the real Obama stand up???


As Islamic bigot's dirty money contaminates Barack Obama - Is Obama leaning towards the "ideology" of Khalidi's OK of 'Islamic States Apartheid' and lying about Israel's true free & equal for all democracy smearing its will to survive against Arab racist terror with The poisonous myth of 'Israeli apartheid'?


Follow the Money: Obama contributor Talat M. Othman 23 Feb 2008 by to be announced Khalidi, a "virulent critic of Israel", has "denounced Israel as an 'apartheid' state." Pipes wrote that Othman is "president of the founding committee of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC). ...

The Wikipedia describes Talat M. Othman as a "powerful Palestinian-American businessman, investor..."
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/follow-money-obama-contributor-talat-m.html

Or does sending of the letter to the 'Arab occupied' UN, contain real depth and cponviction?
Obama flexes his “pro-Israel” muscle on ...Barack Obama sent the following letter to US Ambassador to the UN, ... Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction...
http://jewschool.com/2008/01/24/obama-flexes-his-pro-israel-muscle-on-gaza/


Labels: , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 7:32 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Arab lobby power - More Arabist anti Israel US foreign policy India abandons (Israeli) spy satellite launch under US pressure

Arab lobby power - More Arabist anti Israel US foreign policy - India abandons (Israeli) spy satellite launch under US pressure

India abandons (Israeli) spy satellite launch under US pressure

Daily News & Analysis,India ^ December 03, 2007 Sanjay Singh/Josy Joseph

India abandons spy satellite launch under US pressure
Sanjay Singh/Josy Joseph
Monday, December 03, 2007
TechSAR was to be launched with Israeli help last month
NEW DELHI: India’s strategic space-based surveillance (SBS) programme has suffered a huge setback.
Following last-minute US pressure, the launch of an Indo-Israeli spy satellite with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) was aborted literally at the launch pad stage.
Images from the satellite, with sub-metre picture resolution, would have significantly boosted India’s intelligence-gathering abilities. The satellite is capable of obtaining sharp images of civilian construction activities, including nuclear plants, that may have a strategic bearing. It can also scan cloud-covered mountain peaks. Lack of this capability enabled Pakistan-backed militants and army regulars to entrench themselves on the heights of Kargil, necessitating a huge armed response with many casualties.
If the SAR satellite had been launched on schedule, it would have been a first for both Israel and India. This is the second strategic programme to have received a setback after American intervention in recent times. Earlier, India curtailed the range of its missiles under development to 5,000 km under US pressure. It has advised military scientists not to think of developing a full-fledged inter-continental ballistic missile above 800 km range.
When DNA contacted a senior official involved in India’s strategic engagements with Israel, he insisted that the satellite launch, slated for end October or early November, was aborted because of “technical glitches”. He added: “Our decision to abort the launch at the last minute was not guided by any American pressure.”
However, at least three sources privy to the entire programme confirmed that the launch of TechSAR, mounted on a PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle), was aborted after American intervention. TechSAR is technically an Israeli satellite being launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) for a fee, but the imagery captured by it would have been available to Indian intelligence. Most importantly, this was to be the first in a series of spy satellites India was to launch with Israeli collaboration.
The need for satellites with SAR technology was felt very strongly after Kargil, when Indian agencies were caught napping as Pakistani intruders entered Indian peaks and set up bases. The images, available then from the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellites and spy planes, were hazy and did not reveal any ground level movement – an intelligence failure which proved critical.
The proposal for cutting-edge space-based intelligence gathering was then put on the fast-track and made possible through strategic cooperation with Israel. The Jewish state is one of the rare few in the world with SAR technology and was also working on TechSAR. The microwaves sent from SAR can penetrate cloudy areas like Kargil and garner images. When these images are processed using advanced software, they can produce very sharp photographs even if there is cloud cover or dust storm.
The satellite was to be the first of three produced exclusively by or in partnership with Israel for meeting India’s intelligence requirements.
Sources say that TechSAR, weighing 260 kg, had arrived in India a few months ago. It was moved to the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota, for launch. A dependable source told DNA that the satellite was “mounted” on the PSLV when the American pressure came. “We had to literally dismantle it,” he said.
The countdown to a satellite launch begins three months before it is fired into orbit. A senior official in Delhi told DNA that India is “presently dependent on other countries for sub-metre resolution pictures. That is our handicap. We firmly believe that we must have our own system in place.”
“We have planned three satellites for now. We hope to have even more. Having more than one such satellite in orbit would reduce revisit time (when a satellite is orbiting) and we would have more data to make an analysis. This would give pictures of less than a metre’s resolution of rail lines, new roads, new services, and any civilian construction activity that could be of a nuclear nature in neighbouring countries,” another official said.



http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1136837
___________


Report: US halted launch of Israeli satellite

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1195546795593&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



Technorati -

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 4:36 AM 0 comments

Monday, November 26, 2007

Foreign policy - exposing the lie that they hate us because of leaning against "Palestinians"


But we were told that the Arabs hate us because of supposedly being biased against Arab "Palestinians"...



Nov/2007
REMEMBER?

Wild Arabist writers/"activists" have been flooding us for years with brainwashing nonsense as if the Arab Muslim world is "enraged" mainly by the "Palestinian" Israeli conflict.

If only... -- this is what they have been selling us for so many years -- if only we'd be on the side of the "palestinian" Arabs, all would be singing kumbaya, the "peace loving" Arab world would just come rushing to embrace us.
LIARS!

Never mind the blatant daring hypocrisy of that Arab world, that never really cared about the Arab "Palestinian" brothers, on the contrary, it never allowed any improvement in their status, for fear of losing that anti-west card, (shoved at the westerners ever so often) of: "look at the poor 'Palestinians'".
The Arab nations keep the 'Palestinians' and their descendants in squalor. They are denied citizenship rights. They are denied work. They are denied property. They are denied their human rights because they are and always will be a political football in the Arab campaign against Israel.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36412

The same vicious historic crimes, the Arab world leaders have been committing with this group of Arabs who call themselves (recently as) "Palestinians", as in 1948, chasing them out with bragging promises of [ethnic cleansing and genocide] "throwing all the Jews into the sea".

Even Jew haters "aryans-supremacists" have jumped the bashing-Israel wagon, oh no, not that they ever like the Arab BROWN "inferior" people, of course not! they'd like to get "rid" of them... as soon as possible, But for the time being, it can be used against the people they are so bitter jealous and hate so blindly, the Jews.
NOW WHAT?

So the US has already helped in Israel's giving away Gaza to the Arab "Palestinians" [2005], an enormous sacrifice, uprooting entire families, communities, exposing and diminishing the little borderline with an enemy that is bent on eliminating Israel 24/7, when the only thing Israel got back is more support among their mainstream for Hamas type of advocating Genocide, still militants firing rockets into Israeli residential homes, still attempts of 'genocide bombings'.
Where do Arabs stand in its anti-west, as well as in its use of the "Palestinian" propaganda card? Is it the same, better or worse?

So Israel has released hundreds of dangerous "Palestinian" terrorists, out of good will, how do "Palestinians" react? More demands, Qassam missiles aimed at Israeli kindergartens are still on, why not?
Where do Arabs stand in its anti-west, as well as in its use of the 'Palestinian' propaganda card? Is it the same, better or worse?

Annapolis 2007: President George W. Bush and Sec. Condoleeza Rice are pushing hard on Israel to give even more to Arabs that never manage to make one iota of investing in peace, not even reducing its media's demon-ization of Israel.
Where do Arabs stand in its anti-west, as well as in its use of the 'Palestinian' propaganda card? Is it the same, better or worse?
IDF Concerned Hamas May Detonate Tunnels to Derail Summit
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124358

And what if... Bush succeeds in a big historic push for Arab "Palestinians" sake/favor (a group of people that never wanted to be improved, that has chosen death cult over life at any given opportunity by kind Israelis)? But we were told that the Arabs hate us because of supposedly being biased against Arab "Palestinians"...

Try this:
How many Arabists will welcome any improvement in relations among Arabs & Israel?
OK, ENOUGH OF THE NONSENSE FOR SO LONG, NOW, TO THE PROBLEM/S

But don't bet on Arabists ever to bother using real logical questions, the REAL ISSUES to be brought up, like, Are the Arabs, Muslims ready yet for democracy & free societies, have tnheir mainstream education in mosques & madsassas really strat to change? Is all of their media began to be less hateful of the "other"?

As you won't expect any true points, matters that matter to be discussed, as they don't sit well with their propaganda.

Even though it will answer all above points, plus: Iraq war, Lebanon, and other Arab on Arab, Muslim on Muslim violence.

Technorati -


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 11:48 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

More aggressive pro "Palestinian" US Foreign Policy

More aggressive pro "Palestinian" US Foreign Policy


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/136649



U.S. Pushing Israel for Further 'Good Will' Moves

The Bush administration is putting pressure on the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government to go beyond freeing 500 Arab terrorists and prisoners and halting building permits in Judea and Samaria. It now wants Israel to freeze all building, including units under construction in areas covered by previous understandings to be included as part of Israel after final borders are decided for the proposed new Arab state.

American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has put her reputation on the line by planning a conference on the Middle East to be held in Annapolis, Maryland. However, most Arab nations still have not confirmed that they will attend and are trying to squeeze more concessions from Israel.


In "light" of the current pro Palestinian US administration

1) Why do they still "accuse" the Zionist lobby?

2) How come Arabs still don't like us (isn't Israel the main issue/grievances supposedly?)

3) Where is Walt Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter all of a sudden?

Technorati -




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 2:21 AM 0 comments

Monday, November 05, 2007

Are American Jews Too Powerful? Not Even Close.

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201659.html

Are American Jews Too Powerful? Not Even Close.

By Ruth Wisse
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B03

These days, it's becoming downright chic to hint forebodingly that America's Jews are just too powerful. But whether it's the political scientists John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt or former president Jimmy Carter, those who accuse modern Jews of having excessive clout are getting it precisely backward. In the real world, Jews have too little power and influence. They also have too little self-confidence about defending themselves.

Consider a basic paradox. Even anti-Semites often give Jews credit for having exceptional intelligence. Self-congratulatory Web sites reckon that Jews, who make up about 0.2 percent of the world's population, have been awarded more than 160 Nobel Prizes. But if Jews are so smart, why do 22 Arab League countries account for a tenth of the Earth's land surface while the Israelis struggle to secure a country that is 1/19th the size of California? If Jews are so powerful, why does Israel attract twice as many venture-capital investments as all of Europe, even while it's the only one of the United Nations' 192 member states that has been charged with racism for the crime of its existence? How powerful is that?

In fact, there's an excellent historical reason why Jewish intellectual achievement sits alongside political weakness. Simply put, Jewish achievement in other areas has come at the expense of political strength, and the strange relationship of Jews and power has made them history's favorite prey. Centuries of survival in other people's lands prevented Jews from achieving full acceptance -- and access to the levers of government. Some individual Jews may have lived large, but the Jewish people as a whole lived on sufferance, afraid to antagonize those from whom they sought tolerance.

These questions mean a lot to me. I'm often asked how I, a teacher of Yiddish literature, came to write about politics. But remember that the Yiddish language, developed by European Jews over almost a thousand years, was practically erased along with them in a mere six, 1939-45. So studying Yiddish literature, almost by definition, concentrates the mind on Jewish political disabilities.

When Jerusalem was crushed by Rome in the year 70 -- so brutally that, according to the historian Josephus, "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited" -- some Jews stayed on, but the vast majority made their homes in foreign lands. For more than 18 centuries, Jews survived as a nation without three basic staples of nationhood: land, central government and independent means of self-defense.

Instead, Jews turned to strategies of accommodation. They provided goods and services to their gentile neighbors in return for being allowed to stay in the country. They became money-lenders, bankers, minters, craftsmen, midwives -- trades that gentiles would let them perform and that allowed Jews to observe their calendar, customs and religious laws. But they had no independent way to protect their achievements.


Unlike their Christian and Muslim overlords, Jews had good reasons to avoid irking those from whom they sought acceptance. The German poet Heinrich Heine, who called conversion to Christianity his "ticket of admission" to European culture, likened Jews to a prince whom "black magic" had transformed into a dog: "All week long he goes on scraping/Through life's excrement and sweepings/To the mockery of jeers of street boys." Only on Friday evenings, while ushering the Sabbath into his own home, does the dog resume its human shape. Heine saw that the humiliation of the Jews was offset by a moral serenity, and that their moral serenity was offset by acute political vulnerability.

The creation of the state of Israel in May 1948, after the carnage of the Holocaust, was supposed to change all this. But the newly formed Arab League made opposition to Israel the only common goal of its otherwise quarrelsome membership. The new United Nations, tribune of emerging post-colonial nations, did not protect Israel from assault, and over time the world body became a party to the Arab League's war against Jewish statehood.

Of course, Israel now had an army, and a formidable one at that. But the Israel Defense Forces did not change the Jews' existential condition as a minority; Israel was now a minority among the nations, contending with Arab states that sought to dominate or destroy it. Israel still lived by strategies of accommodation, trying to supply its neighborhood with useful services and goods such as medical, agricultural and technological know-how. In the 1990s, utopians such as Shimon Peres, now Israel's president, hailed a "new Middle East" of economic and political cooperation. When Peres and Israel's late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin installed Yasser Arafat as the head of a Palestinian proto-state, they began another doomed Jewish political experiment -- making Israel, as best I can figure, the first country in the world ever to arm its enemy in hopes of gaining security.

What about American Jewry? Mearsheimer and Walt allege that a Jewish cabal dictates U.S. policy in the Middle East, helping Israeli interests and hurting U.S. ones. So have American Jews really begun to mobilize effectively to protect Israel, or are people again overstating Jewish power and its supposed dangers?

Consider the halls of ivy where, if anywhere, the intellectual firepower of Jews might be expected to be on display in defense of Jewish interests. At Columbia University, the late Edward Said used his authority as a teacher of comparative literature to apologize for Palestinian terrorism and condone Arab violence against Israel, including, in one instance, by personal example. (In 2000, a photographer for a French news agency snapped him in southern Lebanon tossing a rock toward an Israeli position.) Much of the Jewish professoriat looked the other way or signed his petitions.

Elsewhere in the academy, Jewish professors themselves lead the anti-Israel barrage. In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt expected Jewish organizations to sponsor their talks and complained of "censorship" when the groups did not. Clearly, there is nothing quite as fun -- or as lucrative -- as baiting Jews.


Read rest of article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201659.html

Technorati -

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 11:48 PM 0 comments

Sunday, November 04, 2007

ISLAMIC LOBBY 'MPAC' THE BULLY, Muslims bully Muslims over selling Israeli produce

[ISLAMIC LOBBY 'MPAC' THE BULLY]

Muslims bully Muslims over selling Israeli produce

12/10/2007

By Rachel Fletcher
A campaign by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) to bully Muslim shop-owners not to sell Israeli produce “verges on antisemitism”, an interfaith activist said this week.

Richard Stone, founder and president of Muslim-Jewish dialogue group Alif-Aleph UK, said the tactics by MPAC, which calls on its website for pressure against shops that carry Israeli stock, were “not constructive”.

The lobby group’s campaign, timed to coincide with the holy month of Ramadan, includes calls to boycott Sabar Bros in Slough for stocking Israeli “blood” dates, giving the shop’s address and phone number.

Complaining that the shop “supports Israel”, the site urges: “Don’t be silent in the face of oppression — please phone them now and tell them you will boycott their shop unless they stop selling Israeli produce.”

MPAC’s website states: “The dates in your household which you may be using to break your fasts with, despite being from a Muslim-owned shop, may well be fuelling the Israeli economy.”

It said eight Muslim-owned businesses in Manchester had been visited. Six of them carried Israeli stock.

The campaigners complain that several businessmen — whose shops they did not name — had said they would continue to sell the Israeli products.

Mr Stone told the JC: “This sort of digging around to find the smallest possible bit of Israeli activity, anything that could possibly be criticised, verges in my view on antisemitism.

“This encourages people to be hostile to people who have sympathy for the Israeli position, in the same way I would not want Jewish people to promote hostility to Palestinians on the grounds of what a minority of Palestinian people do.

“A lot of anti-Israel stuff has tones which slip over into being antisemitic. There should be nothing political to divide Muslims and Jews in this country and importing the crisis is often found objectionable by Israelis and Palestinians here.”

Sabar Hussain, the owner of the Slough shop, Sabar Bros, said he was receiving four or five calls a day, pressuring him to stop selling Israeli produce.

He told the JC: “We are open for everyone, not just Muslims. Is it illegal to sell Israeli dates? There is demand for them.Everyone in Slough sells these dates, so why are they mentioning my name? If you don’t want to buy Israeli products, don’t buy them.”

Mr Hussain, who said he intended to contact his local MP, added: “Some callers say things like, ‘You are not Muslim, you’re supporting Israel.’ If people were polite I might consider what they are asking, but this makes me want to go on selling them.”

MPAC’s website claimed that the Appna Cash and Carry in Manchester had declined to put up their flyers for fear of offending, but had a policy of not knowingly selling Israeli dates.

Manager Naseer Ahmed said he had long refused to stock Israeli dates, but had never heard of MPAC or been approached by them.

“It is possible they spoke to someone on the shop floor,” he said, adding: “I have political reasons [for not carrying Israeli stock]. In the time of apartheid, I didn’t sell South African products.”

An MPAC spokesman told the JC: “Some people in the Muslim community have a village mentality. They can’t think ethically and are more profit-motivated.”

http://www.thejc.com/Home.aspx?ParentId=m11&AId=55936&ATypeId=1&secid=11&prev=true

Technorati -


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 10:18 PM 0 comments

Saturday, November 03, 2007

What about the Arab lobby?

http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2007/10/israel-lobby-what-about-arab-lobby.html

Thursday, October 4, 2007

The Israel lobby? What about the Arab lobby?

With the publication of the book 'The Israel Lobby' by renowned academics Professors Mearsheimer and Walt the notion is out there that Israeli pressure groups have had a major effect in coloring American foreign policy to the detriment of the US.
The learned couple would have you believe that Israeli and Jewish lobbyists are the most powerful influence on the US Administration.My friend, Maurice Ostroff, has partially answered the claims made by these supposed researchers in a rebuttal entitled 'Academic Freedom and Sloppy Research'.

Mearsheimer and Walts findings fail on two counts. One of incorrect assertions. The other is the failure of what the did not include in their book. This, perhaps deliberate, omission is the most dangerous of their faults. It leaves the reader with the impression that Israeli and Jewish leaders have an unrivalled access to policy makers in Congress and in the State Department.
This is wrong. The biggest investment in lobbying power has, for a long time, been invested in the rich hands of the Arabs, led by the Saudis, and the other oil interests.
Against this powerful force Israel can never successfully compete.
However, the small voice of reason and democracy is trying to make itself heard.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM & SLOPPY RESEARCH
by Maurice Ostroff

The much discussed articles and latest book by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, attacking the Israel Lobby, are glaring examples of misleading by omission of vital relevant data.

Of course there is no objection to academics expressing unpopular opinions, but it’s scary to realize that some university students are being taught by mentors who, in their public pronouncements and publications, exhibit shockingly low standards of scholarship and even ignorance. Even when they don’t write in the names of their universities, serious readers are entitled to expect a minimum standard of objectivity and intellectual honesty from tenured professors.

The website of Students for Academic Freedom pinpoints one of the most egregious sins of a growing number of academics in its slogan: "You can’t get a good education if they’re telling you only half the story".

Too many opinion-makers mislead by telling half the story; deliberately omitting all relevant information that may contradict their preconceived opinions. The much discussed articles and latest book by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, attacking the Israel Lobby, are glaring examples of misleading by omission of vital relevant data.

In response to a letter I sent criticizing their articles published last year, I received an 81-page paper from Professor Mearsheimer, titled "Setting the record straight: a response to critics of The Israel Lobby” (which I will refer to in this article as their response paper). In it, the authors admit that being fallible human beings, their work contained a few minor errors. Let’s take the example of one of their central claims – that pressure from Israel was critical in the US decision to attack Iraq in March 2003 ­ and let the reader judge whether this is merely a minor error.

If they had done a modest amount of research they would have learned and disclosed that contrary to their allegation, Israeli officials had warned the Bush administration against destabilizing the region by invading Iraq.

This information was available to the professors. In an interview with the Mother Jones blog, Professor Walt emphasized that he and Mearsheimer relied heavily on both Israeli sources and Jewish newspapers like the Forward. And in the Forward of January 12, 2007, Yossi Alpher, an adviser to former PM Ehud Barak, confirmed that prior to March 2003, Israel PM Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq and that AIPAC officials in Washington told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the United States deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq.

This refutation of the professors’ allegation has since been confirmed by Lawrence Wilkerson, a former member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff as reported by ISP.

Was this a minor error?

In the interview with Mother Jones, Professor Walt explained that as he and Mearsheimer aren't investigative reporters and have a day job, they weren't in a position to spend a lot of time interviewing people in Washington. This statement possibly encapsulates the underlying weakness of their publications. Far from being in-depth products of original research by academics from prestigious institutions, they are a rehash of carefully selected extracts from the writings of others, mainly new historians like Noam Chomsky and Benny Morris, whose methodologies have been severely criticized by authoritative historians.

It is almost amusing to note how in their response paper, the authors praise Benny Morris as a respected historian when he expresses views they accept, and then reject his views when they don’t serve their purpose. Having served in the Israel army during the 1948 war, I have challenged from personal knowledge some of the conclusions Morris derived from his interpretation of archived documents, and I absolutely challenge M & W’s third and possibly fourth-hand views on this subject.

In their March 2006 article, the professors wrote: "Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better-equipped and better-led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence." It is difficult to understand the reason for inserting this bit of totally irrelevant disinformation into a paper about the Israel Lobby.

Those of us who were there in 1948 know that Israel was invaded by five armies in a Holy War to drive us into the sea. The Arab armies included the British-trained Jordanian Legion, the well-equipped Egyptian army, navy and air force and the armies of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. And we know how desperate and badly equipped we were. We remember how rickety old trucks were converted to homemade armored vehicles nicknamed sandwiches, because the armor comprised timber between two steel plates. (See photo.)

We know that our total population of only 600,000 included women, children and the elderly and that, tragically, 6,000 were killed in the War, not to mention the seriously wounded. We know that many of our troops were untrained newcomers, who had survived the death camps, only to be thrown directly into battle.

In their response paper, the professors go to great lengths elaborating on remarks by Ben Gurion and others indicating that they had hoped for a greater area than allocated under the 1947 partition plan. But they ignore the fact that Israel nevertheless reluctantly, but unconditionally, accepted the partition resolution while all Arab states rejected it outright. There would be no Palestinian refugees today if they had accepted instead of immediately declaring Holy War, with the publicly proclaimed intention of driving the Jews into the sea.

Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades," and the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini echoed, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

The professors ignore how Israel reacted to Arabs who stayed neutral in 1948 – such as the village of Abu Ghosh. In an article in the Jerusalem Post in 1997, Sam Orbaum quoted Mohammed Abu Ghosh as saying, "What we did, we did for Abu Ghosh, for nobody else. Others who lost their land, hated us then, but now all over the Arab world, many people see we were right. If everyone did what we did, there'd be no refugee problem . . . And if we were traitors? Look where we are, look where they are."

Incredibly, their strong prejudices prevent the professors from acknowledging not only Israel’s attempts to negotiate peace, but also the infamous three no's response of Arab leaders in Khartoum in August 1967: "no peace, no recognition of Israel and no negotiation.”

The professors’ claim that US policy towards Israel is a main contributor to America's terrorist problem deserves critical examination. In November 2002, Alex Alexiev, in an article published by the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), pointed out that Riyadh, flush with oil money, became the paymaster of most of the militant Islamic movements, which advocated terror. In its aggressive support for radical Islam, even the most violent of Islamic groups, like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, receives Saudi largesse. He claims that official Saudi sources indicate that between 1975 and 1987, Riyadh's "overseas development aid" averaged $4 billion per year, of which at least $50 billion over two-and-a-half decades financed Islamic activities exclusively. The SAAR Foundation alone, which has been closed down since 9/11, received $1.7 billion in donations in 1998.

Compared to these numbers, the miniscule Israeli PR budget is laughable.

It is incredible that academics discussing external influences on USA policy ignore the dramatic stranglehold of OPEC, the blatantly monopolistic cartel which threatens not only the US, but the world economy. This stranglehold began with the Arab decision to use oil as a political weapon in 1973 when the price was $2.60 per barrel. After October 1973, when the Arab members of OPEC imposed their oil embargo against the West, the price quadrupled to about $12 by January 1974 and is now soaring to $80. All this, while, believe it or not, production costs average about $6 per barrel for non-OPEC producers and $1.50 per barrel for OPEC producers (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May/June 2005).

By focusing on one lobby only without placing it in the context of the prevailing phenomenon of the numerous lobbies that are an essential part of the Washington scene, this work cannot be regarded as a scholarly study, but rather as a subjective, no-holds-barred political attack.

Dozens of interest groups spend billions to convince politicians to pass or oppose particular laws. Any study of the Jewish Lobby cannot avoid comparison with Arab influence on Washington, which is indeed harmful to American interests.

But the professors claim: “There is no well organized and politically potent Arab Lobby and little evidence that US politicians ever feel much pressure from pro-Arab groups.” This categorical statement in their response paper is mind-boggling. It indicates either inexcusable ignorance or deliberate suppression of information about the many Arab lobbyists who have had, and continue to have, intimate access to US presidents.

In an article in Harpers magazine of April 17, 2007, John R. MacArthur wrote about Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan:

When he wasn't entertaining congressmen and spreading good cheer through his highly paid lobbyist, Fred Dutton, Bandar was busy making friends with, at first vice president, and then president, George H.W. Bush, and by extension with Bush's son, the future president. This personal relationship with the Bush family has served Bandar and his family very well, as documented in Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000.

Now, according to Seymour Hersh, Bandar has virtually joined the Bush administration as a shadow cabinet member. In a March 5, 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” Hersh writes that Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser, served as Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them.

The organization Axis Information and Analysis (AIA), which specializes in information about Asia and Eastern Europe, has rated Prince Bandar as the most influential foreigner in the USA. As head of the Saudi embassy in Washington in 1983, he was an important participant in backstage intrigues, clandestine negotiations, and billion-dollar deals relating to US interests in the Middle East, with broad links among high-ranking officials in the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. Bandar's father, Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, was a leading figure in the ruling dynasty, which decides the extent of military cooperation with the United States. AIA has publicly stated that it was Bandar Bin Sultan who initiated the first Gulf War in 1990-91, by pushing President Bush the elder to start the military campaign against Iraq.

In an obituary to Clark Clifford (October 11, 1998), the New York Times spoke of him not only as a key adviser to four presidents, but also as a powerful lobbyist for Arab sources. In his memoir, Counsel to the President, Clifford wrote that he advised clients:

What we can offer you is an extensive knowledge of how to deal with the government on your problems. We will be able to give you advice on how best to present your position to the appropriate departments and agencies of the government.

Clifford, a paid lobbyist, made about $6 million in profits from bank stock that he bought with an unsecured loan from the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

In an interview on Democracy Now, Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, spoke of Bandar’s influence. Referring to the fact that the 9/11 Commission said it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001, Unger said that if you look at Prince Bandar’s body language in photos of him and President Bush, this is not a guy standing in awe of the President of the United States. This is a guy who is visiting his friend's son, and he’s sort of lounging on the arm of a big armchair by 9/13, two days after 9-11. And suddenly, flights began going out.

Unger tells of Saudis investing as much as $800 billion into American Equities, not only in massive blue chip companies but also into companies that weren't doing so well, but were linked to powerful politicians.

He also speaks of at least $1 million donated to each presidential library, emphasizing that the Saudis give to Democrats and Republicans alike:

Prince Bandar has been quite frank. If we give to our friends after they get out of office, the people in office will get the message.

The Saudis are fabulous at public relations. If you look at their whole campaign over the last 30 years, they spent $70 billion on propaganda. It's the biggest propaganda campaign in the history of the world, more than Soviet communism at the height of the Cold war. Immediately after 9-11, Bandar hired Burson Marsteller, the huge American public relations firm.

In the knowledge that the above information is readily available, would a first-year student, let alone a tenured professor, earn a passing mark for submitting a paper claiming that there is no well-organized and politically potent Arab Lobby and little evidence that US politicians ever feel much pressure from pro-Arab groups?

Technorati -




Labels: , , , , , , , ,

posted by Free Israel @ 9:22 PM 0 comments