I want to thank Hapax for providing the following link from his post dated 6-10-07 in the 9-11 thread.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpap...f/rwp/RWP06-011

Through reading this 43 page document, co-written by two professors, I was able to come to a deeper understanding of the role the Israel Lobby in Washington played in our Governments' decision to invade Iraq.

The 'Working Paper' of these two gentlemen is followed by 41 pages of notes, quotes and references in support of their article.

Please allow me to quote from a few of the more important paragraphs:

"We use "the Lobby" as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that "the Lobby" is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

..."Jewish-Americans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and well-known. In 1997 Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association.

..."Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element. Some Americans believe this was a "war for oil", but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (2001-2003), executive director of the 9-11 Commission, and now Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the "real threat" from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Zelikow told a University of Virginia audience in September 2002, noting further that "the American Government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

..."former Prime Minister (of Israel) Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that "the greatest risk now lies in inaction." His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu declared, "Today nothing less than dismantling his (Saddam's) regime will do", adding that "I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime." Or as Ha'aretz (Israeli newspaper) reported in February 2003: "The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq."

..."As journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, "Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced." In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho for the war that their Allies in America told them to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest it look like the war was for Israel.

..."Michael Kinsley put the point well in late 2002 when he wrote that "the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel...is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody see it, nobody mentions it." The reason for the reluctance, he observed, was the fear of being labeled an anti-Semite. Even so, there is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in shaping the decision for war. Without the Lobby's efforts, the United States would have been far less likely to have gone to war in March 2003.

..."Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies heavily on the work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great credit for shedding light on these issues. We also rely on evidence provided by respected Israeli and international human rights organizations. Similarly, our claims about the Lobby's impact rely on testimony from the Lobby's own members, as well as testimony from politicians who have worked with them. Readers may reject our conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial."

Relating this information reminds me of a post I made concerning this subject on 8-24-06:

http://www.alien-ufos.com/forum/showthread...1578#post271578

I'm sorry I didn't have the benefit of the 'Working Paper' by these college professors to share with you at the time.
____________________________
'The first casualty of war is Truth.'

I am thinking the War on Iraq is more about ’money’ than it is about oil, Israel or democracy…no?

Iraqi’s oil dealings with the EU (European Union, France in particular) and others put a serious ‘hurt’ on the US Dollar’s position in the World Economy when Saddam was in control, didn‘t it? Those dealings posed a serious threat to the World's Economic stability and lessened the USA's Economic Influence throughout the World, I think...

Yeah, Israel, and others will use lobbyists to influence US decisions, what’s new? That’s been happening for how long? ~rore

And of course.. you chose not to highlight that there were rebuttals by members of the very same faculty. Surprise surprise.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/workin...tyresponses.htm

Lets quote from the rebuttal: One of the author's of the of this paper has acknowledged that "none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews". In light of the paper's errors and admitted lack of originality, Dershowitz asks why these professors would choose to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards.

The paper that SC RUSS quotes includes statements such as "the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people". Not the occupation, etc. The very CREATION it says. So, we know from the beginning the perspective we are going to get. The charges in the paper are very familiar.. we read them in the Arab press everyday, and also the far right and the far left (David Duke et al).

The paper, as Dershowitz points out takes quotes out of context, on purpose. confuses Israeli citizenship laws with the Law of Return (25% of Israeli citizens are NOT Jewish), and there are massive leaps and gaps in logic.

I wonder if people are reading and evaluating..or simply looking for reasons to believe in prejudices already there.

An interesting point Dershowitz brings up..small enough in scale that it might be useful in discussion here is that frequently the Saudi and the Israeli lobby clash. For example the Israeli lobby (the actual lobby..not the "Lobby" the paper brings up because that Lobby is non-sensical..to the point that it includes the New York Times..which has been so ANTI ISRAELI that it has been at times boycotted), the Israeli lobby strongly opposed the sale of AWACs and F-15 fighters to Saudi Arabia. Yet, they were cast aside. The Saudi Royal family is notoriously close to the Bush family (sometimes certain members almost being considered family).. how does this jive with this all powerful conspiracy?

Dear Rorechof,

Once again, you are absolutely correct! It seems it is all about the money. As the article said:

"AIPAC's success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the recent scandal over lobbyist Jack Abramoff's various shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel political action committees. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. AIPAC also organizes letter writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

"There is no doubt about the potency of these tactics. To take one example, in 1984 AIPAC helped to defeat Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, who, according to one prominent Lobby figure, had "displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns." Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians--those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire--got the message." AIPAC prizes its reputation as a formidable adversary, of course, because it discourages anyone from questioning its agenda."

Something I didn't realize about the demise of the Howard Dean presidential campaign was that it may not have been simply the result of his emotional outburst at a rally.

..."When the presidential candidate Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more "even handed role" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was "irresponsible." Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a hard-hitting letter to Dean criticizing his comments, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported that "anonymous attackers...are clogging the E-mail inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country warning--without much evidence--that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel.

..."Dean had merely suggested that to "bring the sides together," Washington should act as an honest broker. This is hardly a radical idea, but it is anathema to the Lobby, which does not tolerate the idea of evenhandedness when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

I once heard a Muslim make the following statement: "Islam is like a body. When it feels pain in one place the whole body feels it."

I often wonder how much less hostility there would be in the world if the Arab-Israeli conflict could be peacefully resolved.

http://www.alien-ufos.com/forum/showthread...2200#post272200
____________________________
"Peace is the soft and holy shadow that virtue casts." Josh Billings

SCRuss posts: It seems it is all about the money

On a Global Scale, I am speaking of SC. As in; what does it take to manifest a Global Community? Like… A trusted currency, Laws, Enforcement etc. People like Saddam et al could care less if their business dealings upset World Stability…

However SC, I am interested in your obvious concern that the Jews are so easily able to manipulate the US’s political apparatus? This sounds like big news… How come I hear nothing of this in the Major Media outlets? Do the Jews control them too? ~rore

Wow. Way to just completely ignore my post.

The "working" paper youre talking about is a rehash job of past conspiracy theories. Look up the academic worlds reception to it.

Quotes are taken out of context (a quote from Ben Gurion, giving a reason NOT to displace the Palestinians is taken so out of context it ends up sounding like he is saying the Palestinians should be displaced!)

Another problem of course with the whole idea is that in implies some sort of hive mentality. 5 million people (less than 2% of the US population!) somehow all work towards the same goals, rather than in their own interest?

Illogical conclusions are reached. Whenever U.S. and Israeli policy are similar this is seen as evidence that "the Lobby" is all controlling. Isnt it far more likely that instead rather their world views are similar and they see there interests as similar? Isnt it far more likely and natural that Israel, a Western style country with Western values and a secular government shares policies with the US, as opposed to the autocratic and theocratic governments of the region?

No one extreme far righters brought up, in the last presidential election, the fact that John Kerrys being Catholic might mean he owed "dual loyalty" and wouldnt serve the US properly. But if someone is Jewish you throw the suspicion at them?


Shoddy logic. Unfounded rumors.

Dear Vetamur;

Please excuse my tardiness in answering your earlier post. I try to answer every response that seems to invite me to do so in the order of the replies received. Since Rorechof's reply preceeded yours I naturally answered his first. I also felt compelled to post a followup message to Hampsterjuice regarding his problem with nightmares. After these two posts I realized there was insufficient time remaining to properly give your post the time it rightly deserved. Again, please accept my apology.

In the future, if this happens again please don't think I am ignoring you or I mean you any disrespect. To 'respect' means to 'look at' and as a result of my reading and learning from your numerous intelligent posts I can certainly say, in all honesty, that you are a person most worthy of respect.

As for my choosing not to post about any of the rebuttal arguments. I didn't see any reference to these views on the website link I posted. I also wasn't aware that any rebuttals specifically addressing the 'Working Paper' existed.

Even if I had known, how should my post have read? I think most people know how devisive and contentious this subject is. I believe most people have already decided which side of the issue they are on. My purpose in addressing this area was simply to share what new information I had discovered that I thought others might be interested in knowing as well.

As for the objection you raise that the 'Paper' portrays the creation of Israel as constituting a moral crime against the Palestinian people. It is not my place to judge any nation or individual. If the authors made that claim they supported it with information I have come to believe is credible.

To address your question more specifically, please allow me to quote further:

"The Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a binational state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben-Gurion put it in the late 1930's, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

This reminds me of the 'Manifest Destiny' idea that Andrew Jackson esposed during his Presidency. The idea that God has 'Willed' this country to 'Americans', the indigenous natives be damned!

"To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben-Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that "it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion."

..."The opportunity came in 1947-48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile. Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hand of Zionist forces led most of them to flee. After the war Israel barred the return of the Palestinian refugees."

Those original 700,000 now total some 3.5 million.

"The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people was well understood by Israel's leaders. As Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.... We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

..."As former Prime Minister Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palentinian, he "would have joined a terrorist organization."

When one considers the religious factor involved in this debate it becomes increasingly clear why this topic is such an emotional powderkeg. Many Christians and Jews believe the only way the Messiah will appear (reappear) is if the Temple of Solomon is rebuilt on the original temple mount. Presently the 2nd most holy shrine to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, sits on that very site.

Vetamur, I want to thank you for the link you provided. I have downloaded it and read it before making this reply. Hopefully others will do the same and allow their intellect, apart from their emotions, to come to a fair assessment of the situation. Who knows, this thread might, like the fluttering wings of a butterfly, turn the gentle breeze of ignorance into a hurricane of enlightenment wherein some good might come out of this tragic situation. I thank you again for your participation.
______________________
"You are angry at me because I remember while you forget." Red Cloud's statement before the U.S. Congress.

SCRuss posts: I believe most people have already decided which side of the issue they are on.

True Sc… It appears you blame Israel for getting the USA and others involved in Iraq… Some people think like that. No proof of it, yet they feel compelled to believe it is so? I wonder why?
What are you trying to promote here? A Zionist conspiracy theory? ~rore

Dear Rorechof,

Sorry it has taken me this long to respond to your last two posts. In my defense, I don't believe I stated that "the Jews are so easily able to manipulate the U.S.'s political apparatus." If I recall correctly, I merely quoted selected paragraphs from the 'Working Paper'.

As for your question "Do the Jews control them (the Multi Media Agencies) too?" I never said anything about the Jews controlling anything. If I didn't know better I would think you were trying to start an argument with me. You should know this, I don't argue. I don't have to, and neither do you.

We are both blessed to be living in this wonderful country where we are guaranteed, by law, the freedom to believe whatever we want. Thanks to you and others here at AU I have had the extraordinary privilege to have learned many new things and to have altered many of my former beliefs accordingly. In my opinion Truth is never static. In my world it is constantly changing, evolving with the acquisition of every new piece of information. I truly appreciate your goal of trying to keep me well informed.

As to your final questions: "What are you trying to promote here? A Zionist conspiracy theory?" Absolutely not! The only things I am conspiring to promote is what you have been promoting - Peace & Love.
______________________________
"The most fatal illusion is the settled point of view. Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anybody who has one." Brooks Atkinson

Hi SC Russ..

Did want to acknowledge your post. I think you are open minded person and so I hope you think carefully on this topic and find what makes sense.

As Rore has noted.. some people seem compelled to believe in conspiracies, particularly ones connected to Israeli, or Jews, or whatever.

I dont know exactly why, but this particular topic hits me hard. Im not Jewish. Im not Israeli. My best friend in university (and still a good friend) is Jewish, and is now a rabbi but he is a huge critic of Israel on most topics so I dont think he left with some bias. From a young age the antisemitic bias of the world around me struck me as odd...

Maybe the reason I am pushing here SC is because of another thread you started in which you came to this erroneous conclusion:

“Israel, with its military sorely stretched with its occupation of Palestinian territory, did not have the means to form a military force to go into Iraq in order to assassinate Saddam. Their only recourse would be to try to convince the US of the many dangers Saddam posed without making any overt reference to themselves. The strategy seems to have worked. There are now far fewer suicide bombers attacking Israel than when Saddam was offering his 'reward'.”-scruss

I know the USA knew of the inherent threat Saddam posed to World Stability. Israel did not have to ‘enlighten’ or convince the USA of this known threat.
Saddam (1979) was the one who Nationalized Iraq’s oil industry, effectively ousting the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil.
Saddam started playing games with this new found power, hence the intense interest he provoked from the ‘West’. It had nothing to do with the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

SC… Israel ’uses’ and is ‘used by’ the USA and others in order to achieve specific goals in the middle-east. Yes, the USA et al are that smart.

Example:
The USA did not want Saddam to have access to a nuclear program in which Saddam could produce nuclear weapons. It was perceived as a threat to World Stability and nuclear weapons in the hands of Iraq, Iran, North Korea et al would be used as an Economic ’bargaining chip’ is totally unacceptable by ALL Major Powers in the World. For the USA to unilaterally go into Iraq and destroy Iraq’s program would have hurt the USA’s position in the World Community at that time.
What happened? In 1981, Israel went into Iraq with their Air Force and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility.
The USA did not do this, but the USA definitely wanted this done. Who used who?

How did Americans get convinced to take Saddam out and regain a modicum of control over a Critical natural resource-OIL. The US Leadership spun tales and lied. It was not about Israel.

The beauty of the USA is that we have peoples from practically every corner of the Earth living and working here and they bring their own special knowledge that is incorporated into US decision making. To think that Israel (or others) can so readily manipulate a Super Power and its 300.000.000 people from all over the World is…what? Reasonable deduction?

Furthermore, I think we will see a Palestinian State arise, if the Palestinians will acquiesce and truly acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. The USA and others seem to agree… ~rore

I generally dont think the US and Israel use each other, rather they often find their goals are the same, which as I pointed out makes sense.. they are both secular Western style democracies, with Western values, and either in or involved in a region dominated by autocratic,theoloigcally influenced governments.

However, regarding the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear installation, at the time I believe (and I could be wrong..) that the US condemned the bombing as did most of the world.

I agree that if the Palestinians would acknowledge Israels right to exist they would get a state. When Egypt did, Israel returned its land. When Jordan did, same thing. After it returned Jordans occupied territory there was still a disputed land area that Israel let go to arbitration and when they lost, they turned it over. The pattern is clear.

I used the phrase ’who used who?’ rather flippantly. The USA et al did display their disapproval of Israel’s actions against Iraq. When I went back and re-read that paragraph, I found I couldn't delete it and yeah, it sounds a bit 'over the top'. I think I was in my 'conspiracist mode'.

Yes, there are many ’mutual interests’ the USA et al share with Israel, ’commerce’ and Globalization being but a couple of more examples. ~rore

Eta: At this time however, I am unable to ascertain what Judaism means by, ‘The children of Israel are the chosen of Elohim/Yaweh (God).” And if this proclamation has any bearing on what currently drives the Jewish Nation and to what ends they are driving toward…?

What are they driving towards? A two-country world composed of 1. Israel; and 2. the UN, with all UN member states following the so-called Noahide Laws. If this happens, they win. And everybody else loses.

That's the reason why Israel doesn't feel it needs to comply with any UN resolution, and has violated more UN resolutions than any other country. Naturally the US has vetoed almost all of these UN resolutions to assist Israel in its manifold crimes. Ironic when you consider that the US condemned Iraq for violating a far smaller number of UN resolutions. Guess there's one rule for Israel and another for everyone else.

Maybe the US does contain people from every corner of the world, but it would reassure those of my ilk (not to mention Muslims) if this US administration were not dominated by Jews - Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Luttwak, Zakheim, Kissinger, Adelman, Libby, Satloff, Abrams, Grossman, Haass, Zoellick, Fleischer, Schlesinger, Joshua Bolten, Wurmser, Cohen, Sembler, Chertoff, Goldsmith, Goldman, Gildenhorn, Gersten, Mark Weinberger, Bloomfield, Lefkowitz, Melman.... while Jews make up only 2.1% of the US population.

Same goes for the financial institutions - , why else, pray tell, was the corrupt warmonger Paul Wolfowitz replaced as Head of the World Bank by another Jew, Paul Zoellick? - especially when the Federal Reserve is already run by someone of the Jewish persuasion, Ben Shalom Bernanke (who succeded the Jewish Alan Greenspan), and when the Fed itself owned by private bankers of the Jewish persuasion? That's total Jewish domination of the most important financial institutions on Earth.

So why would anyone expect the rest of the world (Muslims in particular) to believe that the US Government is somehow "objective"? Clearly it isn't.







Looks happy, doesn't he?

So what's your fucking point??? There's a large amount of jews in high places? So what, there's lots of African Americans playing professional sports. Maybe because they work hard to obtain some success in those particular fields, and there's not a goddamned thing wrong with that. Your reasoning has no logic.

Hmmmm... the Israelis accept muslims living & working in Israel, why won't muslim countries reciprocate? The Israelis don't teach children to kill those unlike them, but go right over to the Gaza Strip or West Bank, and see what they teach preschoolers... gun, sword, bomb & death to Jews & westerners.

Those pictures look Photoshopped...

I would agree that Israel has some pull in America's actions in the Middle East. Maybe not to a point where they say "Jump," and we reply "How high, sir?" But I'd say they have a somewhat significant pull on us.

As for calling people who don't like Israel's actions "anti-semetic," that needs to stop. It's like calling someone who hates one black person racist against all blacks. Or it's like saying the Ku Klux Klan represents all Christians. One group of people (namely the Israeli government) does not represent the entire collection (all Jewish people). That's why I get so bent out of shape when people say I'm an anti-semite because I disagree with Israel's foreign policy. Never mind that I work at a Jewish deli for a boss whom I have a great deal of respect for. And never mind that my best friend is Jewish. We all know that if you hate one person in the group, you hate them all.

I also find it ironic that a good chunk of people who do this happen to say that Islam is a religion of violence.

Hap posts: What are they (the Jews) driving towards? A two-country world

Hap is Bak… And the Nefarious plot which threatens World Security and Freedom is… ta daaaa Israel (in control of the United Nations) intends to Unilaterally rule the World…!?

Hmm, the little ‘ol Nation of Israel is going to become the ONLY World Power? C’mon, that’s a bit over the top for even me to consider. What do the Jews win?

Why do you fear the Jews Hap? That has been my question to you all along. Are The Jews going to enslave Humanity or WHAT!

What are the Jews going to do to ALL of Humanity that is causing you such consternation?

What group are you a part of and speaking for Hap. Don‘t be shy, this is a Free Forum… Speak your piece. Who is Your Puppet Master? ~rore