Baltimore IMC : http://baltimore.indymedia.org
LOCAL Commentary :: War in Iraq
Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
Author
Date Created
- 25 Apr 2006
Date Edited
- 25 Apr 2006 09:01:19 AM
Rating
- Current rating: 44
License
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved.
The Israeli Lobby, with others, helped to instigate the Iraqi War. A scholarly report, the “Harvard Study,” which was recently released, also documents the “unmatched power” of the Lobby over the national interest. Now, the Bush-Cheney Gang is targeting Iran for a pre-empted strike. Is the hawkish, hard right, pro-Israeli Lobby pushing for a war with Iran, too? Kevin Zeese, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate In MD, thinks that it is.
Click on image for a larger version
“So likewise ‘a passionate attachment’ of one nation for another produces a variety of evils...” - George Washington’s “Farewell Address,” September 19, 1796
Washington, D.C. - Kevin Zeese was the first speaker at a public forum held on Monday evening, April 24, 2006, at the West End Neighborhood Library, near the community of Georgetown. The topic for the event was, “Is the Israel Lobby Promoting War on Iran?” He said the question of whether the hawkish, hard-right, pro-Israeli Lobby in America wants to see war with Iran “gets answered in an ad which was in the New York Times, the Financial Times, and other newspapers. It’s a full page ad by the American Jewish Committee, put out on April 4th. The center of the bull’s eye is Iran and the headline is: ‘Can Anyone Within Range of Iran’s Missiles Feel Safe?’ I think that’s a pretty inflammatory ad. It’s signed by more than a hundred people...I think it’s a pretty strong indication of where the Lobby stands. That isn’t the only proof we have that the hawkish Israeli Lobby wants to go to war.”
Zeese is the director of DemocracyRising.U.S., an organization working to end the Iraqi War and the Occupation. He was also an ex-press secretary for Ralph Nader in 2004. Presently, Zeese is an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, who is looking to bring together, in a voting block, the combined electoral efforts of the Green, Populist and Libertarian Parties. (1)
The DC Anti-War Network (DAWN) presented the evening program. (2) David Kirshbaum and Carol Moore of DAWN acted as co-moderators for the event and did a splendid job. Other speakers were Simin Royanian and Alex Patico. Alex is a U.S. coordinator of the multi-country “Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.” Ms. Royanian is an economist and the cofounder of the “Women for Peace and Justice in Iran.”
Ms. Royanian, in her remarks, pointed to U.S. “militarism and imperialism” as being the root of the problem of injustice around the world and in the Middle East as well, and as posing the main threat to Iran today. She did acknowledge that the Israeli Lobby is “brainwashing” the American people. She also emphasized that Iran is not making “any nuclear weapons.” Mr. Patico saw the U.S. government itself as the main issue with respect to Iran. He said it has “exacerbated the situation.” Patico asked: “Why did it (the U.S.) put the nuclear option on the table?”
According to DAWN’s press release, the focus of the event was the new “Harvard Study on the negative influence of the Israel Lobby and what activists can do about it.” (3) The report was authored by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. (4) It generated hostile reactions from Israeli sympathizers, like Alan Dershowitz, David Gergen and the Washington Post. (5) Essentially, the document revealed what most objective observers of the Middle East already knew: The Israeli Lobby, which includes the Neocons, has exercised “unmatched power” over U.S.’s policies to the extent that its role is harmful and not in the national interest. In fact, pundit Charley Reese, was even more blunt. He called Israel, “The dead roach in America’s salad.” He also accused the Lobby of “beating the drums for war with Iran.” (6) Recently, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed, that the Bush-Cheney Gang was planning a nuclear strike against Iran. (7)
Continuing with Zeese’s comments, he said: “Another important, hard line group is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). They have been advocating ‘regime change’ in a number of Arab counties: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and with the Palestinian Authority for years. JINSA’s board of advisors has included many Bush administration leaders: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Douglas Feith...They (JINSA) put a report out on April 12th, called, ‘Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran.’ Iran, the document said is the ‘whole list of national security priorities.’ Yes, they want to see ‘regime change’ in Iran. They want to see an attack on Iran.”
It’s interesting to note that one of the members of the U.S. Congress, who supports a U.S. air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is the Israeli Firster, Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). He told the Jerusalem Post, he would, if necessary, advocate such a measure to “deter the development of their nuclear program.” (8) What, of course, Lieberman didn’t say is that his favorite country, Israel, is suspected of having over 400 nuclear weapons! (9)
Meanwhile, as gas prices soar above $3 a gallon, the resentment in the U.S. towards the Israeli Lobby’s role in inflaming that problem, too, can also be expected to grow exponentially. Some fondly recall that before the creation of Israel, the U.S. didn’t have any Arab enemies in the oil-producing Middle East and that buying gas for the car wasn’t an issue. Other matters, like: Israel’s launching of the notorious “Lavon Affair,” in 1954; its bulldozing to death, in 2003, of peace activist Rachel Corrie; its deliberate attack in 1967, on the U.S. Liberty; its unleashing of the spy/traitor, Jonathan Pollard; the over $140 billion in dollars in foreign aid that it has extracted from our treasury, since 1948; and the Larry Franklin/Pentagon Spy case, with its ties to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-will continue to simmer in the bosom of many Americans. (10)
There is, too, another factor which causes friction. It is the arrogance of some of the Israel’s apologists! Their condescending attitudes and their use of smear tactics towards those who dare to speak out for the good of our Republic is deeply resented by their targets and, too, by the wider community. It reminds some of how the British imperialists regularly abused our gallant patriots before the Revolution. As brave Americans die daily in the Neocon-inspired Iraqi War, and others ingest the toxic depleted uranium dust, those feelings against a militant Israel, and its haughty and schoolyard bully of a Lobby, will only persist. (11)
Finally, in his over fifteen-minute-talk, Zeese underscored the importance of the Harvard Study and how it can open up a discussion on matters that have long been a “taboo topic among elected U.S. politicians.” He had high praise for its two authors. Zeese spotlighted for the audience some of the significant items, and findings, contained in the report, including one of their conclusions that Iran is Israel’s next target for “regime change.” He emphasized that the “lopsided U.S. policy in favor of Israel” needs to be changed. He pointed out that aid to Israel over the last 58 years has far outstripped aid to other nations. He gave as example the fact that, “Aid to Israel is greater than all of U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America combined.”
Zeese said that our “democracy is threatened by the stifling of debate.” He said now is the time to confront that “special relationship. It is evident that the current approach has not benefitted Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East on the United States.” He finished up by urging people who are opposed to any war against Iran “to get organized.”
Notes:
1. kevinzeese.com/index.php
2. dawndc.net/
3. dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133456/index.php
4. ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
5. stopthewarnow.net/warlobbies/harvardpaper.html
6. www.antiwar.com/reese/
7. www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
8. newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/164250.shtml
9. www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
10. wrmea.com/
11. www.whatreallyhappened.com/priceofyourchild.html
© William Hughes 2006
William Hughes is the author of “Saying ‘No’ to the War Party” (Iuniverse, Inc.). He can be reached at: liamhughes-AT-comcast.net.
Washington, D.C. - Kevin Zeese was the first speaker at a public forum held on Monday evening, April 24, 2006, at the West End Neighborhood Library, near the community of Georgetown. The topic for the event was, “Is the Israel Lobby Promoting War on Iran?” He said the question of whether the hawkish, hard-right, pro-Israeli Lobby in America wants to see war with Iran “gets answered in an ad which was in the New York Times, the Financial Times, and other newspapers. It’s a full page ad by the American Jewish Committee, put out on April 4th. The center of the bull’s eye is Iran and the headline is: ‘Can Anyone Within Range of Iran’s Missiles Feel Safe?’ I think that’s a pretty inflammatory ad. It’s signed by more than a hundred people...I think it’s a pretty strong indication of where the Lobby stands. That isn’t the only proof we have that the hawkish Israeli Lobby wants to go to war.”
Zeese is the director of DemocracyRising.U.S., an organization working to end the Iraqi War and the Occupation. He was also an ex-press secretary for Ralph Nader in 2004. Presently, Zeese is an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, who is looking to bring together, in a voting block, the combined electoral efforts of the Green, Populist and Libertarian Parties. (1)
The DC Anti-War Network (DAWN) presented the evening program. (2) David Kirshbaum and Carol Moore of DAWN acted as co-moderators for the event and did a splendid job. Other speakers were Simin Royanian and Alex Patico. Alex is a U.S. coordinator of the multi-country “Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.” Ms. Royanian is an economist and the cofounder of the “Women for Peace and Justice in Iran.”
Ms. Royanian, in her remarks, pointed to U.S. “militarism and imperialism” as being the root of the problem of injustice around the world and in the Middle East as well, and as posing the main threat to Iran today. She did acknowledge that the Israeli Lobby is “brainwashing” the American people. She also emphasized that Iran is not making “any nuclear weapons.” Mr. Patico saw the U.S. government itself as the main issue with respect to Iran. He said it has “exacerbated the situation.” Patico asked: “Why did it (the U.S.) put the nuclear option on the table?”
According to DAWN’s press release, the focus of the event was the new “Harvard Study on the negative influence of the Israel Lobby and what activists can do about it.” (3) The report was authored by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. (4) It generated hostile reactions from Israeli sympathizers, like Alan Dershowitz, David Gergen and the Washington Post. (5) Essentially, the document revealed what most objective observers of the Middle East already knew: The Israeli Lobby, which includes the Neocons, has exercised “unmatched power” over U.S.’s policies to the extent that its role is harmful and not in the national interest. In fact, pundit Charley Reese, was even more blunt. He called Israel, “The dead roach in America’s salad.” He also accused the Lobby of “beating the drums for war with Iran.” (6) Recently, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed, that the Bush-Cheney Gang was planning a nuclear strike against Iran. (7)
Continuing with Zeese’s comments, he said: “Another important, hard line group is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). They have been advocating ‘regime change’ in a number of Arab counties: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and with the Palestinian Authority for years. JINSA’s board of advisors has included many Bush administration leaders: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Douglas Feith...They (JINSA) put a report out on April 12th, called, ‘Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran.’ Iran, the document said is the ‘whole list of national security priorities.’ Yes, they want to see ‘regime change’ in Iran. They want to see an attack on Iran.”
It’s interesting to note that one of the members of the U.S. Congress, who supports a U.S. air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is the Israeli Firster, Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). He told the Jerusalem Post, he would, if necessary, advocate such a measure to “deter the development of their nuclear program.” (8) What, of course, Lieberman didn’t say is that his favorite country, Israel, is suspected of having over 400 nuclear weapons! (9)
Meanwhile, as gas prices soar above $3 a gallon, the resentment in the U.S. towards the Israeli Lobby’s role in inflaming that problem, too, can also be expected to grow exponentially. Some fondly recall that before the creation of Israel, the U.S. didn’t have any Arab enemies in the oil-producing Middle East and that buying gas for the car wasn’t an issue. Other matters, like: Israel’s launching of the notorious “Lavon Affair,” in 1954; its bulldozing to death, in 2003, of peace activist Rachel Corrie; its deliberate attack in 1967, on the U.S. Liberty; its unleashing of the spy/traitor, Jonathan Pollard; the over $140 billion in dollars in foreign aid that it has extracted from our treasury, since 1948; and the Larry Franklin/Pentagon Spy case, with its ties to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-will continue to simmer in the bosom of many Americans. (10)
There is, too, another factor which causes friction. It is the arrogance of some of the Israel’s apologists! Their condescending attitudes and their use of smear tactics towards those who dare to speak out for the good of our Republic is deeply resented by their targets and, too, by the wider community. It reminds some of how the British imperialists regularly abused our gallant patriots before the Revolution. As brave Americans die daily in the Neocon-inspired Iraqi War, and others ingest the toxic depleted uranium dust, those feelings against a militant Israel, and its haughty and schoolyard bully of a Lobby, will only persist. (11)
Finally, in his over fifteen-minute-talk, Zeese underscored the importance of the Harvard Study and how it can open up a discussion on matters that have long been a “taboo topic among elected U.S. politicians.” He had high praise for its two authors. Zeese spotlighted for the audience some of the significant items, and findings, contained in the report, including one of their conclusions that Iran is Israel’s next target for “regime change.” He emphasized that the “lopsided U.S. policy in favor of Israel” needs to be changed. He pointed out that aid to Israel over the last 58 years has far outstripped aid to other nations. He gave as example the fact that, “Aid to Israel is greater than all of U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America combined.”
Zeese said that our “democracy is threatened by the stifling of debate.” He said now is the time to confront that “special relationship. It is evident that the current approach has not benefitted Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East on the United States.” He finished up by urging people who are opposed to any war against Iran “to get organized.”
Notes:
1. kevinzeese.com/index.php
2. dawndc.net/
3. dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133456/index.php
4. ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
5. stopthewarnow.net/warlobbies/harvardpaper.html
6. www.antiwar.com/reese/
7. www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
8. newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/164250.shtml
9. www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
10. wrmea.com/
11. www.whatreallyhappened.com/priceofyourchild.html
© William Hughes 2006
William Hughes is the author of “Saying ‘No’ to the War Party” (Iuniverse, Inc.). He can be reached at: liamhughes-AT-comcast.net.
This content is now locked, and no comments may be added.
Comments
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Bush says Iraq war is good for Israel:
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Treason in high places: Pentagon Zionists, AIPAC, Israel and Condi as well:
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
Did you see this?
Excerpt:
But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. ...It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Re: Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
26 Apr 2006
www.davidduke.com/
Scroll down to his Web radio broadcasts for today (April 26th, 2006) and yesterday (April 25th, 2006) in his Web broadcast archive at www.davidduke.com as both broadcasts are about the above article.. As usual our fifth columnist serving Israel first US press/media is not covering this...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
26 Apr 2006
www.davidduke.com/
Duke discusses the above during his Web radio broadcasts for April 26th, 2006 and April 25th, 2006 - scroll down to his Web radio archive at www.davidduke.com
Re: Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-green.html
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5788.htm
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
25 Apr 2006
www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/04/12/News/Msnbcs.hardball.Films.Live.Segment.On.Campus-1845603.shtml
The above article from the 'Daily Trojan' is linked at the following URL (be sure to scroll down to the UPI article near the top of the following URL):
Fifth columnist pro-Israel lobby pushing US to bomb Iran for Israel like it did with Iraq:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese
26 Apr 2006
www.counterpunch.org/leupp04262006.html
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Thinking about Neoconservatism:
www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement:
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791/
representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-mother-of-spc-casey.html
representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html
------------------------------------------------
Scroll down to the UPI article which is near the top of the following message thread (URL):
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
US military operations are already underway in Iran (for Israel, of course!):
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Whose War? (Israel's war):
www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
See the traitors to America at the top of www.nowarforisrael.com and the message threads linked in the left margin of the following URL as well:
www.nowarforisrael.com/Rachel%20Corrie.htm
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author on www.currentissues.tv:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Israel: The Dead Roach in America's Salad:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
--------------------------------------------
Forwarded:
Urgent: Cindy Sheehan conveys that US troops being sent to Kuwait
for Iran this September..
I am not in touch with Cindy Sheehan any longer, but she is still in
touch with a contact of mine.. She sent him the following email
which he forwarded to me... Here it is... I don't know how credible
her source is, but it is interesting all the same:
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mik"
Subject: fw: from Cindy Sheehan
Subject: FYI---URGENT
Just got off the phone with a person.
Got some intel from a person that does contracting at Travis, AFB
near Vacaville.
They have some special stuff going on there because George is flying
into there Friday.
This contractor says that he heard that all the Charlie companies
will be deployed to Kuwait in September to go into Iran.
Just before the elections.
That's all I know, but we are working on getting more info.
Peace...SOON AND NOW!!
Love
Cindy
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author on www.currentissues.tv:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Israel: The Dead Roach in America's Salad:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
--------------------------------------------
Forwarded:
Urgent: Cindy Sheehan conveys that US troops being sent to Kuwait
for Iran this September..
I am not in touch with Cindy Sheehan any longer, but she is still in
touch with a contact of mine.. She sent him the following email
which he forwarded to me... Here it is... I don't know how credible
her source is, but it is interesting all the same:
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mik"
Subject: fw: from Cindy Sheehan
Subject: FYI---URGENT
Just got off the phone with a person.
Got some intel from a person that does contracting at Travis, AFB
near Vacaville.
They have some special stuff going on there because George is flying
into there Friday.
This contractor says that he heard that all the Charlie companies
will be deployed to Kuwait in September to go into Iran.
Just before the elections.
That's all I know, but we are working on getting more info.
Peace...SOON AND NOW!!
Love
Cindy
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Forwarded:
General Janis Karpinski (of Abu Ghraib) had an excellent program on the Republic Broadcasting Network (via the live link at www.rbnlive.com and the following archive URL - click on the link shown for the second hour of the April 22nd, 2006 show as she discussed how we went to war for Israel and how the MEK terrorist group is being used for the coming attack on Iran):
mp3.rbnlive.com/Janis06.html
Another excellent call about the Mearsheimer/Walt study on the pro-Israel lobby came at 28.11 into the 2nd hour of the Karen Kwiatkowski program (her interview with Dr. Leon Hadar) for April 22nd, 2006 at the following archive URL as Karen mentioned the Mearsheimer/Walt study again at 33.36 into the 2nd hour of the program (Condi Rice's leak of sensitive defense information to the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby ex-officials was mentioned at 54.42 into the first hour of Karen's broadcast):
mp3.rbnlive.com/Karen06.html
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_mear_walt.htm
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Conceived in Israel:
www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm
Read about the Zionist 'divide and conquer' (which is mentioned in the above article) in the following blog entry by Kurt Nimmo:
Neocon Academic Glorifies P2OG Terrorism
kurtnimmo.com/
Jewish Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
September 11 and the origins
of the "War on Terrorism":
A revisionist account:
www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_toc.htm
US support for Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people was the PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on September 11th, 2001 (9/11):
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
today Bush, Chenny Rummie are closet Jews. Don't let them kid you. United states of Israel. So many stupid fools abound in USa. Want fairness-demand congress pass a law bill---all Americans must convert to Judism--that will fix the problem--JEWS ONLY NEED APPLY!
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
20 Jun 2006
i beg you please to help me alter my religion from islam to the old testament.i'm mamoud hassan aly.lawyer.29 years old.my address is 18 khalf ala st.,shutez,Alexandria,Egypt.i prefer to kill my self than to stay like this.please,please,please.if not where i can ask for help. i hope that will meet with your kind consideration
Mahmoud hassan aly
18 khalf alla street schutez,Alexandria,21411,Egypt
e_mail mahmoud_hassanweb-AT-yahoo.com
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Did you see this?
Excerpt:
But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. ...It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Zionists always have contingency plans if they don't get their way-either start a civil war in the nation that opposses them, collapse the economy, carry out a "terrorist" operation and pin it on someone else (usually the muslims) or spread mischief and turmoil to weaken the government at hand ( as in the Clinton/Lewisnky scandal).
These are demon spawn, their aim IS TO START a WW3 between the muslims and the Christians and sit on the sidelines and watch, and eventually collect the spoils..........anyway I could go on and on, maybe some other time though.
Thanks for the posts everyone, keep up the good work.
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5A1C8C00-2007-425F-A7FB-F47C4B6F494A.htm
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
25 Apr 2006
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD11Ak03.html
Attack Iran, destroy the US constitution:
atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD26Ak01.html
Deadly serious war games:
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD22Ak01.html
Tehran insider tells of US black ops:
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php
Intl. Intelligence
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
Additional at folllowing URL:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
(04/21/2006)
Iran-Israel Linkage By Bush Seen As Threat
Jewish leaders warn of backlash as president cites Jewish state as rationale for possible strikes.
James D. Besser And Larry Cohler-Esses
President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish community — and his own cause — by repeatedly citing Israel as his top rationale for possible U.S. military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders and Middle East analysts warned this week.
Bush’s repeated, sometimes exclusive, focus on Israel could spark public fury against the Jewish state and Jews if U.S. military action is accompanied by skyrocketing gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen G.I.’s who might be seen as dying for Israel, some said. Others feared it could fracture the shaky international coalition Bush is striving to assemble to oppose Iran’s nuclear program by framing the threat as primarily to Israel rather than international stability.
Ambassador Edward Walker, a former U.S. envoy to Israel who now heads the Middle East Institute in Washington, termed Bush’s Israel focus “a terrible idea.”
“Just think about if gas prices go up to $7 a gallon as a result, and everybody is saying it’s because of Israel,” he said.
“I don’t believe it is in Israel’s best interests to have the American people going into a major military action, which is what we’re talking about in Iran, with significant implications on the home front in terms of terrorism and energy prices, and then having people blame Israel,” said Walker.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said “The linkage to Israel is not a good idea, because then the Iranians say, you see, it’s the Zionists driving this.
“As much as we appreciate it, the question is whether it’s beneficial to tie this to Israel,” said Hoenlein, whose organization functions as the Jewish community’s official umbrella group for speaking out on foreign policy issues.
Hoenlein pointed out that Iran is tied to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which operates in Lebanon and other countries. It also exercises influence over militias accused of atrocities in Iraq and aims to spread its influence throughout the Muslim world.
The danger of a nuclear-armed Iran “is a much greater one than just Israel,” said Hoenlein.
In recent days, there have been reports of extensive U.S. military planning, possibly for a bombing campaign against a variety of Iranian targets. The aim, say the reports, would be to halt or, at least set back, what Iran insists is a peaceful program to produce nuclear energy. The United States, Europe and other countries fear this merely masks a covert Iranian drive to develop nuclear weapons.
Faced with increasing public clamor about a possible military conflict, Bush has repeatedly taken note of the threat a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel. Indeed, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction, most recently this week. On some occasions, President Bush has offered this as his sole rationale for confronting Iran.
In a March 20 speech in Cleveland, for example, Bush replied to a question about the influence of apocalyptic Christian theology on his policies with a long, rambling answer in which he raised the threat he saw from Iran and said, “Now that I’m on Iran … the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”
Other administration leaders have brought Israel into center stage on Iran in a different way — suggesting strong U.S. action could be necessary to keep Israel from acting on its own.
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might [attack Iran] without being asked,” said Vice President Dick Cheney in a February 2005 radio interview, “that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”
Asked why Bush has made Israel a focus, Walker said, “because he is not very attuned to the history of the situation and he has some really strange advisers who do not understand the broader implications of this, in terms of the vast majority of the American public.”
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-L.I./Queens), a frequent administration critic, said Bush’s focus increases the likelihood of a backlash against Jews and Israel if a U.S.-led war on Iran turns sour.
“It’s a horrible thing to do, it’s dangerous,” he said. “If something goes wrong, it’s a setup to say we did it for Israel and not for America, and to blame the Jews.”
Asked if he thought that was President Bush’s intent, Ackerman said “I don’t believe in accidents and coincidences in this business. They choose their words very carefully. This is not the first time the president has said this, but now it looks like it’s their whole program.”
Ironically, Middle East analysts say Israel’s own public stand has, by and large, played down the threat that Bush is playing up.
“For past few years, the position of the Israeli government has been that Iran’s nuclear program was not an Israeli issue,” said Shai Feldman, director of Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East studies. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from 2000, said Feldman, Israel stressed the problem was “an international issue, a challenge to international stability.”
Israel may have felt comfortable stepping back because the European countries and even Russia and China have cooperated with the United States on the issue in ways they did not in the lead-up to the War in Iraq, Feldman conceded. This may have allowed Israel to de-emphasize itself, he said.
“In terms of maintaining this kind of international support, to say Israel is a primary concern is extremely counterproductive,” Feldman said.
Furthermore, he explained, many—though not all—Israeli analysts do not see a nuclear Iran as the kind of “existential threat” that Bush depicts. For all its president’s rhetoric, many Israeli analysts view Iran’s record as “on the whole, quite risk averse” and see a rational actor that would remain very aware of Israel’s second-strike capability, he said.
“It’s not that the day after Iran gets the nuclear bomb they drop it on Tel-Aviv,” said Feldman. It is rather, the many “general geopolitical implications” of a nuclear Iran that concern Israel, he said.
“One is that it would lead other countries [in the region] to follow suit” with their own nuclear arms programs, he said. “Two is that an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons would throw its weight around the region to a much greater extent than is currently the case.”
Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), agreed that the administration’s strong focus on Israel could undermine its already shaky efforts to build a broad international coalition to pressure and possibly fight Iran.
“It’s a perfectly reasonable response to the fact that Iran has threatened only two countries — the United States and Israel,” said Bryen, whose group promotes strong ties between the U.S. and Israeli military. “The problem is that doing that gives countries that would like an excuse for not acting on Iran an out.”
Ahmadinejad believes the more Washington focuses on Israel as a factor in the Iran debate, the more trouble it will have recruiting allies, she said.
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, said he has already seen signs of a backlash against Jewish groups because of his group’s support for a tough stand against Iran’s nuclear program.
Harris’ group recently published an ad in The New York Times and the Financial Times headlined “A Nuclear Iran Threatens Us All,” showing a map with concentric rings delineating the current and projected ranges of Iranian missiles now deployed and under development.
“Our point is and remains that Iran is a global problem,” he said. “Israel is one target, but not the only one.”
But letters to the editor blasted the group and said the ad was proof of the destructive impact of the Jewish lobby, Harris said.
“So there is always the possibility of a backlash,” said Harris.
Harris said his group “welcomes and appreciates the administration’s expressed support for Israel. ... But we maintain this is a problem that goes far beyond Israel.”
Some Jewish leaders seem conflicted — pleased that the president is actively concerned about Israel’s security but uncertain about his motives.
“The fact that the president is saying, time and time again, that Israel is under our [defense] umbrella should be welcomed and encouraged,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. But Foxman said the president’s exact motives in linking Israel so closely to U.S. Iran aims are unclear.
“Is this a security umbrella on behalf of Israel? Is it meant as a message to Israel? Or to Iran? At this point nobody really knows its significance.”
Jewish leaders say that while many have pushed for a forceful U.S. stand against Iran, no one is actively promoting the military option. Even some hawkish groups caution that attacking Iran could have unintended and devastating consequences.
JINSA’s Bryen, for example, that a military strike with civilian casualties will probably “strengthen the regime.”
There are no simple options, she continued, “which may be why the president keeps raising the specter of Israel. Everybody is hoping for a magic bullet, whether it be an Israeli or a U.S. magic bullet.” n
James D. Besser is Washington correspondent;
Larry Cohler-Esses is editor at large.
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
15 May 2006
to play down the Jewish angle [/b]
www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp
Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel Linkage
By Ori Nir
May 12, 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran. The final conclusion after running through many options was expressed by General Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army’s National War College:
"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.""
The CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.‘” I HOPE BUSH LISTENS! But the Bush Administration OFTEN IGNORES advice from intelligence.
The example of the USSR is an important one to analyze. The biggest close call was because of U.S. policy maker's recklessness and aggression toward Cuba. We don't want to repeat the same kind of mistakes. And the sick part is President Kennedy didn't know about the hypocrisy of U.S. nukes already based a mere 150 miles from Soviet boarders, in Turkey.
As far as the habits of other nuclear countries, the U.S. and Israel are heavily involved in terrorism. The U.S. has inflicted massive amounts of terrorism against Cuba, just one example. And the hypocrisy is incredible. Look at the case of Orlando Bosch. The U.S. Justice Department, which was overruled by Bush I, complained that the U.S. harboring Bosch put the public interests at risk because "the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists." Look also at the shameful case of the Cuban 5.
We also need to look at what Israel actually is, and it isn't pretty. For example, if all the people living in Israel had equal rights, the same rights we demand for ourselves, that would be the destruction of Israel by definition. Keeping in place a system of discrimination based on religion is not something Americans should risk their lives for. Keeping in place a system of injustice is not something Americans should support. Should the Confederacy have been wiped off the map?
representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/04/off-table-bombing-iran-is-not-only.html
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
(04/21/2006)
Iran-Israel Linkage By Bush Seen As Threat
Jewish leaders warn of backlash as president cites Jewish state as rationale for possible strikes.
James D. Besser And Larry Cohler-Esses
President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish community — and his own cause — by repeatedly citing Israel as his top rationale for possible U.S. military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders and Middle East analysts warned this week.
Bush’s repeated, sometimes exclusive, focus on Israel could spark public fury against the Jewish state and Jews if U.S. military action is accompanied by skyrocketing gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen G.I.’s who might be seen as dying for Israel, some said. Others feared it could fracture the shaky international coalition Bush is striving to assemble to oppose Iran’s nuclear program by framing the threat as primarily to Israel rather than international stability.
Ambassador Edward Walker, a former U.S. envoy to Israel who now heads the Middle East Institute in Washington, termed Bush’s Israel focus “a terrible idea.”
“Just think about if gas prices go up to $7 a gallon as a result, and everybody is saying it’s because of Israel,” he said.
“I don’t believe it is in Israel’s best interests to have the American people going into a major military action, which is what we’re talking about in Iran, with significant implications on the home front in terms of terrorism and energy prices, and then having people blame Israel,” said Walker.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said “The linkage to Israel is not a good idea, because then the Iranians say, you see, it’s the Zionists driving this.
“As much as we appreciate it, the question is whether it’s beneficial to tie this to Israel,” said Hoenlein, whose organization functions as the Jewish community’s official umbrella group for speaking out on foreign policy issues.
Hoenlein pointed out that Iran is tied to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which operates in Lebanon and other countries. It also exercises influence over militias accused of atrocities in Iraq() and aims to spread its influence throughout the Muslim world.
The danger of a nuclear-armed Iran “is a much greater one than just Israel,” said Hoenlein.
In recent days, there have been reports of extensive U.S. military planning, possibly for a bombing campaign against a variety of Iranian targets. The aim, say the reports, would be to halt or, at least set back, what Iran insists is a peaceful program to produce nuclear energy. The United States, Europe and other countries fear this merely masks a covert Iranian drive to develop nuclear weapons.
Faced with increasing public clamor about a possible military conflict, Bush has repeatedly taken note of the threat a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel. Indeed, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction, most recently this week. On some occasions, President Bush has offered this as his sole rationale for confronting Iran.
In a March 20 speech in Cleveland, for example, Bush replied to a question about the influence of apocalyptic Christian theology on his policies with a long, rambling answer in which he raised the threat he saw from Iran and said, “Now that I’m on Iran … the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”
Other administration leaders have brought Israel into center stage on Iran in a different way — suggesting strong U.S. action could be necessary to keep Israel from acting on its own.
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might [attack Iran] without being asked,” said Vice President Dick Cheney in a February 2005 radio interview, “that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”
Asked why Bush has made Israel a focus, Walker said, “because he is not very attuned to the history of the situation and he has some really strange advisers who do not understand the broader implications of this, in terms of the vast majority of the American public.”
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-L.I./Queens), a frequent administration critic, said Bush’s focus increases the likelihood of a backlash against Jews and Israel if a U.S.-led war on Iran turns sour.
“It’s a horrible thing to do, it’s dangerous,” he said. “If something goes wrong, it’s a setup to say we did it for Israel and not for America, and to blame the Jews.”
Asked if he thought that was President Bush’s intent, Ackerman said “I don’t believe in accidents and coincidences in this business. They choose their words very carefully. This is not the first time the president has said this, but now it looks like it’s their whole program.”
Ironically, Middle East analysts say Israel’s own public stand has, by and large, played down the threat that Bush is playing up.
“For past few years, the position of the Israeli government has been that Iran’s nuclear program was not an Israeli issue,” said Shai Feldman, director of Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East studies. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from 2000, said Feldman, Israel stressed the problem was “an international issue, a challenge to international stability.”
Israel may have felt comfortable stepping back because the European countries and even Russia and China have cooperated with the United States on the issue in ways they did not in the lead-up to the War in Iraq, Feldman conceded. This may have allowed Israel to de-emphasize itself, he said.
“In terms of maintaining this kind of international support, to say Israel is a primary concern is extremely counterproductive,” Feldman said.
Furthermore, he explained, many—though not all—Israeli analysts do not see a nuclear Iran as the kind of “existential threat” that Bush depicts. For all its president’s rhetoric, many Israeli analysts view Iran’s record as “on the whole, quite risk averse” and see a rational actor that would remain very aware of Israel’s second-strike capability, he said.
“It’s not that the day after Iran gets the nuclear bomb they drop it on Tel-Aviv,” said Feldman. It is rather, the many “general geopolitical implications” of a nuclear Iran that concern Israel, he said.
“One is that it would lead other countries [in the region] to follow suit” with their own nuclear arms programs, he said. “Two is that an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons would throw its weight around the region to a much greater extent than is currently the case.”
Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), agreed that the administration’s strong focus on Israel could undermine its already shaky efforts to build a broad international coalition to pressure and possibly fight Iran.
“It’s a perfectly reasonable response to the fact that Iran has threatened only two countries — the United States and Israel,” said Bryen, whose group promotes strong ties between the U.S. and Israeli military. “The problem is that doing that gives countries that would like an excuse for not acting on Iran an out.”
Ahmadinejad believes the more Washington focuses on Israel as a factor in the Iran debate, the more trouble it will have recruiting allies, she said.
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, said he has already seen signs of a backlash against Jewish groups because of his group’s support for a tough stand against Iran’s nuclear program.
Harris’ group recently published an ad in The New York Times and the Financial Times headlined “A Nuclear Iran Threatens Us All,” showing a map with concentric rings delineating the current and projected ranges of Iranian missiles now deployed and under development.
“Our point is and remains that Iran is a global problem,” he said. “Israel is one target, but not the only one.”
But letters to the editor blasted the group and said the ad was proof of the destructive impact of the Jewish lobby, Harris said.
“So there is always the possibility of a backlash,” said Harris.
Harris said his group “welcomes and appreciates the administration’s expressed support for Israel. ... But we maintain this is a problem that goes far beyond Israel.”
Some Jewish leaders seem conflicted — pleased that the president is actively concerned about Israel’s security but uncertain about his motives.
“The fact that the president is saying, time and time again, that Israel is under our [defense] umbrella should be welcomed and encouraged,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. But Foxman said the president’s exact motives in linking Israel so closely to U.S. Iran aims are unclear.
“Is this a security umbrella on behalf of Israel? Is it meant as a message to Israel? Or to Iran? At this point nobody really knows its significance.”
Jewish leaders say that while many have pushed for a forceful U.S. stand against Iran, no one is actively promoting the military option. Even some hawkish groups caution that attacking Iran could have unintended and devastating consequences.
JINSA’s Bryen, for example, that a military strike with civilian casualties will probably “strengthen the regime.”
There are no simple options, she continued, “which may be why the president keeps raising the specter of Israel. Everybody is hoping for a magic bullet, whether it be an Israeli or a U.S. magic bullet.” n
James D. Besser is Washington correspondent;
Larry Cohler-Esses is editor at large.
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
15 May 2006
to play down the Jewish angle [/b]
www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp
Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel Linkage
By Ori Nir
May 12, 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php
Intl. Intelligence
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
Additional at folllowing URL:
www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
27 Apr 2006
Many throughout the Muslim world and beyond are asking this question: What are the real reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq and its wish to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran? …
.. Read the following strangely prophetic segment from an article published in 1982 by the World Zionist Organisation's publication Kivunim and penned by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Yinon's strategy was based on this premise. In order to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab countries so that the region may be carved up into small ineffectual states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might. …
www.counterpunch.org/heard04252006.html
"A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon:
www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PNAC 101 - Rise Of The Neocons
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php
www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
… “Another important, hard line group is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). They have been advocating ‘regime change’ in a number of Arab counties: Iraq([search]), Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and with the Palestinian Authority for years. JINSA’s board of advisors has included many Bush administration leaders: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Douglas Feith...They (JINSA) put a report out on April 12th, called, ‘Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran.’ Iran, the document said is the ‘whole list of national security priorities.’ Yes, they want to see ‘regime change’ in Iran. They want to see an attack on Iran.”
It’s interesting to note that one of the members of the U.S. Congress, who supports a U.S. air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is the Israeli Firster, Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). …
baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
www.jinsa.org/home/home.html
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
Send Email
What is interesting is that this is, as I recall, the first comment on the M-W paper by a liberal mainstream columnist, or have I missed Robert Scheer or Paul Krugman or Trudy Rubin saying something?
www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran. The final conclusion after running through many options was expressed by General Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army’s National War College:
"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.""
The CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.‘” I HOPE BUSH LISTENS! But the Bush Administration OFTEN IGNORES advice from intelligence.
The example of the USSR is an important one to analyze. The biggest close call was because of U.S. policy maker's recklessness and aggression toward Cuba. We don't want to repeat the same kind of mistakes. And the sick part is President Kennedy didn't know about the hypocrisy of U.S. nukes already based a mere 150 miles from Soviet boarders, in Turkey.
As far as the habits of other nuclear countries, the U.S. and Israel are heavily involved in terrorism. The U.S. has inflicted massive amounts of terrorism against Cuba, just one example. And the hypocrisy is incredible. Look at the case of Orlando Bosch. The U.S. Justice Department, which was overruled by Bush I, complained that the U.S. harboring Bosch put the public interests at risk because "the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists." Look also at the shameful case of the Cuban 5.
We also need to look at what Israel actually is, and it isn't pretty. For example, if all the people living in Israel had equal rights, the same rights we demand for ourselves, that would be the destruction of Israel by definition. Keeping in place a system of discrimination based on religion is not something Americans should risk their lives for. Keeping in place a system of injustice is not something Americans should support. Should the Confederacy have been wiped off the map?
representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/04/off-table-bombing-iran-is-not-only.html
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
Jordanian King to Israel: Give Up Your Nukes
18:17 Apr 24, by Hana Levi Julian
Jordan's King Abdullah said Monday that Israel should disarm its nuclear weapons in the wake of international pressure on Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.
Arab states have united in condemning Western pressure on Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, and Jordan is the latest to join the chorus. "If the world is demanding Iran' doesn't develop nuclear weapons, it should also demand that countries which possess nuclear weapons disarm," he said. "For peace to be achieved in the region, Israel has to disarm its nuclear weapons."
www.israelnn.com/news.php3
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
26 Apr 2006
By Alireza Ronaghi
13 minutes ago
Iran said on Wednesday it would harm U.S. interests anywhere in the world if the United States launches an attack on the Islamic Republic, which is embroiled in a nuclear standoff with the West.
The comments by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reported by state television, come two days before the U.N. nuclear watchdog is due to report on whether Iran is complying with U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment. Tehran says it will not stop.
The United States, which accuses Iran of trying to build atomic bombs, has said it wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute but has not ruled out a military option if diplomacy fails.
"The Americans should know that if they assault Iran their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," Khamenei was quoted as saying by a television announcer.
"The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity," he added.
The United States has been pushing to impose sanctions if, as Washington expects, Iran is found in the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have flouted U.N. demands.
Fellow U.N. Security Council members Britain and France have supported such a step, but sanctions are opposed by Russia and China, which like the other three permanent members of the council have the power to veto council resolutions.
Iran said on Tuesday it would suspend its relations with the IAEA if sanctions were imposed. Diplomats said this could mean withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday reiterated his view that Iran could reconsider its commitment to the NPT and its cooperation with the IAEA if it felt it was not benefiting from abiding by international protocols.
SHARED KNOW-HOW
"We have asked them (the U.N. watchdog), and we are waiting for an answer: what have they given us in reward for doing our duty? What sort of help have they given us?" he told reporters after meeting Sudan's president in Tehran.
"We hope they fulfill their duties and make it unnecessary for the Islamic Republic of Iran to reconsider its relations with them," he said.
Although Iran says it bases its nuclear policy on the NPT, it has already pulled out of the treaty's Additional Protocol, which allows snap inspections of atomic facilities. It took that step after Iran's atomic file was referred to the Security Council.
Iran often grumbles that it does not benefit from the NPT's entitlement to shared technology.
But Western diplomats argue Iran's demand for shared know-how under the NPT is spurious as this entitlement would only be valid if it were certain that Tehran's ambitions were peaceful.
The IAEA has said that after three years of investigation it still cannot confirm that Iran does not have a military program, as Tehran insists, but has found no hard proof.
"They should know that they cannot impose any decisions upon us by using the name of the IAEA and U.N. Security Council because illegal decisions do not become legitimate just by using the name of the agency and Security Council," Ahmadinejad said.
"Our scientists have mastered this technology with their own brains, their own might and their own hands," he said.
Despite insisting the atomic program is home-grown, Iran has been heavily reliant on Russian expertise and on black-market trade linked to the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
27 Apr 2006
9 minutes ago
The leaders of Russia and Germany urged Iran to fulfill its international nuclear obligations Thursday, a day before a U.N. Security Council deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium.
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that no one could make Tehran give up its nuclear technology, and he warned that the United States and its European allies will regret their decision if they "violate the rights of the Iranian nation."
"The Iranian nation has acquired nuclear fuel production technology. It didn't get assistance from anybody and nobody can take it back," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in western Iran.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters in the Siberian city of Tomsk that the crisis over Iran's nuclear program could be resolved only through diplomacy.
"It's still too early to run ahead and say what decision we might take together," Putin said. "The main thing is ... that whatever decision is taken is a consensus decision."
Both leaders said Iran must adhere to its international obligations but did not elaborate.
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will present a report Friday on Iran's implementation of the Security Council demand. Uranium enrichment can produce fuel for nuclear power or material for nuclear warheads.
If Iran does not comply, the Security Council is likely to consider punitive measures against the Islamic republic. Russia and China, however, have been reluctant to endorse sanctions.
Iran has thus far rejected the demand and issued its toughest warning on the issue Tuesday. Nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said that if the Security Council imposes sanctions, Iran would stop cooperating with the IAEA and conceal its nuclear activities.
"Our position is clear and well known. We are for the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Putin said. "But we believe that Iran must have an opportunity to develop modern technologies and peaceful nuclear energy."
Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the IAEA report should not be seen as an ultimatum for Tehran.
"The procedure for referring and examining the report is not an ultimatum," Lavrov said. "It has a working character and therefore, there is no time limit."
Merkel also called for a diplomatic resolution.
"We are very interested for the world community, as it has been from the start, to work together and show Iran that we want to work by diplomatic methods," she said. "But it is necessary for Iran to keep to the agreements that it has committed itself to."
"We are not talking about banning Iran from using nuclear energy for civilian goals, but it must keep to its obligations and agreements," Merkel added.
China's Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, stressed the need for restraint as the crisis reached a crucial stage.
"We hope the relevant parties can keep calm and exercise restraint so as to avoid moves that would further escalate the situation," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang.
Qin said the problem can still be "resolved through dialogue and diplomatic means, which is the correct choice for all parties concerned."
___
Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
27 Apr 2006
Scholarly
Guise"
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:17:18 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort-AT-earthlink.net>
" on the refugee issue, scholars recognize that a certain number of
Palestinians
were forced from their homes. But, they also recognize that others left
at the
urging of Arab leaders..."
Apart from the rest of the ad hominem attack on the authors, this is
one of the
Big Lies that Israel and its supporters continue to repeat even though
the
allegation was thoroughly discredited decades ago and not a shred of
evidence
has ever been presented or found to support it. Clearly, the
Mearsheimer-Walt
paper has the The Lobby worried.
ADL Analysis Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless
Assault in
Scholarly Guise:
www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp
Re: Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
15 May 2006
to play down the Jewish angle [/b]
www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp
Groups to Bush: Drop Iran-Israel Linkage
By Ori Nir
May 12, 2006
Re: Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!”
27 Apr 2006
Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that his country "will not bow to injustice and pressure," the day before a UN deadline to stop sensitive nuclear work expires.
"Thanks to God, we are a nuclear state," the firebrand leader said in a speech in the west of the country.
"We will not bow to injustice and pressure. If they want to attack the rights of the Iranian people, we will stamp shame and regret on them."
Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium to make reactor fuel, but the process can be extended to make nuclear weapons.
Western powers, led by the United States, are convinced Iran is seeking either a nuclear bomb or the "strategic capacity" to make one.
Iran's refusal to freeze enrichment by Friday in line with last month's UN Security Council demand opens the door to sanctions, despite opposition from Russia and China. The United States has also not ruled out taking military action.
The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said it would release its report on Iranian compliance to members of the IAEA board of governors and to the UN Security Council on Friday afternoon.
And senior diplomats from the Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany are due to discuss the next steps in a meeting in Paris on Tuesday, although Ahmadinejad showed no sign of worry.
"They think that by frowning, adopting resolutions and going from one organisation to the other, they can hide their horrible face and unjust decisions behind the agency and the Security Council and make us back down," he said.
"We have obtained nuclear fuel technology by ourselves, and nobody can deprive us of it."
Last-minute talks between Iran's nuclear chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh and IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei on Wednesday failed to make any headway, diplomats said.
One diplomat said Aghazadeh "just rattled around on Iran's previously stated positions. He did not propose anything new."
The White House has warned the country was facing further international isolation after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened global retaliation to any American military action.
"This is a regime that continues to defy the international community. It continues to ignore and refuses to abide by its obligations," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday.
In Beiji