Saturday, April 01, 2006

The Jews-Only Lobby: A Review of ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’.

Published April 1st 2006
Updated April 15 2006
In their new paper ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ john j. mearsheimer and stephen m. walt refer to those organizations which lobby congress and the american administration on behalf of the jews-only state in palestine (jos) as ‘the israeli lobby’. However, this lobby does not like being referred to as ‘the israeli lobby’ or as ‘the jewish lobby’. Indeed, the lobby denounces anyone using such phrases as racist and anti-semitic. Jews around the world have endeavored to condemn the use of such phrases. "A senior US diplomat in London has ruffled feathers in Britain's foreign policy establishment by publicly implying that a reference to the "Jewish lobby" in the United States is an anti-Semitic remark." The incident happened yesterday at a Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) lecture on US foreign policy given by David Johnson, who is the second in command at the American embassy in London. During the question-and-answer session he was asked: "Will the US ever be willing to impose an equitable peace settlement in the Middle East, or is it perhaps that the Jewish lobby in America is too strong to make that feasible?" Mr Johnson responded indignantly, saying: "I am highly resentful of the last part of your remarks, just because of its ethnic slur." And he went on: "During my time here I have become increasingly troubled by the willingness of European audiences to skirt up to the side of anti-Semitic language as a political criticism." (Mary Dejevsky ‘'Jewish lobby' is an anti-Semitic term, says US diplomat’ January 23rd 2004). Some extremist jews go even further and deny there is any such thing as a jewish/israeli lobby.

As the authors point out, the irony is that these phrases are common in the jos. "In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.24). Jeffrey blankfort makes the same point, "As far as using ethnic terms, in Israel they refer to it as "the Jewish Lobby." Does that imply if a non-Jew uses the term it is ‘anti-Semitic?’" (Jeff Blankfort ‘Yes, Blame the Lobby: A Response to Prof. Joseph Massad’ April 11, 2006).

Although mearsheimer and walt never use the phrase "the jewish lobby" in their paper they provide some justification for it by pointing out that the core of the lobby is jewish. "The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.12). What they mean by the ‘core’ is presumably those employed in the main lobbying organizations. The periphery of the lobby, however, consists of both jews and non-jews. "The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives. They believe Israel’s rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy, support its expansionist agenda, and think pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will. In addition, the Lobby’s membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and columnist George Will." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.15).

It can be argued, however, to refer to the lobby as ‘the jewish lobby’ or ‘the israeli lobby’ normalizes it as if it is one of many civilized organizations operating in america. Such phrases make the lobby seem similar to the ‘british lobby’ or the ‘irish lobby’. On the contrary, the jewish/israeli lobby is racist. Its objective is promoting the interests of the racist jos. It would never dream of condemning jewish racists such as ariel sharon, the racists who served in his cabinet, the members of explicitly jewish racist parties in the jos, or the widespread racism amongst jews in palestine. "The heartfelt joy about this rout of the Right is tempered by a very dangerous development: the rise of Avigdor Lieberman's "Israel our Home" party, a mutation of the Right with openly fascist tendencies. Lieberman, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union and himself a settler, draws his main strength from the "Russian" community, which is almost uniformly extremely nationalistic. He calls for the expulsion of all Arabs (a fifth of Israel's population), ostensibly in a swap of territories, but the message is clear. There are also the usual hallmarks of such a party: the cult of the Leader, a call for "law and order", intense hatred for "the enemy" both within and without. This man got 12 seats and has overtaken Netanyahu. His main slogan "Da Lieberman" ("Yes Lieberman" in Russian) reminds one of similar historical salutes." (Uri Avnery ‘The Israeli Elections’ March 30, 2006).

The racism of the jewish/israeli lobby is utterly unacceptable. It would therefore be much more accurate to refer to this lobby as ‘the jews-only lobby’ (jol) to ensure its racist nature is unmistakable. The phrase brings out the jewish racism explicitly, unmistakably, and unavoidably. The lobby will do its best to pretend it is just like any other lobbying organization but it is imperative to ensure that its racist nature is kept at the forefront of any discussion.

The jol phrase is slightly misleading to the extent that it implies its only members or contributors are jews. But it should not be difficult to point out that the phrase refers to the lobby’s goals and its core membership not to all those who have been sucked into supporting its goals. What is more, a major advantage of using the jol phrase is that in emphasizing its jews-only core and its support for the jos, it implicitly raises the issue of what non-jews are doing supporting a lobbying organization which not merely puts jewish national interests above those of american national interests but is willing to sacrifice american national interests to those of the jos. The jol phrase thus implies the truth: that the non-jewish americans supporting the jol are traitors to their own country. At the end of the day it’s a choice of which phrase has the least drawbacks. The phrase jewish/israeli lobby has the drawback of covering up jewish racism which would be immoral. The phrase jol has the minor, but remedial, drawback of suggesting that non-jews do not play any role in the jos – but then given that such non-jews are little more than groupies who do nothing more than provide services to their jewish masters such a drawback is of no political consequence.

Mearsheimer and Walt.
Mearsheimer and walt’s paper is highly controversial for stating the obvious. But, in these days when jewish lies and propaganda dominate american, and western, political discourse, statements of the obvious are a revolutionary challenge to the existing order. Most reviewers agree there is little new in what the authors say and yet the controversy over their publication suggests they have done something shocking and objectionable.

Many of the authors’ assumptions about the jos are conventional. They express support for its foundation, "There is no question that Jews suffered greatly from the despicable legacy of anti-Semitism, and that Israel’s creation was an appropriate response to a long record of crimes." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.10). They do not believe it is a racist state which ought to be treated like the rogue apartheid south african state, "This course raises the awful specter of Israel one day occupying the pariah status once reserved for apartheid states like South Africa. Ironically, Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy were more evenhanded." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.42).

They do not believe the jol is a conspiracy, "The Lobby’s activities are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti-Semitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise the Lobby are doing what other special interest groups do, just much better." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.16). But they believe AIPAC is acting as an agent for a foreign government, "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.18).

The authors most common proposition is that america’s national interests are distinct from those of the jos’s. "Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?"; the jos "is becoming a strategic burden" (on the United States); it "does not behave like a loyal ally"; and "the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around". And, "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."

The only insight the authors make which might be deemed to be new is that the jol’s existence suggests support for the jos is not in america’s interests, "Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 Note 1 p.43).

Perhaps the authors’ most profound criticism concerns the jos’s exploitation of america. "It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the United States to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape U.S. policy succeed, then Israel’s enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.40). Considering the degree of jewish domination over the american political process, this is truthful remark is highly inflammatory. The jol succeeded long ago in pushing such a view to the far political extremes so it is shocking to find such esteemed academics giving it respectability.

The authors point out that the jol celebrates its achievements in manipulating the american political system but denounces anyone else who points this out. "In effect, the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.24). They make the same point about the use of the phrases ‘the jewish lobby’ and ‘the israeli lobby’. Although these phrases are in common usage in the jos, the jol denounces anyone who uses them in america as anti-semitic. These propaganda deceptions are similar to that regarding the jos’s possession of nuclear weapons. The jos owns such weapons but refuses to admit it has them, whilst the jol condemns those who mention the jos’s possession of such weapons as anti-semites. The jol is willing to listen to statements about its influence as long as they are supportive. So, it is necessary for goys to understand not merely the difference between views which are acceptable and those which are not, but the difference between the times when a particular view is acceptable and when it is not.

The political importance of mearsheimer and walt’s paper is that they have given respectability to views which, over the last decade and a half, the jol has succeeded in shifting to the political extremes. This has rendered such views not merely as insignificant but as taboo for mainstream american politics. The authors have put back into the political mainstream what had become a taboo issue – although how long this will last will be interesting to see. "Though it's tempting, they can't be dismissed as cranks outside the mainstream. They are the mainstream." (Editorial ‘In Dark Times, Blame the Jews’ March 24, 2006); "Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League … pointed out that the paper contains no new revelations or insights, is riddled with factual errors and makes arguments that the ADL is accustomed to dealing with from extremists on the margins of America's political arena. Jacobson said that he had prepared a rebuttal to the study, but for the time being it is only being used for internal ADL purposes." (Ori Nir ‘Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence’ March 24, 2006); "The content is not significant. Those seeking to damage the U.S.-Israel relationship have been saying this for a while. The fact that it carries the imprimatur of the Harvard Kennedy School is. Those that don't know better would assume it has validity, when it doesn't," the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, said." (Quoted in Eli Lake ‘David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean’ March 20, 2006); ""The truth is that this really wouldn't be worth spending any time discussing if not for the fact of where these people are located and what their reputations are," said Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League." (Quoted in Tom Regan ‘Israeli media condemn, discuss report on US-Israel ties’ March 24, 2006); "Ronald A. Heifetz, the King Hussein Bin Talal lecturer in public leadership at the Kennedy School, said in a telephone interview yesterday that Mearsheimer and Walt had exceeded the bounds of academic freedom and that the dean of the Kennedy School should look into the matter. ''When a member of the Harvard faculty speaks, people are inclined to view us as credible sources of analysis and insight," Heifetz said. ''We have a special responsibility to clarify the difference between voicing an opinion and presenting a work of scholarship. . . . It behooves us to be careful about what we say . . . if we express a point of view that can be embraced by David Duke and the Muslim Brotherhood to justify racist, terrorist activities."" (Charles A. Radin ‘'Israel lobby' critique roils academe’
/03/29/israel_lobby_critique_roils_academe/ March 29, 2006). It seems transparent that the jews living in america have no intention of allowing such topics to return to the political mainstream.

It is somewhat worrying that the authors choose to use only jewish sources for their work. "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." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.2). It is as if they believed this might offer them some protection from the inevitable outpouring of jewish hysteria over their paper.

The authors point out that the jol tries to prevent the publication of anti-zionist publications; that it prevents anti-zionist views from appearing in the media; that it uses money as a weapon to undermine or defeat its critics whether in congress, the media, or in academia; and that it tries to intimidate those who challenge its political domination. All of these tactics were transparent in the jewish reaction to the authors’ publication.

Firstly, jewish control over the american media is so great the authors were unable to find a publisher for their paper in america – the land of free speech. They had to resort to publication in a british newspaper. "In an interview published Friday with Forward, Prof. John Mearsheimer alleges that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and Stephen Walt would never have been able to find an American publisher for their paper. "I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States," Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, "but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States." Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that "the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue," he said. "Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems." (Tom Regan ‘Israeli media condemn, discuss report on US-Israel ties’ March 24, 2006); "The two authors told Corine Lesnes, (Le Monde,1-0@2-3222
,36-753823,0.html March 24th 2006) that "no American publication has agreed to run it." (Jeff Blankfort ‘Update: Israel Lobby paper’ March 24, 2006).

Secondly, the mainstream media in america is virulently pro-zionist. It also knows that should it decide to mention, or debate, such views then it would face an angry backlash from the jol and its wealthy jewish backers. It was not difficult for the mainstream media to refuse to mention this new publication. "Officials with pro-Israel organizations say that given the limited public attention generated by the new study - as of Tuesday most major print outlets had ignored it - they prefer not to draw attention to the paper by taking issue with it head on. As of Wednesday morning, none of the largest Jewish organizations had issued a press release on the report." (Ori Nir ‘Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence’ March 24, 2006). "While the paper has generated little attention in the mainstream media or policymaking circles, it has produced a buzz within the academic community and among advocates on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Palestinian activists and Arab affairs scholars sent the article to many people by email, but the controversy rarely strayed beyond the realm of Internet blogs." (Ori Nir ‘Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence’ March 24, 2006). "While mainstream media in the United States have been largely silent, media in Israel, and Jewish-community media in the United States, have been reporting on, and discussing a paper by two prominent political scientists who argue that the US's current relationship with Israel is not good for US security." (Tom Regan ‘Israeli media condemn, discuss report on US-Israel ties’ March 24, 2006); "Never before has the mainstream US media performed so atrociously, if not discouragingly, as it did this month when the editors ignored a damning report by two prominent university professors who are on the faculties of some of America's most respectable institutions Harvard University and the University of Chicago." (George Hishmeh ‘Israeli lobby spikes damning report’ March 30, 2006); "So far as I've been able to determine with the help of Google, while the paper and talk about it are all over the Internet, they are missing from the big corporate press as of this writing." (Charley Reese ‘Keeping It Quiet: The Israel Lobby's Crushing of Dissent’ April 1, 2006); "So far as one can make out from the internet, in the mainstream American press, only United Press International, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post have carried articles on the paper." (William Pfaff ‘The Mearsheimer-Walt Paper on America's Israeli Lobby’ April 4, 2006). Norman solomon is the only author who believes there was some discussion of the paper in the mainstream media, "Weeks after a British magazine published a long article by two American professors titled "The Israel Lobby," the outrage continued to howl through mainstream U.S. media." (Norman Solomon ‘Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie: The Lobby and the Bulldozer’ April 13, 2006).

Virtually all jewish critics have pointed out that most of the authors’ views are found only on the fringes of politics – which is true since the jol has pushed such views there. So it is hardly surprising the jewish owned media’s reaction to mearsheimer and walt’s publication is simply to push these two establishment figures to the political fringes. According to the jol, anyone holding an opinion contrary to that held by the jol must be on the fringes of politics so it doesn’t matter how respectable that opinion-holder might be, the jol defines that person as a fringe commentator, and prevents them from getting access to the mainstream media.

The authors’ absence from the mainstream media is not, however, a one-way issue. They have done nothing to try and publicize their paper. The reason for this is that they are too frightened about giving interviews in case they say something accidentally which could be used to inflame what jews have turned into an hysterical situation. As a consequence, they have turned down many offers for interviews, "Since publication, Mearsheimer added, he and Walt also turned down offers from major newspapers, radio and television networks to lay out their thesis." (Ori Nir ‘Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence’ March 24, 2006). Perhaps they ought to take michael neumann’s advice, "Take a fucking risk, for Christ's sake!"" (Michael Neumann ‘Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power’ January 7, 2003).

Thirdly, the jol used its economic clout to force the authors’ universities into removing their logos from the publication and insisting on a more blatant disclaimer than is normally the case. "In a further sign that Harvard and the University of Chicago are distancing themselves from Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, the report also no longer includes the pro-forma disclaimer used for all other research reports on that Harvard website. In its place is a far stronger disclaimer, in much larger type." (Alex Safian ‘Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper’
=35&x_article=1101 March 22, 2006). Then the jewish millionaire who provided funds for the chair occupied by walt sought to distance himself from the paper, "According to the New York Sun, Robert Belfer - who gave the Kennedy School $7.5 million in 1997 in order, among other things, to endow the chair that Walt now occupies - called the university and asked that Walt be forbidden to use his title in publicity for the study." (Shmuel Rosner ‘Harvard distances itself from criticism of Israel lobby’
ArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=698102 March 24th 2006).

Fourthly, although the publication was not discussed in the mainstream media it has been "discussed" extensively in the media that caters primarily for jews in america. In the jews-only media the authors have been subjected to a full frontal vilification campaign portraying them as anti-semites and political extremists with nazi sympathies:

"Eliot Engel, a Democratic congressman from New York who is Jewish, said that the paper "really deserves the contempt of the American people," and described it as "the same old anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist drivel"." (Emad Mekay ‘Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges’ March 23, 2006); "In Washington, Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel of New York described the professors as "dishonest so-called intellectuals" and "anti-Semites."" (Democracy Now ‘New Study Criticizes Power of Israeli Lobby in Washington’ March 24th 2006).

"A statement from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) was typical of the few (members of congress) who bothered to pay attention to the paper, which Nadler called "little more than a repackaging of old conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, and a distorted understanding of U.S. strategic interest."" (Ron Kampeas ‘Paper on Israel Lobby Raises Hackles, but Fails to Gain Traction in Congress’ March 29th 2006).

One jewish journalist turned the truth into a lurid tabloid attack, "According to the study, the pro-Israel lobby is an octopus whose tentacles affect congressional legislation, administration policies, the press and other agencies." (Shmuel Rosner ‘Harvard distances itself from criticism of Israel lobby’ March 24th 2006).

"Simply titled "The Israel Lobby," the piece by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is, more or less, a compendium of every slander and innuendo that's ever been aired about the supposedly pernicious influence of supporters of Israel on American foreign policy." (Jonathan S. Tobin ‘The Paranoid Style of Politics’ March 30th 2006).

"The time has long passed when association with Harvard University conferred an imprimatur of presumed seriousness or even common sense on the output of its scholars. Still, it comes as a shock to read a polemic as vulgar as the "working paper" penned earlier this month by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Stephen M. Walt, and John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, carrying the title "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy."" (Weekly Standard Opinion ‘Harvard, the Israeli Lobby, Prince Charles.’
ArQH9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA-- March 27 2006).

"The paper is a broad synthesis of criticisms and charges against Israel long heard on the fringes of American politics and renewed in the debate over the Iraq war, allegations that also form the core of Arab world critiques of the Jewish state." (Charles A. Radin ‘'Israel lobby' critique roils academe’
/2006/03/29/israel_lobby_critique_roils_academe/ March 29, 2006).

Max boot once suffered severe paranoid delusions about saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. However, this doesn’t stop him from whining, "For a more recent instance of the paranoid style, a modern-day Hofstadter could consult "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy," a "working paper" by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. With 83 pages of text and 211 footnotes, the Mearsheimer-Walt essay (part of which appeared in the London Review of Books) is as scholarly as those of Welch and McCarthy — and just as nutty." (Max Boot ‘Policy analysis -Paranoid style’
mar29,1,5074122.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday March 29, 2006). It is difficult to avoid seeing boot as being utterly brazen for blaming the authors for a trait which he possesses in such abundance. But then isn’t this exactly like jews to blame palestinians for terrorism when they used exactly the same tactics to establish their state and when the jos possesses nuclear weapons and yet leads the world in denouncing iran for developing civilian nuclear power? Jews seem to believe that no matter how much they might be guilty of a particular crime it is only non-jews who are slightly guilty of such a crime who must be denounced and punished.

Many jewish hacks pointed out david duke’s support for the publication thereby smearing mearsheimer and walt as racists. Jewish racists continue to believe they can successfully smear their opponents with the charge of racism without their own racism being exposed. The jol pretends that it is democratic and anti-racist. By warning about the spectre of david duke they seemingly reinforce their democratic and anti-racist credentials. But they are racists for supporting the jos and yet they know that they can get away with their hypocritical condemnations of duke because the jewish owned media will never expose such hypocrisy. Duke has become the jewish lobby’s priceless racist bogeyman behind which they can hide their own vile racism. What could be more deceptive than for the jol to hide its racism behind its image of a racist who now goes around condemning the racism of the jos? Once again it seems that it doesn’t matter how racist jews are – the only racists who must be condemned and punished are those who complain about jewish racists.

It can be concluded that nobody should need to doubt whether mearsheimer and walt’s conclusions are based on sufficient empirical evidence when they can see the truth of such conclusions in the jewish reactions to the authors’ publication. The proof of the points made by the authors can be seen in the reaction to their paper from jewish racists. "The hate campaign directed at Mearsheimer and Walt underscores and validates the study's contention that all attempts to objectively discuss our Israel-centric foreign policy and the pivotal role played by the Lobby are met with outright intimidation. .. why it is that the debate over this study is being engaged in such a vicious manner by opponents of the Harvard study. Doesn't that say something about the role of the Lobby and its methods, as characterized by Mearsheimer and Walt?" (Justin Raimondo ‘The Lobby Strikes Back’ March 31, 2006); "The U.S. media reaction to the essay by professors Mearsheimer and Walt provides just another bit of evidence that they were absolutely correct when they wrote: "Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby.' In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic: anti-Semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."" (Norman Solomon ‘Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie: The Lobby and the Bulldozer’ April 13, 2006). The authors were right to argue that the jol instils fear in americans to prevent them from talking about jewish power. "It was clear to us that many people understood the problem that we describe in the piece but were afraid to talk about it... because the lobby would retaliate," he (mearsheimer) told IPS." (Emad Mekay ‘Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges’ March 23, 2006).

One of the main reasons for jews’ hysterical reaction to the authors’ paper was their allegation that jews in america were responsible for pushing america into a war against iraq. "the main driving force behind the [Iraq] war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud". Prior to the proxy zionist invasion, the jol was worried that if such a perception became commonplace in america and the invasion went wrong, then jews would be blamed for the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of american soldiers. "The Jewish Weekly of New York reports that Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, is concerned that the report will promote the claim that "Jewish and pro-Israel groups played a major role in pressing for the Iraq war in 2003." "We have always been concerned that those opposed to the war have tried to portray it as a Jewish war, an Israeli war," Foxman said. "Our concern has been that if the war went badly, and there was more public disillusionment, these kinds of conspiracy theories could resurface and grow." That, he said, is "exactly what’s happening now" as the Harvard report races around the world on antiwar and anti-Israel Web sites." (Tom Regan ‘Israeli media condemn, discuss report on US-Israel ties’ March 24, 2006).

Raimondo is one of the few commentators brave enough to blame the jol for the barbaric invasion of iraq which has boomeranged back on america so disastrously, "The firing of Dean Walt is an outrage, one that should be met with a storm of indignation. That the Amen Corner would even attempt it – let alone go on the record as taking credit for it – is a testament to the Lobby's enduring and unchallenged power. It shows how the Lobby operates, and why they must be stopped before any real debate over the foreign policy of this country can be conducted. The reasons for this extreme defensiveness on the part of the Lobby are not hard to discern. If they are the prime movers of U.S. foreign policy, then they do indeed have a lot to answer for. As the consequences of the Iraq war roll across our television screens, tracing a path of blood and mindless destruction, we have to wonder: who got us here? We have to question their motivations. And we have to ask: Why? Who lied us into war? For whose sake did 2,300 American soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, die? Whose interests were served? The tip of the spear Mearsheimer and Walt have pricked the Lobby with is the contention that they were the decisive influence in pushing us into war with Iraq. And the howls that are coming from right, left, and center are proof enough that they have struck home." (Justin Raimondo ‘The Lobby Strikes Back’ March 31, 2006). This is the issue that alan dershowitz is at pains to condemn. He attacks norman finkelstein’s argument that "there is credible evidence for the claim that the Iraq war was a Jewish war". Dershowitz argues, "It is his (finkelstein’s) conclusion, therefore, that is most revealing: "So if, as the situation gets worse in Iraq, if Jews are scapegoated, it is in part a disaster of their own making." (Alan Dershowitz ‘The Lobby, Jews, and Anti-Semites’
=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA-- April 12th 2006).

There is a mass of evidence indicating that jews in america whether in the jol or the jewish owned media, were primarily responsible for pushing americans into a bloodbath in iraq. And yet so few americans believe this to be true. They do not blame jewish supporters for the war for america’s slide towards economic, moral, and political, bankruptcy. On the contrary, jews in america are so politically popular they are on the verge of pushing america into yet another jewish proxy war - this time against iran. The reason for this incredible political success is because the jol, the jewish owned media, the jewish owned congress, and the jews in the bush administration, have succeeded in turning americans into jewish groupies. Americans admire the jos and have become as racists as the jews in jos. American groupies are willing to do the bidding of their jewish masters in promoting jewish racist wars against iraq and iran and any other islamic country that poses a threat not to america but to the jos. Jewish warmongers are pushing america into doing the jews’ dirty work for them without jews suffering any financial or military losses. America’s new, pro-jewish, racists do not seem in the least bit bothered that for the sake of their jewish masters, "the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.40). It is amazing that jewish warmongers can escape all responsibility for the debacle in iraq simply by denouncing those who tell the truth jewish warmongering.


Post a Comment

<< Home