James Stenzel Presents...
This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality

The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History
Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism
We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists, Spies & More
The Jew Watch Project's 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism
An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation
 

["Neo-cons" -- those who have drawn up the war against Iraq, Islam, and the Arab world on behalf of Israel -- are overwhelmingly Jewish and/or in bed with the Jewish Lobby]
Neocons like Goldberg, Reiland are imperialists,
by Bill Ravott, Pittsburg Live, March 31, 2003
"National Review’s Jonah Goldberg and his neoconservative allies have not been shy about criticizing those on the Left who resort to character assassinations against their opponents in an effort to stifle debate. Yet, it is Goldberg & Co., whining like little schoolgirls, now are using the 'anti-Semitic' card in an effort to intimidate those who dare question the influence of Israel on U.S. foreign policy. Goldberg has targeted four prominent Catholics — Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, and Rep. James Moran (one can only imagine his private thoughts of the Pope) — who have suggested that one of the reasons the Bush administration has targeted Iraq is for the benefit of Israel’s security interests. Wherever one stands on this issue, it should at least be open for debate. While attacking all, Goldberg’s ire is directed most toward Buchanan and his so-called well-established 'Jewish problem.' Goldberg charges Buchanan with blaming Jews for the war with Iraq with his attacks on 'neoconservatives,' a phrase Goldberg described as a code word for 'Jewish conservatives' ... Yes, there are many neoconservative Jews (and non-Jews) inside and outside the Bush administration who, as Buchanan says, 'harbor a passionate attachment to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.' Richard Perle is the most passionate inside the administration and his ties to Israel have been well known for over 20 years ... Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, seeks an 'imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region' and to 'find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated' Islamic world. Is this liberation? The neoconservatives have an utter disdain for the sovereignty of other nations and believe they have been granted the divine authority to utilize the U.S. military to tear down and recreate the Middle East in their own image, as some sort of utopian ‘yes-man’ democratic colony. William Bennett, a day after 9/11, wanted to invade Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China. Goldberg, who never got close to the military himself, thinks this of U.S. foreign policy, 'Every 10 years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to show we mean business.'”

For Israel Lobby Group, War Is Topic A, Quietly At Meeting, Jerusalem's Contributions Are Highlighted,
by Dana Milbank, Washington Post, April 1, 2003; Page A25
"This week's meeting in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put a spotlight on the Bush administration's delicate dance with Israel and the Jewish state's friends over the attack on Iraq. Officially, Israel is not one of the 49 countries the administration has identified as members of the 'Coalition of the Willing.' Officially, AIPAC had no position on the merits of a war against Iraq before it started. Officially, Iraq is not the subject of the pro-Israel lobby's three-day meeting here. Now, for the unofficial part: As delegates to the AIPAC meeting were heading to town, the group put a headline on its Web site proclaiming: 'Israeli Weapons Utilized By Coalition Forces Against Iraq.' The item featured a photograph of a drone with the caption saying the 'Israeli-made Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle' is being used 'by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.' At an AIPAC session on Sunday night, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom proclaimed in a speech praising Secretary of State Colin L. Powell: 'We have followed with great admiration your efforts to mobilize the international community to disarm Iraq and bring democracy and peace to the region, to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. Just imagine, Mr. Secretary, how much easier it would have been if Israel had been a member of the Security Council.' A parade of top Bush administration officials -- Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, political director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns -- appeared before the AIPAC audience. The officials won sustained cheers for their jabs at European opponents of war in Iraq, and their tough remarks aimed at two perennial foes of Israel, Syria and Iran. The AIPAC meeting -- attended by about 5,000 people, including half the Senate and a third of the House -- was planned long before it became clear it would coincide with hostilities in Iraq."

Why the Left and Right Must Unite and Fight. The View from the Left,
by Neil Clark, Anti-War.com, April 1, 2003
"As the world's greatest democracy unleashes the full might of its military power on the people of Iraq, Mahatma Gandhi's words have a special relevance. One thing is for sure. The war against Iraq will not be the war to end all wars. It will be followed by others, all fuelled by the insatiable appetite for profits and power. Three years ago, the same forces now executing Shock and Awe were dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on civilian targets in Yugoslavia. In 2001, it was the impoverished Afghans' turn to get the B-52 treatment, with over 5,000 dying in the process. And two years from now we will no doubt be reading in the Wall Street Journal of the danger Syria poses to world peace and how President Assad is the New Hitler. After that it will be turn of Iran, Belarus and Libya. The neocons and their liberal imperialist allies appear unstoppable. They have hijacked the major parties on both sides of the Atlantic. Large sections of the free world's media are in their hands, and they have a whole entourage of journalists, eager and ready to peddle their lies, acting, in the words of John Pilger, as 'handmaidens of a murderous power' ... After some initial squeamishness, conservatives and socialists, right-wingers and Trotskyites, have been marching together, united in their desire for peace. But encouraging as all of this is, it will not be enough. To stop the War Party much more is needed. The antiwar alliance has to be put on a more permanent and formal footing. And that means the Left making a bold and historic step. If we really do want to 'give peace a chance‚' we need to take off our beads, remove Joan Baez from our turntables, and start to embrace warmly those at whom we have been hurling insults for the last forty years. I write as a committed, and totally unreconstructed, Old Leftist. Yet if Pat Buchanan announced he was standing for president again, I would be on the next plane out to join his campaign team. But how many of my fellow socialists would join me? Until the Left is ready in its hordes to link up electorally with the Old antiwar Right, the brutal truth is that we have no chance of defeating the Bush/Blair axis. With the black smoke clouds rising above Baghdad, I believe it is now or never for the antiwar Left to answer the call. In order to do so, and to make the 'Peace Party' work, the Left needs to jettison some baggage and spruce up some of its thinking. Since the 1960s, we have picked up several false friends, who have done our cause no good at all, lost us immeasurable support, and who have prevented us from making the alliances it was in our interest to make ... Political correctness, the biggest threat to free speech of our time, has plenty to do with neo-liberalism, but precious little to do with socialism. It is time once and for all to end what Eugene Genovese has referred to as 'the irrational embrace by the Left of a liberal program of personal liberation' and for the Left to stress, like [Pete] Seeger did forty years ago, its positive conservatism. On the key issue of globalization, there is much muddled thinking too. The anti-globalizers of the Left correctly point out the destabilizing effects of unregulated capital flows and rail against the nefarious activities of parasitical currency speculators like George Soros. Yet at the same time, most also welcome the unrestricted movement of people, which too can destabilize societies, as well as leading to the unemployment and lowering of wage rates of indigenous workers. Next up, the Left has to drop its traditional antipathy to organized religion and, in particular, to the Catholic Church. The Vatican has always been anti-Marxist-socialist, but it has, at least in some teachings, occasionally been anti-capitalist too. Pope Pius XI believed liberal capitalism and communism to be 'united in their satanic optimism.' Under the present Pope, the Catholic social teaching has again been pushed to the fore and the Vatican's criticism of hedonistic international capitalism has intensified ... Last, but certainly not least, the Left needs loudly and unequivocally to declare its support for the increasingly endangered concept of national sovereignty ... The War Party of course sees national sovereignty very differently. If there is one issue that clearly demonstrates this and that demarcates who exactly the Peace Party's enemies are, it is that of Kosovo. The 'humanitarian' intervention, in which a sovereign state that threatened no other was bombed for 78 days and nights for the way in which it prosecuted its own "war against terrorism" brought all the imperialists out of the woodwork for us to see in broad daylight ... For the War Party, national sovereignty is a tiresome, outdated, and disposable notion that gets in the way of their plan to globalize the entire world and, in the name of democracy and human rights, eliminate all known dangers to the freedom of operation of Goldman Sachs. The steps outlined above are ones I believe the Left must take if an alliance with the Old Right is to stick ... My instinct on passing any branch of McDonalds or Starbucks to search for the nearest brick, however, is one I believe many conservatives would share. On the most important issues of the day though, the issues that really matter: globalization, war, the threats to national sovereignty, and the seemingly relentless march of transnational capitalism, the Old Right and Old Left are already, by and large, singing from the same hymn sheet. The world of 2003, with its standardised shopping malls, skinny lattes, and stealth bombers, is not the world any of us wanted ... By allying ourselves with the Old Right, the Old Left has nothing to lose and much to gain. Far from giving up our identity, we will, I believe, be reclaiming parts long lost to liberalism. We will be able to get back to basics and start to reiterate our core beliefs. Our opposition to the international rule of money power and the idolatry of market forces. Our unequivocal rejection of all forms of imperialism, whether they fly under a military, financial, or human rights banner. And above all, our denunciation of war as the primary method of solving international disputes. For the moment, the imperialist bandwagon appears unstoppable. But if we on the Left can conjure up enough courage to step into the unknown and embrace an old enemy, then the days of the War Party will be numbered. What is lacking today is a permanent, populist, broad-based political force to challenge the worldview of the serial globalizers and the advocates of endless war. The Peace Party can be that force."

Can We Talk?,
by Eric Alterman, The Nation, April 3, 2003
"This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party. Then there's the 'Jews control the media' problem. It's probably not particularly relevant that the families who own the Times and the Washington Post are Jewish, but let's not pretend this is so in the case of the Jewish editors of, say, U.S. News & World Report and The New Republic. Mortimer Zuckerman is head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Peretz is unofficial chair of the American Arab Defamation Committee. Neither is shy about filling his magazine with news Jews can use. To make matters worse, many of these Jewish hard-liners--'Likudniks' in the current parlance--appear, at least from a distance, to be behaving in accordance with traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes. Much to the delight of genuine anti-Semites of the left and right, the idea of a new war to remove Saddam was partially conceived at the behest of Likud politician Benjamin Netanyahu in a document written expressly for him by Perle, Feith and others in 1996. Some, like Perle, apparently see the influence they wield as an opportunity to get rich. What's more, many of these same Jews joined Rumsfeld and Cheney in underselling the difficulty of the war, in what may have been a ruse designed to embroil America in a broad military conflagration that would help smite Israel's enemies ... A really good conspiracy theorist would begin to wonder if the Jews are being set up to take the fall when things go badly. A big part of the problem in addressing the 'Jewish war' conspiracy thesis is the reticence of almost all sides to broach the issue of Israeli and American Jewish influence on US foreign policy. A few writers, most notably Stanley Hoffmann, Robert Kaiser and Mickey Kaus, have raised the question gingerly. But writing on the Washington Post op-ed page, New Republic editor Lawrence Kaplan insists that even raising 'the specter of dual loyalty' is 'toxic.' Kaus noted accurately in Slate that the dual loyalty taboo is 'quite openly designed to stop people from raising the Likudnik issue.' And it works. This is all very confusing to your nice Jewish columnist. My own dual loyalties--there, I admitted it--were drilled into me by my parents, my grandparents, my Hebrew school teachers and my rabbis, not to mention Israeli teen-tour leaders and AIPAC college representatives. It was just about the only thing they all agreed upon. Yet this milk- (and honey-) fed loyalty to Israel as the primary component of American Jewish identity--always taught in the context of the Holocaust--inspires a certain confusion in its adherents, namely: Whose interests come first, America's or Israel's? Leftist landsmen are certain that an end to the occupation and a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state are the best ways to secure both Israeli security and American interests. Likudniks think it's best for both Israel and the United States to beat the crap out of as many Arabs as possible, as 'force is the only thing these people understand.' But we ought to be honest enough to at least imagine a hypothetical clash between American and Israeli interests. Here, I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once in a while, I'm going to go with what's best for Israel. As I was lectured over and over while growing up, America can make a million mistakes and nobody is going to take away our country and murder us. Israel is nowhere near as vulnerable as many would have us believe, but it remains a tiny Jewish island surrounded by a sea of largely hostile Arabs ... Our inability to engage the question only forces the discussion into subterranean and sometimes anti-Semitic territory. If the Likudniks played an unsavory role in fomenting this war (and future wars), and further discussion will help illuminate this unhappy fact, then I say, 'Let there be light.' If something is 'toxic' merely to talk about, the problem is probably not in the talking, but in the doing."

In Congress, sharp debate on foreign aid Some lawmakers want to punish nations like Turkey and France while aiding Israel,
Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2003
"Unlike the aid to Turkey, the president's request for Israel - $1 billion in military assistance and $9 billion loan guarantees - will likely zip through the congressional process without a hitch. As Congress began its deliberations, the most influential pro-Israel lobby in the country was meeting in Washington. Fully half the Senate and a third of the House joined more than 2,000 delegates of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for its annual policy dinner on Monday evening. And the message from the top Republicans and Democrats, was the same: Support for Israel is a given. 'We will never abandon Israel. We will never abandon Israel,' said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who addressed the AIPAC conference on Tuesday. Still, speakers and delegates openly worried that the diplomatic dangers for Israel will come after the war, when the Bush administration begins patching up relations with the Arab world and the rest of the 'unwilling.' Already, British lawmakers are pushing Prime Minister Tony Blair to use his clout with Washington to secure concessions from Israel in the peace process and demonstrate an 'evenhanded' approach. 'When we see the hysterical anti-Americanism being whipped up in the Middle East, we fear that the way to patch up relations with the Arab world will be for the US to force concessions from Israel,' says Herzl Melmed, an AIPAC delegate from California. Other speakers warned of 'great danger' for Israel at the end of this conflict and urged AIPAC members to provide the seed money to build up pro-Israeli groups in Europe. While congressional support of the aid package for Israel passed virtually without comment, the $1 billion for Turkey raised more of a challenge."

The Jewish Lobby's plan for further invasion in the Middle East.
Israel, Activists Train Sights on Syria Lobby To Focus On Preventing Missile Transfer,
[Jewish] Forward, April 4, 2003
"Openly pleased with the Bush administration's recent warnings to Syria not to aid Iraq, Israel and its supporters here have begun ratcheting up their accusations against its radical neighbor in apparent hopes of widening the rift between Damascus and Washington. Senior officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee told the Forward that combating Syrian and Iranian involvement in terrorism and their pursuit of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction was likely to be a major focus of Aipac lobbying efforts in 2003. Aipac's executive director, Howard Kohr, said the group intends to put pressure on the Bush administration to take steps to stop the transfer of missile technology from Russia and North Korea to Iran and Syria. The administration, which until recently had courted Syrian neutrality in its campaign against Iraq, began directing threats against Damascus last week, citing evidence that Syria was lending support to the Iraqi war effort. Administration officials have also leveled accusations in recent weeks against Iran's nuclear program, despite hopes that Iran could assist in the anti-Iraq effort. The administration's new accusations focused on Syrian supplies of relatively low-level weaponry, including night-vision goggles and jamming systems for satellite-locator devices. Israel this week raised the ante, charging that Syria might be helping Iraq to hide weapons of mass destruction ... [D]elegates to the annual Aipac conference in Washington were surprised — and, many said, pleased — to hear Rumsfeld's warning repeated publicly by his more dovish colleague, Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell told Aipac that Syria was now facing 'a critical choice' ... Powell also received a standing ovation when he called on the international community to intensify its efforts to curb Iran's support of terrorist groups and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The following day, Israel upgraded the accusation by charging that Syria was possibly hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ... Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington who is now president of Tel Aviv University added, 'you already have all those accusations that Israel is driving U.S. policy in the Middle East, so the Jewish lobby shouldn't be pushing for U.S. action against Syria and Iran' ... In a rare interview last week with the Lebanese daily As-Safir, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad said he had warned Arab leaders at an Arab League meeting in Cairo last month that several of their countries could be next. 'You can be sure the Syrians will be worried about potential U.S. intervention," said Richard Murphy, a former ambassador to Syria who is now a senior Middle East fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations."

DIVISIONS DEEP OVER CLAIMS OF JEWISH INFLUENCE,
by James Rosen, Sacramento Bee, April 6, 2003
"On paper, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice run U.S. foreign policy and are responsible for the war in Iraq. But in some circles Bush and his senior aides -- white and African American Christians, one and all -- stand accused of having been duped into attacking Saddam Hussein by a group of Jewish advisers whose ultimate loyalties are said to lie with Israel instead of the United States. The claim that an influential Jewish cabal is behind the war, made in recent weeks by some mainstream politicians and columnists, has prompted countercharges of anti-Semitism by prominent Jewish organizations. Rep. James Moran of Virginia lost his Democratic leadership post last month after telling supporters that 'the Jewish community' was responsible for the war. Former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, who is mulling a presidential run, outraged many Jews by raising the specter of divided loyalties. Columnists, from Robert Novak to Georgie Anne Geyer, have made similar claims, while left-wing protesters and liberal magazines such as the Nation and the New Republic have followed suit. A sign at an anti-war demonstration in San Francisco last month read: 'I want YOU to die for Israel. Israel sings 'Onward, Christian Soldiers.' The assertions that the Bush administration is waging war for the sake of Israel thanks to the influence of Jewish advisers created a buzz last week at the annual convention of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, the country's most powerful pro-Israel lobby group ... 'The idea that this war is about Israel is persistent and more widely held than you may think,' New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote. 'It has interesting ripples in our domestic politics. It has, like many dubious theories, sprouted from a seed of truth. Israel is part of the story.' At the center of the controversy are a handful of Jewish men: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser. All the men are longtime leaders of the neoconservative movement, which was founded on the idea, championed by Reagan, that the United States had to confront the Soviet Union aggressively -- and in recent years has changed its target to radical Islam. All of the key figures hold senior positions in the Bush administration -- at the Pentagon, in the State Department, at the White House and, in Perle's case, on the Defense Policy Board, a key group of Pentagon advisers. Most of the controversial Bush aides are strong supporters of Israel's conservative Likud Party, now headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and several have past ties either to Likud or to Israeli companies. Perle, in fact, resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board last week -- though he remained a member -- after published claims by New Yorker magazine reporter Seymour Hersch, himself a Jew, that a venture capital firm in which Perle is managing partner might profit from the war ... In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the control of Jordan. The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced in the wake of Saddam's ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the Palestinians. Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton, undersecretary of state. Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush's foreign policy. Donner noted that the memo urged Netanyahu to move toward 're-establishing the principle of pre-emption rather than retaliation alone.' Pre-emption -- confronting perceived threats to the United States before they attack instead of afterward -- appeared last year as the centerpiece of a new strategic defense policy advanced by Bush. Donner said the ideological similarities, along with the senior posts in the Bush administration now held by some of the memo's authors, cannot be overlooked. 'There is a natural line of connection here,' Donner said. "These people have prevailed upon other people in the administration that this is the policy we should follow in the Middle East." James Colbert, one of the eight men who signed the 1996 memo to Netanyahu, is now communications director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Studies, an influential neoconservative think tank in Washington."

The Israelization of America,
By Gideon Samet, Haaretz (Israel), April 8, 2003
"The events in Iraq can be seen as the Israelization of America. Close your eyes for a moment, and you can imagine that the Marines in Karbala are Golani infantry in Tul Karm. And it's not surprising that two political camps in Israel with diametrically opposite views think something good will come out of the war. For example, they look on with curiosity as American soldiers there are blown up in suicide attacks and observe the reaction of the army. After a taxi blew up, killing the soldiers who were coming to check it, the Marines blasted the next vehicle, liquidating its civilian occupants. Left and right are not especially interested in what the American military is learning from the war. What intrigues them is the political and diplomatic lesson that the White House will learn. Never has there been a war in which Israel did not participate but which is expected to impact so forcefully on its future. The reason for this does not lie in the comparison Israelis typically like to make between their fate and the new American effort in our tough neighborhood. The impact derives, of course, from the Americans' need to operate intensively in the region after the shooting stops ... Moreover, it is rash to conjecture that the attitude in America toward embattled Israel will be improved in the wake of the war's lessons. Even after its bitter experience, it will not coddle up, eyes moist, to the Israeli generals who are pounding the territories. It is also too early to believe that the enmity toward the Jews of the world, who support the campaign, will soon fade. Politically, though, the United States will emerge from the war as a different place ... Those who sent America into war with Iraq - officials such as Donald Rumsfeld, for example - have always snorted contemptuously at Palestinian national aspirations (in what the defense secretary likes to call the 'so-called occupied territories'). So there is an internal contradiction, whose overall results are still hard to gauge, between the administration's aim to impose a new order in the region, and the ideology of powerful figures in it who have no love for the Palestinian cause. It is not too soon therefore to be concerned about the possibility that the Sharon-Netanyahu-Rumsfeld-Cheney school of thought will come out on top in the fierce struggle over an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. It will be sufficient for the Sharon government if success is achieved in the initiative - which is now being pursued vigorously under the clouds of war - to obtain political backing from Congress for the Israeli interpretation of the road map. This Israelization of the American initiative seeks to replay the foot-dragging that has delayed any progress toward renewed negotiations. Don't bet your money that it will fail."

Massive (and successful) Jewish efforts to drive out politicians who criticize Israel are well documented (read former Congressman Paul Finley's works about this subject, for instance. But to the Jewish Lobby, if you dare to expose their efforts under the light, you're a "bigot."
Israel Comments Dog Virginia Congressman,
Fox News, April 10, 2003
"Rep. James P. Moran, who suggested last month that American Jews had nudged the nation into war, has offended some Jews again by suggesting a pro-Israel lobbying group will finance an effort to unseat him. The Virginia Democrat suggested at a recent party meeting that the lobbying group will raise $2 million in an effort to defeat him next year. Moran, a seven-term incumbent, said the American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC) has begun organizing against him and will 'direct a campaign against me and take over the campaign of a Democratic opponent,' The Washington Post reported Thursday. AIPAC spokeswoman Rebecca Dinar called Moran's comments 'ridiculous' and said the organization 'had no idea' what the congressman was talking about ... David Friedman, Washington regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, said of Moran's reported remarks, 'This only confirms what we already knew: that Jim Moran is a bigoted man who perpetuates age-old canards and stereotypes about Jews.' Moran has acknowledged saying at a public forum March 3 in Reston that Jewish influence had swayed the decision to invade Iraq. 'The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should,' he said."

Jewish pro-Israelism expands throughout government: in this case, more fraud for "peace."
Foreign Policy Scholars Criticize Pipes Nomination,
by Ori Nir, [Jewish] Forward, April 11, 2003
"Foreign policy hands and Middle East pundits responded with surprise and disbelief this week to the presidential nomination of Daniel Pipes, an outspoken Middle East hawk, to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a federal institution dedicated to preventing, managing and peacefully resolving international conflicts. Some scholars say that there is talk of organizing an effort among academics to oppose the nomination, either through a letter-writing campaign or congressional testimony. Pipes, who heads a Philadelphia-based think-tank, the Middle East Forum, is known as a sharp critic of American-backed efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace, including President Bush's 'road map' to peace. He espouses a theory of conflict resolution that rests on the assumption that peace usually is achieved only by one side defeating the other with military force or other pressure, and only rarely through reconciliation or negotiation. He has also drawn criticism for his calls for increased surveillance of Muslim Americans, particularly soldiers and government officials. 'The U.S. Institute of Peace is a federally funded institution based on American democratic values, which is known for treading the middle ground,' said Judith Kipper, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. Pipes, Kipper said, 'has very extreme views' 'They could definitely get a more objective person for the job,' said the veteran Middle East scholar Don Peretz, professor emeritus of political science at the State University of New York at Binghamton. 'I don't think his views are conducive to the objectives of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which are to work toward peaceful resolution of conflicts.' Arab-American and Muslim-American organizations are urging the White House to withdraw the nomination and, failing that, urging the Senate to vote it down. One organization called on the institute to reject the nomination, a suggestion institute spokesmen dismissed. Peretz's and Kipper's views were echoed by numerous scholars in the academic and think-tank community. When asked about the nomination, many experts on Middle East and international conflict resolution used adjectives ranging from 'bewildering' to 'preposterous.' Most declined to speak for attribution, however, variously citing an unwillingness to engage in ad hominem attacks, reluctance to criticize a presidential appointment and fears of souring ties with the institute, an important source of research grant money ... Pipes recently launched Campus-Watch, an initiative dedicated to monitoring college campuses for alleged pro-Arab academic bias. Some pro-Israel activists welcomed the initiative, while critics described it a modern-day form of McCarthyism. Pipes enjoys the backing of several major Jewish organizations. David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, said that his organization 'wholeheartedly supports the nomination of Daniel Pipes' ... Pipes has achieved prominence in recent months with his frequently stated contention that America's real enemy in the current struggle is not Islamic terrorism, but militant Islam as the ideology that spawns terrorism. His positions on extremism in Islamic culture, religion and politics have provoked outrage among Muslim-Americans, who often label him a 'Muslim-basher' and 'Islamophobe.' No less contrary to liberal convention are Pipes's views on conflict resolution, the core mission of the U.S. Institute for Peace. Peace, Pipes explained to the Forward this week, is possible 'when one side gives up its goals.' And that, he argues, almost always comes as a result of utter defeat ... The institute is a federal agency, established in 1986 to serve as America's academy of peace. It has an annual operating budget of $16.2 million, wholly funded by taxpayer funds ... The position is largely symbolic. Pipes will be one of 15 members of the board, which meets six times a year, mainly to approve applications for fellowships and grants for research in the field of conflict resolution. Three members of the panel are ex-officio representatives of the secretary of defense, the secretary of state and the National Defense University. The Pentagon is represented on the board by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy affairs, who is considered ideologically close to Pipes on Middle East-related issues. Another board member is Harriet Zimmerman, a vice president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ... Some commentators see the nomination of Pipes as a sign of the growing influence that pro-Israel hard-liners wield in Washington. Hussein Ibish, communications director of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, blasted the nomination as a 'sad, Orwellian, symbolic' gesture of an administration that is heavily influenced by 'far-right, pro-Likud neo-conservatives and other extremist'" in the White House and Pentagon. Similar criticisms of the administration have appeared in the Arab and European press, most recently over the appointment of retired Army general Jay Garner as the civil administrator of postwar Iraq. In 2000, Garner went on a 10-day visit to Israel, organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, after which he endorsed a statement by the hawkish group praising the Israeli military for showing 'remarkable restraint' in dealing with Palestinian violence. Left-wing critics have cited the statement as evidence that Garner is an ally of the pro-Israel lobby. Sources close to Garner say the link is more tenuous than critics assert. Similarly, liberals and Muslim leaders were critical of the appointment last December of Elliot Abrams, another outspoken critic of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, to direct the Near East and North Africa branch of the National Security Council."

Think Tank Deliberates 'World War III',
[Jewish] Forward, April 11, 2003
"Senior politicians, academics and intelligence and law enforcement officials gathered Sunday at the Waldorf Astoria in New York for the launching of the Strategic Dialogue Center, a think tank affiliated with Netanya College in Israel. The center organized a conference on global terrorism and asked the panelists to provide an answer to the question: 'If this is World War III, how do we win?' The privately funded center will be opened officially in June and is planning to hold similar conferences and publish policy papers. Formers The center's executive board is stacked with 'formers.' There are former heads of state — Mikhail Gorbachev of the former Soviet Union, Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, Frederik de Klerk of South Africa — and former prime ministers: Ehud Barak, Carl Bildt of Sweden, John Major of England and Mustafa Khalil of Egypt. There's even a former crown prince — Hassan of Jordan — as well as an array of former top intelligence and security officials such as former FBI director Louis Freeh and former CIA chief James Woolsey. Professor Moshe Amirav, former adviser on Jerusalem to Barak at the Camp David summit, will direct the center. The president of the board is former Mossad boss Danny Yatom — although, to be fair, Yatom was recently elected to the Knesset ... Israel is worried that Libya has a nuclear program as advanced as Iran's. 'We are watching Libya and Iran for nuclear programs,' a former Israeli minister at the conference told the Forward. 'Libya and Iran are as advanced, and Libya even maybe more than Iran.' The Israeli assessment is that Iran will have a nuclear device by 2005 and a nuclear weapon shortly thereafter. The official said the United States had privately conveyed intelligence information on Libya to Israel a year and a half ago according to which Muammar Gadhafi's regime was well advanced in developing a nuclear weapons program. 'The Americans asked us to keep quiet about it, and only three or four people in Israel knew about this,' he said. 'Then [Assistant Secretary of State] John Bolton said it publicly and Sharon repeated it.'"

Jews relieved as separatists lose to liberals in Quebec provincial vote,
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 15, 2003
"Quebec Jews are breathing a collective sigh of relief with the defeat of the Parti Quebecois following nine years of the separatist party’s rule. The Liberal Party swept Monday’s provincial election in a landslide, taking 76 seats to the Parti Quebecois’s 45, with the Action Democratique du Quebec party taking the remaining four. Canadian Jews tend to support the Liberals, who they believe are more supportive of ethnic rights and more appreciative of the Jewish community’s role in building Quebec economically. Liberal leader Jean Charest, a lawyer who was raised in a bilingual household, has many friends in the Jewish community. In contrast, the community has had a problematic relationship with the Parti Quebecois. After a referendum on Quebec independence was defeated in 1995, party leader and provincial premier Jacques Parizeau blamed 'ethnics and the money vote,' which was seen as a particular slap at the Jewish community. Parizeau resigned the next day. His successor, Lucien Bouchard, resigned two years ago after an incident where a PQ political candidate cast doubts on the Holocaust and claimed that Jews were always whining about their lot in life. Institutionally, however, the Jewish community has learned to adapt to whichever party has been in power, even the PQ, according to the two major Jewish organizations in Canada."

White House hopeful with Jewish ties advocates anti-war, Middle East ideas,
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 14, 2003
"On a recent trek around the U.S. capital seeking support from pro-Israel lobbyists and Reform movement activists, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean may have been the only non-Jew in the room. But Dean, the former governor of Vermont, should be used to that. It’s the same way in his own home. Dean, a Congregationalist, has a Jewish wife, and both his children, 17-year-old Paul and 18-year-old Anne, have chosen to identify as Jews ... But Dean, considered a long shot when he first entered the race, has made a splash as of late, exceeding expectations in fund-raising in the first quarter of the year. He has been aided by a key figure in Democratic and Jewish politics, Steve Grossman, the former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobby, and national chairman of Democratic National Committee. Dean has also helped distinguish himself by speaking out against the war in Iraq, a view that has not changed even with the U.S. military successes. 'I believe this is the wrong war at the wrong time, and I’ve said that repeatedly,' he said. 'I think that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria are all more dangerous to Israel than Iraq. I also think that North Korea and Iran are more dangerous to the United States than Iraq.' Dean said he believed that U.S. oil policy is directly linked to the terrorism and anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment in much of the Arab world. He says oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia are supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and preaching hate in the classroom, but the United States is turning a blind eye\ ... At a meet-and-greet session after the official festivities one night at the annual AIPAC policy conference, Dean spoke to a capacity crowd in a small room, shaking hands for several hours and progressing slowly to the exit, encircled by well-wishers ... Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month. And he says he is wary of international participation in the 'road map' for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but would not 'reject out of hand' the United States partnering with the United Nations, European Union and Russia. Dean’s name first made national headlines in 1999, when he signed a law making Vermont the first state to recognize civil unions for gay and lesbian couples."

Supreme Court reprimands judge,
Orlando Sentinel, April 15, 2003
"Broward Circuit Judge Sheldon M. Schapiro, notorious among lawyers for using a push-button prop that sounds like a flushing toilet and scolding them in a back room known as 'the woodshed,' will receive a public reprimand next month from the Florida Supreme Court. The Judicial Qualifications Commission, which monitors the conduct of state judges, recommended disciplinary action after investigating complaints from local attorneys. The judge admitted 'engaging in inappropriate behavior,' the Supreme Court said in an eight-page opinion handed down Thursday. Such behavior is 'unbecoming a member of the judiciary, brings the judiciary into disrepute, and impairs the citizens' confidence' in the bench, the court said. The reprimand is less severe than other disciplinary action Schapiro faced, including removal from the bench. 'Were it not for Judge Schapiro's efforts to participate in behavioral therapy, this Court could have sanctioned [him] in a substantially more severe manner,' the court found. If he doesn't continue with therapy and other terms of his reprimand, the court added, it 'will severely sanction Judge Schapiro's misconduct.' Schapiro, who has been on the bench for a decade, acknowledged his rude and intemperate behavior and agreed to seek counseling in a letter to the Supreme Court in November. He apologized to Broward County residents, expressed regret, and blamed his actions on stress and personal problems. Under terms of the reprimand, the Supreme Court also requires Schapiro to mail letters of personal apology to several lawyers he was accused of mistreating."

Calls to Attack Syria Come from a Familiar Choir of Hawks,
by Jim Lobe, Project Against the Present Danger, April 16, 2003
"Many of the same people who led the campaign for war against Iraq signed a report released three years ago that called for using military force to disarm Syria of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to end its military presence in Lebanon. Among the signers are several senior members of the administration of President George W. Bush, including the chief Middle East aide on the National Security Council, Elliott Abrams; Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; and senior consultants to both the State Department and the Pentagon on Iraq policy, Michael Rubin and David Wurmser. Also signing were Richard Perle, the powerful former chairman of the Defense Policy Board (DPB); Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former United Nations ambassador; Frank Gaffney, a former Perle aide who heads the Center for Defense Policy; Michael Ledeen, another close Perle collaborator at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); and David Steinmann, chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). The study, Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role, was co-authored by Daniel Pipes, who has just been nominated by Bush to a post at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), and Ziad Abdelnour, who heads a group founded by him called the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL). The study was released by Pipes' group, the Middle East Forum. The USCFL, whose 67 'Golden Circle' members include virtually all of the 31 signatories of the report, has been a major force behind the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act that was just reintroduced in the House of Representatives last Friday by Reps. Eliot Engel, a USCFL member, and Ileana Ros Lehtinen. The legislation, which had 150 cosponsors in the House last year, would impose far-reaching economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria until the president certified that it has stopped all support to Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and other groups that Washington considers 'terrorist,' the government withdraws its estimated 20,000 troops from Lebanon, and takes other measures long demanded by Washington. 'Now that Saddam Hussein's regime (in Iraq) is defeated,' Engel said April 11, 'it is time for America to get serious about Syria. The United States must not tolerate (its) continued support of the most deadly terrorist organizations in the world, its development of weapons of mass destruction, and its occupation of Lebanon.' He said a companion measure, cosponsored by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and Republican Sen. Rick Santorum will soon be introduced in the Senate. The action comes amid a two-week-old flurry of threats by top administration officials against Syria over its alleged failure to cooperate with Washington's military campaign against Baghdad. Those threats culminated Sunday when Bush himself accused Syria of having chemical weapons, although he did not specify whether they were home-grown or received from Iraq for safe-keeping, as alleged by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon earlier this year and repeated by senior Pentagon officials. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Syria of harboring members of Hussein's regime, and, asked whether Damascus was 'next' after Iraq, replied that 'it depends on people's behavior.' Intelligence officials told reporters last week that Rumsfeld had ordered the drawing up of contingency plans for a possible invasion of Syria and that Feith, the Pentagon's number three official, had begun work on a policy paper about Syria's support of terrorist groups. 'There's got to be a change in Syria,' said Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz last Sunday on a TV network news program ... The USCFL, which lists Amin Gemayel--who as Lebanon's president signed an aborted peace treaty with Israel in 1983--as the top figure in the Lebanese opposition on its website, appears to enjoy strong backing from both the Christian Right and far-right Jewish neoconservatives, such as Perle, Ledeen, Steinmann, Pipes, and Gaffney. While a handful of the Lebanese-Americans listed in its 'Golden Circle' are Muslim, most, including Abdelnour, an investment banker, are Christian. A plurality of 'Golden Circle' members appears to be Jewish-Americans."

NYC Cuts Workers, While Israel Grows Richer,
by William Hughes, Media Monitors, April 17, 2003
"In a 'doomsday' budget, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to cut 10,000 city employees, and close 30 to 40 firehouses, unless state lawmakers bail out the municipal government. His draconian contingency plan calls for $1 billion in cuts. Hardest hit will be police, fire, and sanitation workers, after school programs, and even the closing of two of the city's fabled zoos, one located in Queens, and the other in Brooklyn. Meanwhile, the extreme right wing regime of Israel's Ariel Sharon is rolling in greenbacks, thanks to the deep pockets of the heavily duped American taxpayers. In the 'Omnibus Appropriation Bill,' passed on Feb. 13, 2003, the U.S. Congress gave the Likudnik-dominated government $600 million in economic aid, $2.1 billion in military aid, plus $60 million for something called, 'refugee resettlement'. These freebees don't include the $10 billion in loan guarantees and $4 billion in additional military aid, that the Sharonists demanded in January, 2003. It's possible that even more moneys for Israel could be filtered to it, via the $79 billion Iraqi War budget, in a 'supplemental' anti-terrorism appropriation, or some other covert budgetary device. Bloomberg is hoping to squeeze financial aid from the state government in Albany to avoid the more drastic budget cuts. This could prove extremely difficult, since New York State is running a $12 billion deficit. In order for the state to help out, it would itself have to raise even more taxes. U.S. military loans to Israel, according to Congressional researchers are 'converted to grants,' and eventually 'forgiven by Congress.' This is why the Israelis can boast that they have never 'defaulted on a U.S. government loan.' Aid to Israel is also given in a 'lump sum' at the start of the fiscal year, which leaves the U.S. to borrow from future revenues to pay it off. Other countries, less favored, receive their aid in quarterly payments. In fact, Associate Professor Stephen Zunes of San Francisco U., pointed out, that 'Israel even lends some of the money back through U.S. treasury bills and collect the additional interest'. Despite all the aid to Israel over the years, Zunes said, (01/26/01), 'We are less secure than ever, both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. There is a growing and increasing hostility of the average Arab towards the U.S. In the long term, peace and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel. This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law' (WRMEA.com). Keep in mind that Professor Zunes was writing all of this before 9/11 and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Ironies abound here. No one suffered more from the 9/11 terrorist attack than New Yorkers, especially its brave police, firemen and rescue workers, and their families. And, as Professor Zunes correctly predicted, the increased Arab 'hostility' to the U.S., as a result of our one-sided favoritism towards Israel, has made all of us 'less secure.' On top of that, we now have the mayor of NYC, ready to layoff police and firemen and to close fire houses in order to balance the municipal budget. Yet, federal largess to Zionist Israel, in the billions of dollars annually, continues unabated, without any real consideration of its justification, or its consequences to our national well-being. Actually, things are worse than they appear. According to Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist, aid to Israel has really cost U.S. taxpayers, from 1956-2002, about $1.7 trillion. This is more than $5,700 per person. ... Question: How much longer are the American people going to put up with this gross distortion of priorities that mocks our Republic?"

The Bum Frum,
By Taki, The American Conservative, April 21, 2003
"So you can imagine my surprise when in NR’s [National Review's] last issue I found myself and my colleagues Pat and Scott listed as 'unpatriotic conservatives' in 'a war against America.' Mind you, I was in excellent company. Others accused were people like Tom Fleming, Llewellyn Rockwell, Robert Novak, Sam Francis, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, and Eric Margolis. I was flattered until I saw the writer’s name. One David Frum. Now let’s get one thing straight. Unlike Pat and Scott, and despite the advice given to me by an NR higher-up, I will not take the high road. If this bum Frum thinks he’s the only one who cannot see a belt without hitting below it, he’s got another thing coming. From what I’ve heard, Frum is a climber who fouls everyone and everything that takes him in, with the White House being just one example. This buffoon was fired by the Bushies, then went around threatening to sue if someone hinted that he didn’t quit on his own. (You were fired Frum, and I welcome your lawsuit.) He is a cheap Canadian careerist who jumped on the neocon bandwagon and is now using anti-Semitism as a stick to beat us with. Mind you, to be called 'unpatriotic' and an 'anti-Semite' by this shameless publicity hound has to be a compliment. I only met Frum once, at a Conrad Black party, where he came up Uriah-Heep-like, actually looking more like the oily Peter Lorre in 'The Maltese Falcon.' I know his kind. He will use anyone—including his wife, which he did in spreading the claim that he invented the phrase 'axis of evil'—in order to advance his career. Like his icon Sammy Glick, Frum tries to make it by stepping on bodies, but he will end up like Glick, a marginal fellow who tells tall tales about himself. He reminds me of another David—Brock—both of them being ugly pipsqueaks who specialize in telling without having kissed. We are now in a senseless war that was promoted by the neocons. They have tried to shut down debate by charging anti-Semitism. It is the oldest as well as the cheapest trick in the book. The reason I’m so adamantly against the war is because I believe it will have terrible consequences in the long run for America. We should be looking inward and going after the Asan Akbars of this world, most likely financed by the Saudi rulers. The rest is bunk, and a punk like Frum can rant from here to Baghdad. It will not change the truth."

Greenspan Says He Would Accept 5th Term,
Earthlink (froim Associated Pres), April 23, 2003
"Alan Greenspan, expressing appreciation for President Bush's confidence, said Wednesday he would accept a fifth term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. In a brief statement, Greenspan, who is now in his 16th year as head of the nation's central bank, said he would accept a nomination for another four-year term. Bush in a surprise announcement on Tuesday had said he planned to nominate Greenspan for a new term when his current one expires next year. 'If President Bush nominates me and the Senate confirms his choice, I would have every intention of serving,' Greenspan said Wednesday. 'The president and I have not discussed this, but I greatly appreciate his confidence,' Greenspan said in his statement. 'I have been privileged to be appointed by five presidents to various positions.' Greenspan, who took over as Fed chairman on Aug. 11, 1987, after being picked for the post by Ronald Reagan, had previously served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Gerald Ford. Greenspan was renominated for the Fed position once by Bush's father and twice by Bill Clinton."

Here we have defined -- in David Horwitz's Front Page journal -- the Jewish Israelization of America. America is increasingly hated because of its Israel-based foreign policy and Judeo Centric arrogance.
Americans: The Jews of the World,
by Daniel Jennings, FrontPageMagazine.com, April 23, 2003
"The popular 20th Century Jewish American novelist Edna Ferber once wrote 'the United States seems to be the Jews among nations. It is resourceful adaptable, maligned, envied and feared... its peoples are travelers and wanderers by nature, moving shifting, restless.' Sadly enough, recent events have proven that Ferber was right. The Jewish people and the United States have a lot in common, both are successful, resourceful, adaptable, highly creative, inventive and hated. Like the Jews, Americans are increasingly the objects of hatred, fear, jealousy, bigotry, prejudice, violence and terror from all corners of the globe and the political spectrum. In particular, America and Americans are now the target of a vicious, irrational, destructive, well-organized, well-defined, popular and widespread campaign of hatred, prejudice and hysteria similar to that directed against the Jews before World War II. Anti-Americanism has become as popular and as widespread as anti-Semitism was in the 1920s and 30s and its effects could be just as destructive and as tragic as the wave of anti-Semitism that gave rise to Adolph Hitler and the Final Solution. The historical analogies between anti-Semitism in the first half of the 20th Century and anti-Americanism today are absolutely bone chilling. In the early 1920s, all of the world's problems were blamed on the Jews. The Jews had somehow started World War I, Jewish bankers had financed the Russian Revolution, Communism was a Jewish conspiracy to enslave the world, the Jews had somehow engineered Germany's defeat in 1918, Jewish artists and intellectuals were responsible for the decline of culture and morality, Jewish businessmen were responsible for all the problems of capitalism and the troubles of the poor. This was nonsense but it was widely believed even by the most educated and respected of people. Today, the problems of nations and peoples all over the world are blamed upon America."

Campaign Confidential,
By E.J. KESSLER, [Jewish] Forward, April 25, 2003
"Does the presidential candidacy of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman have a Jewish problem? Some folks seem to think so. The Hartford Courant took its home-state senator to task last week for what it called his 'dismal' first-quarter contribution filing, saying there was a 'Jewish wrinkle' to Lieberman's lackluster showing: The senator's centrist values are out of step with the liberal Jews who give to Democratic candidates, the paper reported. Problem is, many of the more conservative Jewish Democrats who might give to Lieberman appear not to be reaching for their checkbooks, either. 'Joe's natural big constituency is sitting on their hands,' said one New York fundraiser and Lieberman supporter who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'Many, many Jewish people do not want a Jewish president.' The fundraiser said that many politically conservative and centrist Jews 'are big fans of George Bush right now,' especially because 'the Israelis are telling people that he's their best friend' and "people do not want a Jewish president when relations with Israel could become very tense." Lieberman also has caused some of his own problems, the fundraiser said. 'People did not love Joe's last campaign," the fundraiser said, referring to Lieberman's 2000 vice-presidential run. 'He's not 'good old Joe' anymore. He seems more like a politician.'"

Headline: US subservience to Israel,
By Fauzia Qureshi, Hi Pakistan, May 2003
"The Americans may seem to be winning the war against Iraq but they have already lost on the political, strategic and moral fronts. Was this war necessary? Is it for the liberation of the Iraqi people or their subjugation? How can a nation be liberated by being bombed indiscriminately? Is a nation which is humiliated and devastated just a few years ago by the same invaders suppose to welcome them? How unscrupulous a state can get to farther its aims and goals? Is there a hidden agenda, a greater war design and by whom? These are some of the questions asked by all. What the Americans have failed to realize is not only the response of the Iraqi people but the vital fact that they have triggered a sense of renewed nationalism among the Muslims and an urge to unite as Muslim Ummah. The Americans have basically done what years of labour by different Muslim Organizations couldn't achieve ... The American aims in the Middle East seem economic in nature. Not many Americans fully understand the Jewish connection and the fact that their foreign policy has been 'hijacked'. Presently, Iraq stood as the strongest neighbouring Arab state and its disunion was absolutely necessary for the survival and continuation of Israel. This war on Iraq is part of the greater plan masterminded by Jews in order to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming the World Power ... The current team of the so called "think-tanks" around Mr Bush include Richard Perle (a Jew), who regarded "war on terror" as "total war". He has pretented to be the first casualty of war and has resigned. Though mission accomplished. Others include Dick Cheney (VicePresident), Donald Rumsfeld (Defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Defence secretary), Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff), William Bennett (Reagan's education secretary) and Zalmay Khalilzad (Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan). All these are modern chartists of American terrorism. The list also includes Douglas Feith (Under secretary for Defence), David Wurmser (Special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line), Edward Luttwak (Member of Pentagon's National Security Studies), Dov Zakhein (Assistant Secretary of Defence), Folbert Satloff (National Security Adviser), Eliott Abrams (National Security Adviser), Mark Grossman (Assistant Secretary of state for Political Affairs), Lewis Libby (Personnel Manager of Dick Cheney), Kenneth Adelman (Pentagon Adviser), Henry Kissenger (Pentagon Adviser), James Schlesinger (Pentagon Adviser), Michael Chertoff (Assistant Attorney General, Justice Department), Joshua Bolten (First Political Adviser to Bush), Steve Goldsmith (Senior Adviser to Bush), Richard Haass (Ambassador and Director, Political Planning at the State Dept), Robert Zeollick (A government-level trade representative), Ari Fleischer (Spokesman for the White House), Mel Sembler (President of US Export and Import Bank), Bonnie Cohen (Assistant Secretary of State for Administrative Affairs), Lincoln Bloomfield (Assistant Secretary of State for Military-Political Affairs), Adam Goldman (Link between White House and Jewish community), Samuel Bodman (Assistant Secretary of Trade), Ruth Davis (Director, External Corps), Joseph Gildenhorn (Ex-ambassador and financial director and coordinator of Bush's electoral campaign), and Christopher Gersten (Top official at the Children and Families Department). These are the so called 'War Party Group' or 'Neoconservatives'. All of them claim that US-Israeli interests are the same but it is not so. But who are the neoconservatives? Neoconservatives: The first generation of neoconservatives were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism's long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.All are intrventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Thus a passionate attachment to Israel is a key tenet. Another name for them is 'Jewish conservatism.'"

Jews' Role Murky As Rebel Banner Drops in Georgia,
By JEFF ZELL, [Jewish] Forward, May 2, 2003
"Thanks to a last-second compromise reached by lawmakers last week, the state flag of Georgia is about to drop the notorious Confederate battle emblem for the first time in nearly 50 years.. The deal — widely seen as a rebuke of Republican Governor Sonny Perdue — came quickly, catching most observers by surprise. But for Tyrone Brooks and other black state legislators, it has been a long fight to remove the Confederate emblem — the Rebel Cross — from the flag. Some black leaders have questioned why the Jewish community has not taken a more public stand in that fight, but Jewish leaders said they were working 'behind the scenes' on the issue ... What's not as clear, it seems, is the role played by the Jewish community in the debate. During recent months, some black leaders have observed that the Jewish community generally stayed on the sidelines. But Judy Marx, associate director of the American Jewish Committee's Atlanta chapter, said her group was working against any efforts to bring back the 1956 flag. 'We fought hard behind the scenes,' Marx said. 'We wrote every state legislator making our opinion known, but we were not out in front in the media.' AJCommittee helped create the local Black-Jewish Coalition in 1982 and underwrites Project Understanding, a retreat for black and Jewish leaders."

[This apologist author -- Robert J. Lieber -- is Jewish, veiling again the Israeli hand:]
The Neoconservative-Conspiracy Theory: Pure Myth,
By ROBERT J. LIEBER, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2, 2002
"The ruins of Saddam Hussein's shattered tyranny may provide additional evidence of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, but one poisonous by-product has already begun to seep from under the rubble. It is a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how the foreign policy of the world's greatest power, the United States, has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-known cabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals, led by the 'mastermind,' Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (according to Michael Lind, writing in the New Statesman), has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on an ignorant, inexperienced, and ;easily manipulated' president (Eric Alterman in The Nation), his 'elderly figurehead' Defense Secretary (as Lind put it), and the 'dutiful servant of power' who is our secretary of state (Edward Said, London Review of Books). Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, 'a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s' (Lind), with its own 'fanatic' and 'totalitarian morality' (William Pfaff, International Herald Tribune) has fomented war with Iraq -- not in the interest of the United States, but in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and Alterman). This sinister mythology is worthy of the Iraqi information minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who became notorious for telling Western journalists not to believe their own eyes as American tanks rolled into view just across the Tigris River. And indeed versions of it do circulate in the Arab world. (For example, a prominent Saudi professor from King Faisal University, Umaya Jalahma, speaking at a prestigious think tank of the Arab League, has revealed that the U.S. attack on Iraq was actually timed to coincide with the Jewish holiday of Purim.) But the neocon-conspiracy notion is especially conspicuous in writing by leftist authors in the pages of journals like The Washington Monthly and those cited above, as well as in the arguments of paleoconservatives like Buchanan and his magazine, The American Conservative ... Alterman writes that 'the war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects -- Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle (former aide to Senator Henry M. 'Scoop' Jackson; assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration; now a member of the Defense Policy Board, an unpaid body advising Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld), and Douglas J. Feith (the No. 3 official at Defense) -- are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster' ... Even in its less fevered forms, the neocon-conspiracy theory does not provide a coherent analysis of American foreign policy. More to the point, especially among the more extreme versions, there are conspicuous manifestations of classic anti-Semitism: claims that a small, all-powerful but little-known group or 'cabal' of Jewish masterminds is secretly manipulating policy; that they have dual loyalty to a foreign power; that this cabal combines ideological opposites (right-wingers with a Trotskyist legacy, echoing classic anti-Semitic tropes linking Jews to both international capitalism and international communism); that our official leaders are too ignorant, weak, or naive to grasp what is happening; that the foreign policy upon which our country is now embarked runs counter to, or is even subversive of, American national interest; and that if readers only paid close attention to what the author is saying, they would share the same sense of alarm."

Pax Americana's cheerleaders. Canadian chorus urging Bush onward,
by DAVID OLIVE, Toronto Star, May 4, 2003
"David Frum recalls that on his last day as a Bush administration speechwriter in 2002, he felt sad about leaving the White House. But 'I could not deny it any longer,' he wrote in his memoir, The Right Man. 'My work here was done.' That went down in Frum's hometown of Toronto as one of the more self-important career assessments of a native son. But then, Frum did co-author the 'axis of evil' centrepiece of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive intervention in the affairs of 'rogue states.' Two things characterize a preponderance of intellectuals urging the United States to embrace a gussied-up version of Pax Americana. In the main, they are wholly untutored in real-world diplomacy and military strategy, except for what they glean from each other's think-tank papers and broadsheet jeremiads. And many are not native-born Americans. A surprising number hail from Canada, a member of the 'coalition of the unwilling' in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Or spent their formative years in other outposts of the defunct British empire, the glory of which they seem determined to have the U.S. revive under its flag. 'Our best hope is in American strength and will, unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them,' says Charles Krauthammer, a prominent Washington Post columnist and TV commentator who was raised in Montreal and obtained his undergraduate degree in political science and economics at McGill University. Other Canucks in the chorus include British-born Barbara Amiel who, from her perch at the Times of London, condemns the 'cowardice' of Europe and Canada in questioning White House war aims in Iraq. Mark Steyn, also from Canada, and a columnist at several U.S. and U.K. papers and Canada's National Post, cheers the Pentagon's apparent rejection of a United Nations role in post-war Iraq ... In a controversial New York Times Magazine cover story, Canadian human-rights historian Michael Ignatieff implored Americans to acknowledge that they have imperial duties that may be, 'in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike.' ... In a Slate essay last week, war hawk David Plotz concurs with Ferguson that a lingering, disciplining force is required in Iraq to make a success of regime change there. 'It's not too late to enforce the occupation ruthlessly,' Plotz writes, arguing that brute force is the only thing Iraqi looters and other troublemakers will respect."

Neoconservatives. They emerged from behind the scenes politically to change American foreign policy. But they've always been there, and Iraq is only one of their goals,
By Dick Polman, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 4, 2003
"For seven long years, Bill Kristol agitated for a U.S. coup against Saddam Hussein, and argued that America should remake the world to serve its own interests. Few bothered to listen at the time. So how does he feel now? In his office the other day, he grinned without smirking. That's how most of the hawkish defense intellectuals - better known as neoconservatives - are behaving these days ... The neocons - think-tank warriors and commentators, all of whom cite Ronald Reagan's moral clarity - are hot these days because they emerged from the political wilderness to alter the course of American foreign policy. And Iraq is just the beginning, as Kristol cheerily contended: 'President Bush is committed, pretty far down the road. The logic of events says you can't go halfway. You can't liberate Iraq, then quit.' The neocons care little about domestic policy; they think globally. They don't believe in peaceful coexistence with hostile, undemocratic states; rather, they want an 'unapologetic, idealistic, assertive' America (in Kristol's words) that will foment pro-democratic revolutions around the world, if necessary at the point of a gun ... Others talk darkly about a 'neocon cabal' that includes a media empire (Murdoch also owns Fox News), policy shops (notably the American Enterprise Institute, home to many neocon scholars and Kristol's Project for a New American Century), and revenue sources (particularly the Bradley Foundation, which has helped finance the policy shops). In a sense, it is tight-knit. The institute, Kristol's Project for a New American Century, and the Weekly Standard are all housed in the same Washington office building ... In 1998, the Project for a New American Century sent an open letter to President Bill Clinton, urging that he overthrow Hussein; 10 of the signatories now work for Bush. And when Bush spoke in February at the institute (Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, is a board member), he said that his team had borrowed 20 of its scholars. Neocon Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, was an institute scholar; so was John Bolton, who now has a key undersecretary post in the State Department. Today, the institute still has hawks who were hawks before the neocon label became hip; witness ex-Reagan Pentagon adviser Michael Ledeen, who, while puffing on a fat cigar the other day, said: 'Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal ..."

Even a prominent member of the British Parliament who dares to criticize the Jewish "cabal" is not immune from the Thought Police Squad and its legal wrangling to veil the truth:
Anger over Dalyell's 'Jewish cabal' slur,
by FRASER NELSON, The Scotsman (Scotland), May 5, 2003
"Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, may be referred to the Commission for Racial Equality after claiming a 'Jewish cabal' operating in both the United States and Britain is driving the governments of both countries into a war against Syria. Eric Moonman, the president of the Zionist Federation in London, has said he believes Mr Dalyell’s remarks constitute a formal offence - and that he is considering a formal complaint to the commission. Mr Dalyell said that he now expects to be victimised because he raised 'a whisper of criticism' about the influence which Jewish advisers hold on Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and George Bush, the president of the US. The outrage was prompted by Mr Dalyell’s comments in Vanity Fair magazine, where he said the ideas of hardline Jewish White House advisers are being embraced by men of equivalent stature in London. He has named Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Lord Levy as the trio which influences Mr Blair in his foreign policy - and are ensuring that Britain follows a "Zionist agenda" in the Middle East. When asked to explain his comments, Mr Dalyell told The Scotsman yesterday he was not anti-Semitic but felt the need to lay out his fears that Zionist ministers may make Syria the 'next stop' after Iraq. 'A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians,' he said. The members of this cabal, he said, are Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, Elliott Abrams, a member of the national security council, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, and John Bolton, the undersecretary of state. 'I was asked [by Vanity Fair] what effect this has had on Britain and I said it has fallen on fertile ground here. I mentioned Mandelson, Straw and Levy as being fertile ground. They have all encouraged Blair to go through with this terrible war' ... Mr Dalyell said he is aware about the opposition his remarks caused. 'One is treading on cut glass on this issue and no one wants to be accused of anti-Semitism, but if it is a question of launching an assault on Syria, then one has to be candid.' David Garfinkel, the editor-in-chief of the London Jewish News, said Mr Dalyell’s remarks introduced an anti-Semetic dimension into the debate - and would send shock waves through the community ... Mr Wolfowitz and Mr Abrams are usually named with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser as members of the 'cabal.' All men are prominent figures of the US neo-conservative movement."

Dalyell remarks on Jewish cabal may face scrutiny by watchdog,
By Benedict Brogan, Telegraph (UK), May 5, 2003
"Tam Dalyell, Labour's most senior MP, faces being referred to the Commission for Racial Equality over remarks he made to an American magazine which suggested Tony Blair was unduly influenced by Jewish figures in his inner circle. Prof Eric Moonman, a former Labour MP and current president of the Zionist Alliance, said he had consulted lawyers about comments published yesterday that he described as 'highly inflammatory'. Mr Dalyell, MP for Linlithgow and Father of the House, was alleged to have accused the Prime Minister of 'being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers'. The remark, which was not a direct quote but claimed to describe his attitude, appeared in the current issue of Vanity Fair magazine in an article to mark Mr Blair's 50th birthday. Mr Moonman who is a former senior vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, described himself as a long-standing friend of Mr Dalyell but said his views were unacceptable. 'It's the sort of insidious thing I would expect to see in a poorly produced BNP pamphlet,' he said. 'It is bad enough for an MP to start to use this language but it is much worse when he is Father of the House. If he were to point out a cabal of black people, he would be referred to the CRE.' Mr Moonman said he did not believe Mr Dalyell was anti-Semitic. But he added: 'This sort of language is quite wrong and ultimately will do him a great deal of harm. We will look very closely at what he says in the future. I have taken advice from several lawyers and will have further consultations on whether there is a case for a referral to the CRE. I believe there is' ... Mr Dalyell, an opponent of the war against Iraq, is said to have identified Lord Levy, the Prime Minister's special envoy to the Middle East, Mr [Jack] Straw [Foreign Secretary] and Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish. He denied he was anti-Semitic. 'I am fully aware that one is treading on cut glass on this issue and no one wants to be accused of anti-Semitism, but, if it is a question of launching an assault on Syria or Iran . . . then one has to be candid,' he said. Last night Mr Dalyell said he was worried Mr Blair was being 'led up the garden path on a Likudnic-Sharon agenda', a reference to Ariel Sharon, the hard-line Israeli prime minister and his Likud party. He said he only used the word "cabal" in reference to figures in the Bush administration. 'The cabal I referred to was in the US. That is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,' he said."

Fury as Dalyell attacks Blair's 'Jewish cabal',
by Colin Brown & Chris Hastings, Telegraph (UK) , May 4, 2003
"Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, sparked outrage last night by accusing the Prime Minister of 'being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.' In an interview with Vanity Fair, the Left-wing Labor MP named Lord Levy, Tony Blair's personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has Jewish ancestry, as three of the leading figures who had influenced Mr. Blair's policies on the Middle East. Yesterday Mr. Dalyell, the MP for Linlithgow, told The Telegraph: 'I am fully aware that one is treading on cut glass on this issue and no one wants to be accused of anti-Semitism but, if it is a question of launching an assault on Syria or Iran . . . then one has to be candid.' He added: 'I am not going to be labeled anti-Semitic. My children worked on a kibbutz. But the time has come for candour.' The Prime Minister, Mr. Dalyell claimed, was also indirectly influenced by Jewish people in the Bush administration, including Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary."

[British Foreign Minister Jack Straw is of Jewish heritage.]
Straw under fire for ignoring Israeli attacks on UK nationals,
by Chris McGreal, The Guardian (UK), May 7, 2003
"The father of a British peace activist left in a coma by an Israeli army bullet has accused the Foreign Office of showing more concern at the killings of Israeli citizens than investigating Israeli responsibility for the shootings of Britons. Anthony Hurndall said he would press for a meeting with the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, next week to express his dissatisfaction at the government's failure to apply serious pressure to Israel for an open investigation into the shooting of his son, Tom, 21, in Gaza and two other UK citizens by the Israeli army in recent months. In November, Iain Hook, who was working for the UN, was killed in the Jenin refugee camp. Last week, a British cameraman, James Miller, was shot dead in the Gaza Strip. In all three cases, the Israeli army has claimed the victims were in the presence of Palestinian gunmen or caught in crossfire, despite compelling evidence to the contrary. Mr Hurndall said Britain was allowing an Israeli cover-up, despite having promised there would be a full inquiry into the shooting of his son. He contrasted the UK's statement of support for Israel after a British suicide bomber murdered three people in a Tel Aviv bar with its reaction to the shooting of UK nationals by Israeli soldiers. 'I have expressed to the embassy strongly my unease at the fact that immediately following the bombing at the bar in Tel Aviv and the killing of three Israelis, the British government jumped to give a statement of support for Israelis and to freeze funds and make arrests. 'In contrast, the almost passive reaction of the British government at the shooting of three of its nationals in Israel is very disturbing,' he said. Mr Hurndall, who is in Israel where his son is in hospital, also criticised the Israelis for lack of reciprocity. The army has refused to allow him to meet officers in command of the unit responsible for shooting his son. 'There's an enormous difference between how the British reacted to British citizens' involvement in killing Israelis and the complete lack of cooperation and a complete silence over what happened to British nationals here,' he said. Mr Hurndall is not alone in criticising the Foreign Office's failure to vigorously pursue inquiries into the shooting of unarmed Britons. Six months ago, Mr Straw and Clare Short, the international development secretary, promised a full investigation into the killing of Iain Hook. But the Israelis have since all but buried the inquiry and some of Mr Hook's British colleagues have accused the Foreign Office of being less concerned with exposing the circumstances of his killing than with not further straining relations with Israel at a time when Tony Blair is viewed with increasing suspicion for his promotion of Palestinian statehood. UN workers complain that 'trigger happy' Israeli troops are rarely called to account for the killing of civilians. Most victims are Palestinians, many of them children. But critics say that it is a reflection of a lack of accountability within the army that soldiers apparently believe they can shoot foreigners with impunity."

More Jewish "analysts" pushing the U.S. government to decide what Iranian citizens want: Coziness with Israel.
Analysts weigh options for change in Iran,
By Christian Bourge, UPI, May 7, 2003
"Analysts at key think tanks in Washington say the U.S. foreign policy community is actively debating what steps should be taken to promote liberalization and regime change in Iran following the Iraq war. Meyrav Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the conservative Hudson Institute, said there is a sense of urgency surrounding the future of Iran because of the wide impact the Iraq war has had upon the region. Speaking Tuesday at a conference on the issue co-sponsored by Hudson and the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Hudson, Wurmser said U.S. policy for the region must focus on ridding it of the regimes that aim to do harm to the United States and its allies ... Bernard Lewis, an emeritus professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University and a well-known expert on Islam and the Middle East, said that a major fear among the ruling theocratic regimes in the Middle East, such as Iran, is that the American effort to bring democracy to Iraq will be successful and spread liberal ideas to their countries ... Daniel Brumberg, a visiting scholar at the liberal-centrist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told United Press International that although this would be a huge embarrassment for Iran's mullahs, the drain on their power would not be immediate. 'That long-term erosion (of power) will reinforce the moderates but that is a long term project in five, 10 or 15 years,' said Brumberg ... Many analysts as well as external and internal reformers within Iran have already become impatient with the country's slow drive toward political liberalization. They argue that the United States must take a more proactive role in the process. Lewis said that the fear of more direct American influence in the region is already resulting in the kind of militant behavior toward the United States that occurred in Lebanon. 'There is now a really serious threat, the beginnings of which we already see,' said Lewis ... Judith Kipper, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and director of the Middle East Forum at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the United States must do whatever it can to reconnect with Iran and get its government to the table."

Dems face ethnic rift in California,
By Peter Savodnik, The Hill ("the Newspaper for and about the U.S. Congess"), May 7, 2003
"Hispanic voters, a cornerstone of California’s Democratic coalition, are increasingly challenging liberal Jewish incumbents to turn over the reins and make way for a new generation of leaders. The rift pits one of the California Democratic Party’s fastest-growing groups against one of their most influential and threatens party unity in that state and, possibly, in Texas, Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere, Democratic Party officials say. The split, as they see it, stems from an unfortunate confluence of events. First, in the 1990s, term limits were imposed on elected officials in the state Assembly and Senate. Many state legislators forced out by those limits decided to seek higher office. Then, in 2001, the state Legislature redrew California’s 53 congressional districts. The new political map channeled many Hispanic voters into districts represented by Jewish officeholders. In the view of some Democratic insiders, the problem was further compounded by the large number of Jewish members of Congress from Southern California districts. Seven of the 17 Democrats from the Los Angeles area to the Mexican border are Jewish, seven are Hispanic and three are African-American. 'I can see Republicans using the accident, as it were, of many Jewish congresspeople to create a wedge issue against the Democrats,' said Rep. Bob Filner, whose newly drawn 51st District includes 340,000 Latinos, 53 percent of the electorate. 'That is,' the Jewish Democrat continued, 'to try to get Hispanic support by claiming there’s a Jewish conspiracy or something against them.' A California Republican, one of 20 in the state’s congressional delegation, buttressed Filner’s contention. 'In the Democratic Party you have the potential for fratricide, because people are starting to kill each other off — Jewish liberals and black liberals versus the immigrant Hispanics,' said the member, who declined to be identified by name. Referring to such longtime Jewish incumbents as Reps. Howard Berman and Henry Waxman, the Republican member added: 'They’re keeping themselves and their allies in power. All of them were … [given] districts to make sure they were not replaced by someone whose name is Hernandez.' Raoul Contreras, a San Diego-based GOP political consultant and columnist, added that poor Mexicans who have recently immigrated to California often harbor anti-Semitic feelings that stem from their antipathy toward wealthy Jewish Mexican businessmen. Further heightening Hispanic suspicions of a Jewish conspiracy, both Republicans and Democrats said, is the fact that Democratic consultant Michael Berman, brother of Howard Berman, oversaw the highly contentious redistricting plan. Those suspicions were reflected in a lawsuit filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The suit, thrown out last June by a three-judge federal panel, argued that the redistricting plan diluted Hispanic strength to protect Democratic incumbents from Hispanic challengers. Berman, an 11-term congressman whose district includes much of the San Fernando Valley, called talk of a conspiracy 'nonsense.' Some Democrats said the redistricting entailed shifting thousands of Latinos from Berman’s 28th District next door, to Rep. Brad Sherman’s 27th. Democrats pointed out that Sherman, like Berman, is a Jewish Democrat but, unlike Berman, a relative newcomer, in only his fourth term ... But, as some Democrats said privately, tension between Hispanics and Jews has been festering for years — or, at least, since 1998, when Latino Richard Alarcon narrowly defeated Jewish former Assembly leader Richard Katz in what was widely reported to have been a particularly ugly contest in the state Senate’s 20th District, also in the San Fernando Valley."

GOP Uses Remarks to Court Jews. Moran's Comments Cited in New Appeal,
The Washington Post, May 13, 2003
"Republicans have seized on the assertion of Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) that Jews are determining American policy toward Iraq as a new weapon in the GOP's long-term effort to attract traditionally Democratic Jewish voters and donors. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told a group of more than 150 Orthodox Jewish leaders from around the country yesterday that the Democratic Party 'appears to countenance remarks like those made by Representative Moran in the past few weeks.' DeLay has been the driving force in the Republican effort to capitalize on President Bush's strong support of Israel and his leadership in the war on terrorism to weaken Democratic support and financial backing from Jews. 'There are only a few key pillars left holding up the Democratic coalition, especially financial pillars, and if we can fracture one of them, they [Democrats] are going to go into 2004 in big trouble,' a GOP strategist said. In states such as Florida and New York, Jewish voters are a large enough percentage of voters to play a crucial role in election outcomes. In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources. Any significant reduction in the financial support will weaken Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party organizations. While Bill Clinton was president, he received strong support from Jewish voters, many of whom backed his efforts to negotiate a peace settlement in the Middle East. But with the collapse of the peace process and the outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, the GOP has sought to win support from more right-leaning Jews who no longer view the Palestinian Authority as a legitimate negotiating partner. Joining DeLay yesterday in his meeting with representatives of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America was another key figure in the Republican effort, Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.). Cantor said Moran's comments were 'reminiscent of the accusations contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' a notorious Czarist forgery that fomented pogroms against Jews in 19th-century Russia. Cantor, the chief deputy whip and the only Jewish Republican in the House, said in an interview, 'Jews in this country may not be able to afford to be Democrats. . . . One party [the GOP] is absolutely resolute in its commitment to Israel.' The remarks by Cantor and DeLay drew sustained applause and a standing ovation from the Orthodox Jewish leaders. 'On many issues that are very important to the Jewish community, and especially the Orthodox community that I represent, the Republicans are striking chords that ring very true, and that's going to be reflected in future elections,' said Harvey Blitz of New York, president of the Orthodox Union. There is evidence that Republicans are winning defections among some moderate and liberal Jews, as well. Late last year, two prominent Jewish leaders who strongly supported Democrats in the past -- Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress, and Michael Sonnenfeldt, former chairman of the moderate Israel Policy Forum -- gave $100,000 and $10,000, respectively, to the Republican National Committee. Dawn Arnall of California, who has donated primarily to Democrats, gave the RNC $1 million on Oct. 24, 2002. Polling data are more ambiguous ... Rosen said that as long as the political agenda is dominated by terrorism and threats to the survival of Israel, Republicans will have a strong chance to make gains in the Jewish community. But if the agenda returns to domestic issues, including abortion, prayer in school and minority rights, Democratic strength among Jews will revive, he said. At a church forum in Reston earlier this month, Moran said, 'if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.' His comments were more ammunition for the GOP's contention that Democrats who oppose a war in Iraq are insufficiently concerned about Israel's security. For the past three days, Democrats have put on a full-court press to try to limit the damage from Moran's comments, with a parade of Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates denouncing his comments. Six Jewish Democrats in the House, including Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.) and Sander M. Levin (Mich.), yesterday called on Moran to retire in 2004, and if he runs again, 'we cannot and will not support his candidacy.'"

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US,
By David R. Francis, The Christian Science Monitor, December 9, 2002
"Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person. This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby. For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War. And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy. Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out. Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years. Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel. 'Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel,' argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine. These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known. One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars. In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US. That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion. Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons. Other US help includes: • US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer. • The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these. • The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects. • Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years. • Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel. US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers. • US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs. • Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer. Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel."

Defense Policy Board,
Center for Cooperative Research

Michael Ledeen is one of the Jewish "neocons" who may well have hijacked America according to scholars.
The Unknown Hawk - Neoconservative Guru Sets Sights on Iran,
by William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service, May 08, 2003
"From 'creative destruction' to 'total war,' the guiding beliefs of the most aggressive foreign policymakers in the Bush administration may originate in the works of an influential yet rarely seen neoconservative. Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East, it will be largely due to his inspiration. A fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Ledeen holds a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin. He is a former employee of the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council. As a consultant working with NSC head Robert McFarlane, he was involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair -- an adventure that he documented in the book 'Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair.' His most influential book is last year’s 'The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win.' Ledeen’s ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America’s manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq. Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled 'Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism,' for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, 'the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.' With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran. Quotes from Ledeen’s works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. 'Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history,' he proclaims in his book, 'Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago.' In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, 'Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution.' Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned. His 1996 book, 'Freedom Betrayed; How the United States Led a Global Domocratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away,” reveals the basic neoconservative obsession: the United States never 'won' the Cold War; the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight without a shot being fired. Had the United States truly won, democratic institutions would be sprouting everywhere the threat of Communism had been rife. Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed 'total war.' 'Total war not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends,' Ledeen writes. 'The sparing of civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority ... The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people.'"

Toronto mayor Mel Lastman is Jewish, and he is from New York.
Lastman to lead mission to Israel,
By RON CSILLAG, Canadian Jewish News, May 8, 2003
"Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman will lead the first-ever delegation of Canadian municipal officials to Israel beginning May 10. Lastman and his wife Marilyn will join a dozen other municipal politicians and officials from Canadian Jewish Congress on the five-day CJC-sponsored mission to meet with their Israeli counterparts and get a sense of the issues they face. Also scheduled are meetings with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu and industry and commerce minister Ehud Olmert. The participants will also be briefed on how municipalities cope with the threat of terrorism. There will be a strong contingent from York Region, north of Toronto. Scheduled to go are Thornhill Tory MPP Tina Molinari, who’s also associate minister of municipal affairs; York Region chair Bill Fisch; Vaughan Mayor Michael Di Biase; and Vaughan Ward 5 councillor Susan Kadis. The participants are slated to travel to the city of Ramla in Israel, which has special significance for the City of Vaughan. The two municipalities twinned a decade ago to encourage deeper cultural and economic ties between them. Congress says it’s important to sensitize these officials to Israel’s concerns because often, the municipal level is a stepping stone to bigger things in politics. Also scheduled to take part are Ken Boshcoff, the mayor of Thunder Bay and president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Scott Northmore, mayor of Bracebridge; Frank Miele, York Region’s commissioner of economy/technology/development & communications; Alex Munter, a city councillor from Kanata; James Gordon, the mayor of Sudbury; and Toronto city councillor Mike Feldman ... The junket’s purpose is to introduce 'one more group of important Canadian decision makers and policy makers to Israeli society and challenges faced by both government and people of Israel,' says CJC Ontario region chair Ed Morgan, who will be accompanied by region executive director Bernie Farber; political action committee chair Rachel Turkienicz; CJC director of community development Michael Soberman; and CJC national treasurer Cary Green."

Our Jewish senators at the helm in debating Big Brother laws:
Senate Widens Surveillance Law,
Fox News, May 8, 2003
"The Senate easily passed a measure Thursday expanding a powerful surveillance law, used in spy and terrorism investigations, to allow U.S. agents to wiretap lone foreigners who can't be linked to a terror organization or government. Currently, U.S. law enforcement officers can get warrants authorizing intelligence-gathering wiretaps from a secret court, but only if they can establish a reasonable belief the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' or group. The bill, which passed 90 to 4, would amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (search) to remove that requirement ... The bill, introduced by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has become known