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
 

Eric MACK interviewed. In the following excerpts from Full Context's conversation with Mack, he and editor Karen Reedstrom discuss Ayn Rand, F. A. Hayek, David Kelley, the "Jewish connection," and libertarianism in academia,
Full Context, May 1997
"QUESTION: Given your Jewish background, can you comment on why Jews appear to have a higher propensity to get tangled up in Objectivism? MACK: I think the explanation has something to do with higher than average intelligence combined with higher than average combativeness. I suppose the alternative and less attractive explanation would have to do with transference or substitution of allegiance from one powerful female figure to another. It’s worth noting—partially as evidence against this second explanation—that individuals from Jewish backgrounds are also very disproportionately represented among libertarian theorists who do not come to these views through Rand. In fact, individuals from Jewish backgrounds are very disproportionately represented among major contemporary political theorists of all ideological stripes. If you find yourself at a meeting involving a dozen of the top social and political philosophers in the English-speaking world, typically five or six or seven of them will come from Jewish backgrounds. That suggests a more fine-tuned analysis of the barriers to further acceptance of libertarian thought—there are still too many Jews on the other side!"

Crean woos Jewish community,
ABC News (Australia), September 1, 2003
"Federal Opposition leader Simon Crean has told Jewish community leaders in Melbourne to ignore criticisms of Israel from his backbench and that his party's support for Israel remains strong. Mr Crean's speech last night to a function in St Kilda canvassed his and Labor's historical support for the Jewish state and the ongoing problems faced in achieving peace in the Middle East. In question time at the end of Mr Crean's speech, members of the audience criticised Labor's backbench, accusing several MPs of anti-semitism and racism. But Mr Crean rejected their concerns. "Too much attention is given to what certain backbenchers say," he said. "The commitment is there from me tonight, it will be stated over and over again, just as it has been over all of my active life in politics, of my support for the state of Israel." While dissenting speakers on Israel had not been allowed to speak during a recent parliamentary debate on the Middle East, audience members asked why Mr Crean allowed members of his party to make anti-Israeli statements. "You're always going to find people in your people in your party who disagree, but what you've got to look to is where the political party and its leadership stands and where its policy stands." But a backbencher says she will continue to speak in support of the Palestinian people and is concerned about Jewish attempts to muzzle her. Julia Irwin says her party succumbed to pressure last month to gag pro-Palestinian Labor members in the parliamentary debate. "There are certain people within the Jewish community that have put pressure on certain people within the Australian Labor Party. You've have two members of the backbench who've been virtually muzzled," she said."

Courting the Jewish vote may not be worth it,
By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz (Israel), September 1, 2003
"Even though the presidential elections in the United States are more than a year away, the race for the presidency is already in full swing. The Democratic candidates are traveling from state to state in an attempt to enlist support in advance of the primaries season, which begins in January, while President George W. Bush and his people are crisscrossing the country to raise contributions and to translate the president's popularity into sure votes at the ballot box in the 2004 elections. In this campaign, American Jews are traditionally considered a leading force, thanks to their considerable electoral weight in a number of key states and, more importantly, because of their strong presence on the lists of donors to the two parties. With President Bush in the midst of an effort, the first during his tenure, to advance the peace process in the Middle East, the question of the Jewish vote is again surfacing. In other words, how far will the president go in applying pressure to Israel to implement the road map, in light of the concern that this pressure will deter Jewish voters and donors? For the Republicans, this is not a matter of secondary importance. They would like to see the 2004 elections go down in the history of American politics as the turning point in which the Jews abandoned their traditional commitment to the Democratic Party and moved into the Republican ranks ... Bush's profound commitment to Israel and his strong stance against Palestinian terrorism have further strengthened Jewish support for him ... Even though quantitatively the Jews constitute only 2 percent of the American population, because of their relatively high rate of voter turnout, they account for 3 to 4 percent of the votes cast. The significance of this is that even if Bush surprises everyone and rakes in 40 percent of the Jewish votes, this would represent a total of 1 percent at most of the voting public. But as the electoral system for the president is by state, the question, as it emerged in 2002, is not how many Americans support the president, but their distribution by state. Jews carry significant weight in a number of states - New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Florida ... The direct electoral significance of the Jewish vote is, therefore, trivial, but there is also the financial side. The idea persists in American political circles, which has not been scientifically verified, that the Jews are responsible for no less than 50 to 60 percent of the campaign contributions to Democratic candidates and for approximately 30 percent of the contributions to the Republicans. In a race that is won by whoever succeeds in garnering more contributions, no one scorns the dollars of the Jews ... A political source close to the Democrats put it this way: "The question will be whether the president will be prepared to give up an international political achievement so as not to annoy some of his Jewish supporters." This sources says that were Bush in a situation in which he desperately needs international successes and the Jewish vote and contribution are, in any case, not decisive, then the Jewish vote will not be the deciding consideration. The Jews, however, did not forgive presidents who pressured Israel. Jimmy Carter, the only president who managed to bring about a peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state, holds the negative record for Jewish support - only 45 percent, as he was perceived as someone who applied pressure to Israel. Bush senior, who refused to give prime minister Yitzhak Shamir's government the guarantees for immigrant absorption because of the continuation of Jewish settlement in the territories, believed that American Jews did not support him because of this."

Sharon is a punk, says ambassador,
By Donald Macintyre, The Independent (UK), September 1, 2003
"The new French ambassador to Israel was involved in a diplomatic row yesterday after a report that he had called Israel a "paranoid country" and its Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, "a punk". Silvan Shalom, Israel's Foreign Minister, ordered its embassy in Paris to seek official "clarification" of the report in Yedioth Ahronoth. The newspaper's Paris correspondent, Boaz Bismout, said that Gerard Araud, who is yet to take up his post in Tel Aviv, made the remarks last week in a private conversation at a cocktail party for senior French diplomats given by Dominique de Villepin, the Foreign Minister. The report said M. Araud had "repeatedly" used the word "voyou" of Mr Sharon and had criticised the controversial fence being built to cut off the Palestinian territories. The dispute may partly focus on the meaning of voyou - a term sometimes used by parents of misbehaving children. Mr Bismout's report says the French-Hebrew dictionary defines the word as "punk, thug, hooligan, criminal, crook".

EPA lifts ban on selling PCB sites,
By Peter Eisler, USA Today, September 1, 2003
"The Bush administration has ended a 25-year-old ban on the sale of land polluted with PCBs. The ban was intended to prevent hundreds of polluted sites from being redeveloped in ways that spread the toxin or raise public health risks. The Environmental Protection Agency decided the ban was "an unnecessary barrier to redevelopment (and) may actually delay the clean-up of contaminated properties," according to an internal memo issued last month to advise agency staff of the change. About PCBs PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are an oily compound that was used widely until 1978 as a coolant and lubricant in electrical equipment because it had insulating qualities and was not flammable. PCBs are considered a probable cause of cancer in people and have been implicated in liver damage. They accumulate in fish and game that feed in contaminated areas and are passed on to people by eating the animals. It was PCB pollution that forced the abandonment 25 years ago of the Love Canal community in Niagara Falls, N.Y. The decision, already in effect, has not been made public. It is being treated as a "new interpretation" of existing law, according to the memo, which was obtained by USA TODAY. As such, no public comment was required. Some EPA staffers have raised concerns that the change could make it hard to track the sale of PCB sites and ensure that buyers don't spread contamination by developing property before it's cleaned up, EPA officials say. The decision also is likely to upset environmentalists and their congressional allies who contend that the administration is easing environmental rules to promote development. ... The new interpretation was developed under EPA general counsel Robert Fabricant, who issued the Aug. 14 memo informing EPA staff."

American Jews want more minorities in America as a legitimate expression of "multiculturalism." Meanwhile, Israel builds a literal WALL to keep Palestinians OUT of the "Jewish state."
Jews Want Open Doors For Refugees,
by E.B. Solomont, Baltimore Jewish Times, SEPTEMBER 03, 2003
"As it becomes even more difficult for foreigners to enter a United States wary of terrorism, several Jewish groups are urging immigration authorities to relax rules for asylum seekers. A coalition of 15 Jewish groups is raising a red flag about the practice of turning away asylum seekers who have used false documents. They argue that refugees fleeing persecution in their home countries are being denied the right to "due process" when they come to the United States. The groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, have identified 200 cases in which asylum seekers were arrested before their claims were processed. In some cases, the refugees were carrying fake passports. For their part, immigration authorities say asylum seekers are afforded due process — though it may be while they're already while in detention. Prosecuting asylum seekers in the United States poses a complicated problem. Using fraudulent documents is illegal, yet many refugees must use illegal means such as fake passports to escape dangerous situations in their home countries. The plight of asylum seekers touches a particular nerve in the Jewish community. During World War II, many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were saved by Raoul Wallenberg and others who provided them with forged papers and passports to get out of Germany. "Jews have been refugees themselves. We understand what this is about," said Amy Weiner, assistant legislative director at the AJCommittee. "This issue of prosecuting asylum seekers just because of false documents struck a nerve because during the Holocaust Jews resorted to the use of false documents to get into this country."

It's straight out of a George Orwell horror movie: the merging of Zionist Judeo Centered Mind Control and our growing Police State as one. Some have said the ADL teaching "ethical conduct" in the shadow of its mother Israel is like Jack the Ripper teaching dance lessons.
ADL Awarded U.S. Justice Department Grant To Expand Holocaust Training For Law Enforcement,
Anti-Defamation League, September 3, 2003
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been awarded a $100,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to support a joint ADL/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum training program for law enforcement professionals. The grant will enable ADL to expand the initiative to three additional cities in 2004. ADL's Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust brings law enforcement officers to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., for an intensive program that challenges them to examine their relationship with the public and to explore issues of personal responsibility and ethical conduct. Launched in 1998, the program has reached more than 14,000 officers in nine Washington, D.C. regional law enforcement agencies and is currently part of the mandatory training for all new FBI agents. "By witnessing firsthand the horrors of the Holocaust, police officers can better understand how their personal decisions can have life-or-death implications," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor."

The Rest of the Story,
by Mark Glenn, Information Clearinghouse, September 3, 2003
"[T]he racists who run our media and, by default, have assumed the power of doing our thinking for us have painted the religion of Islam as something organically inimical to Christianity and Christian culture. One in particular, and lately much discussed is a rabid Zionist and unapologetic racist by the name of Daniel Pipes (recently appointed by Bush to sit in on the Board of the United States Institute of Peace) has made his living and his fame over the period of the last decade with publications whose one and only purpose was to slur the peoples of the Middle East, all done principally for the reason of benefiting his co-religionists in the nation of Israel, whose racist ideology he seems to embrace without any detectable reserve. Were any other person foolish enough to voice only some of the opinions that Pipes has been bold enough to put down on paper, they would have been run out of the business, if not worse. The fact that he has endured and has in fact been rewarded for such sentiments speaks volumes about what is the double standard which exists in the United States today as pertains race and religious issues, particularly when they are applied to the situation involving Israel and the Middle East. For those who are still holding out on whether or not to accept the “conspiracy crackpot theory” that the US government and media have been captured and are dominated by racist ideologues who worship before the golden calf of Zionism, consider some of the following quotes which Pipes has authored, and allow reason to weigh in on the fact that this man has not endured the standard treatment that others receive when they voice sentiments that only appear to be racial in nature. "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene.” A quick translation of the above statement would read like this: Muslims are the worst of immigrants, who, smelling bad and having an unusual palate, are not welcome in white societies. The Golden Boy of the Zionist establishment has not limited his remarks to only these mentioned. In other writings he accuses Muslims of being parasites on society, being disproportionately engaged in criminal behavior, (most notably the crime of rape) of having unacceptable customs and seeking to take over the country. In short, this is the stuff of the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Replace the word “Muslim” with “black” or “nigger,” and the comparison is without equal. How then is it possible for such men to possess the amount of prestige and influence as he does, without being subject to the same backlash that would result from someone else engaging in such behavior? Quite simply, he is an example of the “politically correct” racist, meaning, a racist in favor of Israel and Judaism, and, unfortunately, he is only one of many who work diligently in keeping Americans from hearing the rest of the story. Only in a nation whose government, media, and culture have been hijacked by the interests of an ideology such as Zio-naziism could such statements have been made by an individual without any resulting serious repercussions. In a nation where someone is attacked in an overtly coordinated effort for merely speaking out against the verifiable history of Israeli violence and duplicity (or for that matter, simply making a film concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) the fact that individuals such as Daniel Pipes could get away with saying such things speaks volumes about what is the deplorable state of intellectual dishonesty in American society."

Where's the everywhere Jewish-enforced "separation of Church and state? The "separation of Synagogue and State" is, apparently, a non-issue.
In deference to Jewish justices, Supreme Court to delay opening,
By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Sept. 4, 2003
"The only pleas Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer will be hearing the first Monday of this October are their own, for atonement. For the first time in its 28-year tradition of opening its sessions on the first Monday of October, the Supreme Court will forego arguments in deference to its two Jewish judges, who will be observing Yom Kippur. Instead, the seven other judges will convene only to admit new attorneys to the highest court’s bar and to announce which cases they have decided to hear in the new season and which they have rejected. Arguments will begin only on Tuesday. This is not the first time the court has suspended arguments for the holiday. In 1995, the court suspended arguments when Yom Kippur fell on the first Wednesday of October ... This year’s announcement said the decision was made “so that Yom Kippur may be observed.” According to a clerk of Justice Felix Frankfurter in the mid-1940s, Louis Henkin, such deference was unimaginable in the time of Frankfurter, a Jewish justice who served on the court from 1939 to 1962. Jews were just happy to be employed by the court and would never have dreamed of asking for the day off, he said. “Things have changed. Religious demands have become more open, more insistent,” said Henkin, who is Sabbath observant and lives in New York."

Diplomatic disgrace, US Ambassador Charles Shapiro in hot water again,
VHeadline.com (Venezuela's Electronic News), Septembr 7, 2003
"President Hugo Chavez Frias has again criticized the visit by US Ambassador Charles Shapiro the National Electoral College (CNE) headquarters in Caracas as "flagrant interference in the domestic policies" of Venezuela as a sovereign and independent State. Speaking on his weekly radio/TV talk show 'Alo President,' Chavez Frias aimed sharp criticism directly at Shapiro saying "this is a sovereign country, Mr. Ambassador, you are obliged to respect this country." While drawing short of an outright declaration of the interfering US diplomatic busy-body as "persona non grata," Chavez Frias' intention was clearly one of resentment that Shapiro continues his campaign to undermine Venezuela's domestic policies ... "what he has done is clearly an interference by the United States in the domestic concerns of Venezuela." He says it is questionable that the CNE board should even have received the US Ambassador under such circumstances. "It really reeks very badly, smells very bad indeed that the Ambassador of the United States was indeed received there ... why not the Spanish or the Colombian Ambassadors ... why not convene all the ambassadors of the world and make an assembly out of it? What prerogative does Mr. Shapiro have to be received by the CNE, above all ahead of responsible national authorities ... and then to hold a press conference at CNE HQ ... this is a clear attitude of interference. But the blame does not just rest on Mr. Shapiro, the blame is fair and square on the CNE itself for allowing such audacity!"

Anti-Zionist Stirrings in America's Hinterlands,
by William Hughes, Media Monitors, Monday, September 08, 2003
"Question: Have the cumulative effects of the following: Israel's murderous attack, in 1967, on the USS Liberty, its 2003 killing of Rachel Corrie, its extraction, since 1948, of hundreds of billions of dollars from our treasury, its oppression of the Palestinian people, its creating more enemies for America in the Islamic World, and its manipulating President George W. Bush into the Iraq War, finally begun to stir anti-Zionist resentment in America's hinterlands' Columnist Ralph Peters thinks so. In a "NY Post" article, (09/03/03), Peters blasted Jonathan Pollard, the convicted Israeli spy, as "a traitor." The scummy Pollard was in a federal district court in Washington, DC, on Sept. 2nd, looking for a reduction in his life sentence. Peters didn't buy any of Pollard's lame excuses for betraying his native land, America, to an ungrateful Israel. Peters said, that Pollard, a genuine Zionist fantastic, "should have been executed for his crimes" against the American Republic. He stated, "No American may ever place the welfare of another state, or a religious group or ethnicity, above his or her obligation to our Constitution and our national security. No exceptions. None. Never." Now, this was all so very refreshing, especially since it came from the pages of a Rupert Murdock rag known for its shameless shilling for the Ariel Sharon Gang. However, it was Peters' reference to the fact that the egregious conduct of some of the Pentagon-connected Zionists wasn't playing well "in the hinterlands," which caught my attention. Peters, an ex-Army Intel officer, wrote: "Israel deserves U.S. support on many counts... But blind support leads to blind folly. Honest criticism is a higher form of loyalty than being a dupe. Some American Jews may not understand what a precarious time this is beyond Manhattan's bridges and tunnels. The appearance that a number of appointees at the upper reaches of the Pentagon allow their loyalty to Israel to excessively influence American foreign policy decisions does not play well in the hinterlands. This is not a matter of anti-Semitism. Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But they are first and foremost, pro-America' ... We have yet to see, however, what the reaction of the patriots in the American hinterlands will be when they reach the tipping point with respect to the chicanery of the Israel First Brigade."

Old, but relevant today. A former State Department officer actually tells the truth...
Oral History Interview with Edwin M. Wright General staff G-2 Middle East specialist, Washington, 1945-46; Bureau Near East-South Asian-African Affairs Department of State, since 1946, country specialist 1946-47, advisor U.N. affairs, 1947-50, advisor on intelligence 1950-55. Wooster, Ohio July 26, 1974,
by Richard D. McKinzie, Truman Presidential Museum and Library
"PREAMBLE Mr. Wright has asked that this letter be included as a preamble to his interview ... Dear Mr. Fuchs ... The material I gave Professor McKinzie was of a very controversial nature--one almost taboo in U.S. circles, inasmuch as I accused the Zionists of using political pressures and even deceit in order to get the U.S. involved in a policy of supporting a Zionist theocratic, ethnically exclusive and ambitious Jewish State. I, and my associates in the State Department, felt this was contrary to U.S. interests and we were overruled by President Truman. At the time I gave the interview, I had to relate many personal incidents for which, at the time, there was no evidence. In the past 30 months, a great deal of relevant material has been published which corroborates my story. Especially useful has been the publication of Foreign Relations of the United States 1948 Vol. V on the Near East, Part 2 by the Department of State which gives the original documents from which I quoted from memory. So I have added footnotes where verification is now available. In addition, Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists have frequently used the Hebrew Bible as an authority for justifying a Jewish State. As late as summer 1976, Candidate Jimmie Carter stated, "I am pro-Israeli, not because of political expediency, but because I believe Israel is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy." So the Bible--and belief that it is God's Holy Word and infallible, became a useful tool in Zionist propaganda. I take the point of view that the Bible is a mixture of Hebrew legends and myths and cannot be used as an element in U.S. foreign policy ...The Zionists were very successful in using religion for political purposes. This is prohibited by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states the Government should recognize no "religous establishment." In the case of Zionism and Israel, the U.S. has recognized and supported a religious establishment--viz: the State of Israel which in turn discriminates against all non-Jewish religions ... When I mailed to Professor McKinzie a typewritten statement to explain some of the documents I gave him, a group of my friends urged me to expand the material and publish it as an independent document. So I completely rewrote the material and published it as The Great Zionist Cover-Up. It is a much fuller statement of how the Zionists operate. I enclose a copy with the transcript. It also includes many references to books where a fuller treatment of the material may be obtained. Finally, my opposition to Zionism was on purely pragmatic grounds. I was convinced the Arabs would fight a Zionist Exclusive Expansionist Jewish State--because they saw it in operation during the period of the British mandate. So did I. I felt it was folly for the United States to support a State composed of such neurotic groups as I witnessed in Palestine (1942-46). The Orthodox Rabbis wanted to turn the clock back to 1200 B.C. Theocracy--and were really fanatic. They have produced such irrational and Expansionist groups as the Gush Emunim group, who openly defy the Israeli government and cannot be disciplined because they are so "Holy' ... Zionists, since Truman's decision in 1947-48, have lived in a Fool's Paradise. They assumed their control of the US government, press and public was permanent and based an "moral" values--therefore, the US at all times would give Israel total support. Zionists seem to live in a dream world of their own creation and think the rest of the world should accept their dream. ... Time is vindicating the point of view of those State Department specialists whom Truman said he could not trust because they were "anti-Semitic." His barb hurt and has left scars. Thank you for your patience and trouble. Sincerely, Edwin M. Wright."

AIPAC Policy Conference 2003 Transcripts,
AIPAC

Jewish Members of the 108th Congress,
Virtual Jerusalem
Senate (11— 2 Republicans, 9 Democrats)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Russ Feingold (D-WI) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)* Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Charles Schumer (D-NY) Arlen Specter (R-PA) Norm Coleman (R-MN)* Ron Wyden (D-OR) House (26— 1 Republican, 24 Democrats, 1 Independent)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY) Shelley Berkley (D-NV) Howard Berman (D-CA) Eric Cantor (R-VA) Ben Cardin (D-MD) Susan Davis (D-CA) Peter Deutsch (D-FL) Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)* Eliot Engel (D-NY) Bob Filner (D-CA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Martin Frost (D-TX) Jane Harman (D-CA) Steve Israel D-NY) Tom Lantos (D-CA) Sander Levin (D-MI) Nita Lowey (D-NY) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Steve Rothman (D-NJ) Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Adam Schiff (D-CA) Brad Sherman (D-CA) Henry Waxman (D-CA) Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Robert Wexler (D-FL)
*New members

Edward Teller, 'Father of H-Bomb,' Dies,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), September 10, 2003
"Edward Teller, who played a key role in U.S. defense and energy policies for more than half a century and was dubbed the "father of the H-bomb" for his enthusiastic pursuit of the powerful weapon, died Tuesday, a spokesman for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory said. He was 95. Teller died in Stanford, Calif., near the Hoover Institute where he served as a senior research fellow. Teller exerted a profound influence on America's defense and energy policies, championing the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, nuclear power and the Strategic Defense Initiative. Among honors he received were the Albert Einstein Award, the Enrico Fermi Award and the National Medal of Science. Yet Teller also will be remembered for his role in destroying the career of his one-time boss, Robert Oppenheimer - which alienated Teller from many of his colleagues - and for pushing the H-bomb and the Strategic Defense Initiative on grounds that, in the opinion of critics, were sketchy or dubious. Teller's staunch support for defense stemmed in part from two events that shaped his dark, distrustful view of world affairs - the 1919 communist revolution in his native Hungary and the rise of Nazism while he lived in Germany in the early 1930s ... Witty and personable, with a passion for playing the piano, Teller nevertheless was a persuasive Cold Warrior who influenced presidents of both parties. In 1939, he was one of three scientists who encouraged Einstein to alert President Franklin Roosevelt that the power of nuclear fission - the splitting of an atom's nucleus - could be tapped to create a devastating new weapon. Two years later, even before the first atom bomb was completed, fellow scientist Enrico Fermi suggested that nuclear fusion - fusing rather than splitting nuclei - might be used for an even more destructive explosive, the hydrogen bomb. Teller quickly took to the idea. Teller's enthusiasm and pursuit of such a bomb - he called it the "Super" - won him the title, "father of the H-bomb," a term he said he hated ... While Teller was beginning his work at Livermore, he began attacking Oppenheimer, who had directed the Manhattan Project. Teller claimed he had slowed development of the H-bomb, allowing the Soviet Union to catch up. In two secret interviews with the FBI in 1952 - made public under the Freedom of Information Act in 1977 - Teller made statements casting doubt on Oppenheimer's actions. The allegations became the basis for the most serious charges brought against Oppenheimer in 1954 when his security clearance was lifted. In his memoirs, Teller remained critical of Oppenheimer, but said the hearing was a mistake and he was stupid to testify ... Teller was right about the feasibility of the H-bomb, but he repeated the same pattern of seeming to oversell technology in 1983 when he persuaded President Reagan that space-based laser weapons could provide a secure anti-missile defense. Reagan bought the idea and proposed the multibillion-dollar Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed "Star Wars." Computer experts raised doubts early on about the reliability of the complex software required for a Star Wars system. But even as the evidence mounted that Star Wars would cost billions more than originally expected and would take years longer to develop, Teller continued to support it."

Neocons and Democrats,
by Alexander Cockburn, Free Press, September 10, 2003
"Beating up on neocons used to be a specialized sport without wide appeal. With all due false modesty, I offer myself as an earlier practitioner. Back in the mid-to-late '70s, when I had a weekly column in the Village Voice, I used to have rich sport with that apex neo-con, Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary ... Now here we are on the downslope of 2003, and George Bush is learning, way too late for his own good that the neo-cons have been matchlessly wrong about everything. One can burrow through the archives of historical folly in search of comparisons and still come up empty-handed. The neo-cons told Bush that eviction of Saddam would rearrange the chairs in the Middle East to America's advantage. Wrong. They told him it would unlock the door to a peaceful settlement in Israel. Wrong. They told him (I'm talking about Wolfowitz's team of mad Straussians at DoD) that there was irrefutable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Wrong. They told him the prime Iraqi exile group, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, had street cred in Iraq. Wrong. They told him it would be easy to install a U.S. regime in Baghdad and make the place hum quietly along, like Lebanon in the 1950s. Wrong. And, of course, the neocons, who have never forgiven the United Nations for Resolutions 242 and 338 (bad for Israel), told Bush that he should tell the U.N. to take its charter and shove it. Bush, who appreciates simple words and simple thoughts, took their advice, and last Sunday night had it served up to him by his speechwriters as crow, which he methodically ate in his 18-minute speech, saying the United Nations has an important role in Iraq."

Howard Dean isn't an anti-Zionist Savior, probably because his wife is Jewish, and they've been active in pro-Israel causes.
Lieberman accuses Dean of anti-Israel bias during presidential debate,
By JANINE ZACHARIA, Jerusalem Post, September 10, 2003
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut accused Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean of seeking to break the US-Israel alliance during a debate among presidential hopefuls on national television Tuesday night. Lieberman over the weekend criticized Dean, a former Vermont governor, for saying last week that it was not America's place "to take sides in the conflict." Dean also said that an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements must go. The criticism prompted further comments by Dean on Monday, in which he advocated on a morning news program that the US take a "middle path" if it wants to be an honest broker of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. In the debate Tuesday night in Baltimore, hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, Lieberman accused Dean of turning his back on Israel. "Howard Dean's statements break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republicans and Democrats, and members of Congress of both parties have supported our relationship with Israel based on shared values and common strategic interests," Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, said. Dean said he recognized the special relationship between the US and Israel but that "we need to be trusted by both sides. He claimed his position was no different from that of former president Bill Clinton. "Not right," Lieberman said, interrupting Dean. "We do not gain strength as a negotiator if we compromise on support of Israel," Lieberman said. Dean replied: "We need peace. It doesn't help, Joe, to demagogue this issue." Lieberman, who trails far behind Dean in the polls, appeared to be appealing to the American Jewish vote with his attack on Dean."

Folly Taken To A Scale We Haven't Seen Since WWII,
By Robert Fisk, The Independent (UK), September 2003
"When the attacks were launched against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon two years ago today, who had ever heard of Fallujah or Hillah? When the Lebanese hijacker flew his plane into the ground in Pennsylvania, who would ever have believed that President George Bush would be announcing a "new front line in the war on terror" as his troops embarked on a hopeless campaign against the guerrillas of Iraq? Who could ever have conceived of an American president calling the world to arms against "terrorism" in "Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza"? Gaza? What do the miserable, crushed, cruelly imprisoned Palestinians of Gaza have to do with the international crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania? Nothing, of course. Neither does Iraq have anything to do with 11 September. Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, any al-Qa'ida links with Iraq, any 45-minute timeline for the deployment of chemical weapons nor was there any "liberation". No, the attacks on 11 September have nothing to do with Iraq. Neither did 11 September change the world. President Bush cruelly manipulated the grief of the American people - and the sympathy of the rest of the world - to introduce a "world order" dreamed up by a clutch of fantasists advising the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. The Iraqi "regime change", as we now know, was planned as part of a Perle-Wolfowitz campaign document to the would-be Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu years before Bush came to power. It beggars belief that Tony Blair should have signed up to this nonsense without realising that it was no more nor less than a project invented by a group of pro-Israeli American neo-conservatives and right-wing Christian fundamentalists. But even now, we are fed more fantasy. Afghanistan - its American-paid warlords raping and murdering their enemies, its women still shrouded for the most part in their burqas, its opium production now back as the world's number one export market, and its people being killed at up to a hundred a week (five American troops were shot dead two weekends ago) is a "success", something which Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld still boast about. Iraq - a midden of guerrilla hatred and popular resentment - is also a "success". Yes, Bush wants $87bn to keep Iraq running, he wants to go back to the same United Nations he condemned as a "talking shop" last year, he wants scores of foreign armies to go to Iraq to share the burdens of occupation - though not, of course, the decision-making, which must remain Washington's exclusive imperial preserve. What's more, the world is supposed to accept the insane notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - the planet's last colonial war, although all mention of the illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank and Gaza have been erased from the Middle East narrative in the American press - is part of the "war on terror", the cosmic clash of religious will that President Bush invented after 11 September. Could Israel's interests be better served by so infantile a gesture from Bush? The vicious Palestinian suicide bombers and the grotesque implantation of Jews and Jews only in the colonies has now been set into this colossal struggle of "good" against "evil", in which even Ariel Sharon - named as "personally" responsible for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre by Israel's own commission of inquiry - is "a man of peace", according to Mr Bush. And new precedents are set without discussion. Washington kills the leadership of its enemies with impunity: it tries to kill Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and does kill Uday and Qusay Hussein and boasts of its prowess in "liquidating" the al-Qa'ida leadership from rocket-firing "drones". It tries to kill Saddam in Baghdad and slaughters 16 civilians and admits that the operation was "not risk-free". In Afghanistan, three men have now been murdered in the US interrogation centre at Bagram. We still don't know what really goes on in Guantanamo. What do these precedents mean? I have a dark suspicion. From now on, our leaders, our politicians, our statesmen will be fair game too. If we go for the jugular, why shouldn't they? ... Not since the Second World War have we seen folly on this scale. And it has scarcely begun."

Justice Breyer is Jewish. Two of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Jewish -- an overrepresentation, per their American population percentage, of about 1,000%. America has become "Jewish" in too many respects. To give Gentile the same representation on the Supreme Court as Jews now have, American would need to increase the court to hold 98 Supreme Court Justices on the Bench so the 2 Jews would equal their demographics. Some say any other solution is undemocratic and quite likely racist.
Breyer Says U.S. Could Learn From Israel,
By ANNE GEARAN, Guardian (UK, from Associated Press), September 12, 2003,
"The United States could learn from compromises Israeli courts have struck to balance terrorism and human rights concerns, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Friday. Israeli judges have adopted what Breyer called ``intermediate solutions'' that acknowledge the security risks the country faces, the justice told an audience at Columbia Law School. ``There are many solutions that ... solve nothing to everyone's satisfaction but are not quite as restrictive of human rights as an extreme solution, nor as dangerous as some other extremes,'' Breyer said ... Without mentioning the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Breyer said the Israeli experience is especially relevant to U.S. courts now. He stopped short of endorsing Israeli solutions but praised Justice Aharon Barak, president of the Israeli Supreme Court, who also spoke at Columbia. ``He's had to implement that kind of system, and when I read what he's done in particular cases, I think, yes, we have something to learn that could prove to be topical.''

The Only Way Out Is Forward,
By Col. Mike Turner, Newsweek, September 2003
" It's hard to overstate how profoundly the Vietnam War shaped America's political and military thinking for decades after that conflict ended. I spent my entire military career living and working within its shadow. Vietnam's aftermath changed our tactics, our command-and-force structure and our understanding of the significant analysis and planning, both military and political, that must precede every major, modern military operation. In Vietnam, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and Gen. Colin Powell experienced firsthand the colossal hubris of our political leaders and watched their mistakes kill tens of thousands of American troops. The so-called Powell Doctrine was born in those jungles, in the crucible of that nightmare, and it wasn't until Operation Desert Storm that these two remarkably gifted Americans, as much statesmen as warriors, were able to demand from our political leadership the kind of prudent restraint, fact-based analysis and broad international support upon which any modern global military action must be based. Without this kind of due diligence, it is extremely difficult to truly win the war, but it is impossible to win the peace. The point is, though it took all of us 20 years to fully absorb the lessons of Vietnam, we learned them. The stunning and absolute victory of Desert Storm was no accident. It was based squarely on the lessons of Vietnam: before you commit U.S. troops, know and isolate your enemy, precisely define military success, precisely define how and when you will disengage U.S. troops and, most importantly, whenever possible obtain U.N. sanction and long-term, multinational, multiorganizational support to share the burden ... . All that is why what is now occurring in Iraq is so profoundly and viscerally offensive to those of us who thought we had moved past this point in American history. It is simply inconceivable to me that a U.S. administration could have made so many of the same mistakes made by the Johnson-McNamara group of thirty years ago. In a word, I'm outraged. This is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. And this Administration should be held responsible for its conduct in the next election. Once again, the politicians have handed the military the nightmare scenario. ... Retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner was a personal assistant to Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf and served as the air operations briefing officer in the war room in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during Desert Storm. From 1993-1997, Colonel Turner worked as a Middle East/Africa politico-military policy planner on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, working for two years for then Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark."

Carter Urges U.S. on Mideast Peace Push. Former President Carter Urges Bush to Push Harder, Be Evenhanded in U.S. Push for Mideast Peace,
ABC News, September 15, 2003
"The Bush administration must push harder and be evenhanded to revive sagging peace hopes in the Middle East, former President Carter said Monday. In an Associated Press interview 25 years after the Camp David accords, Carter said Israel and the Palestinians had not only abandoned the U.S.-backed road map for peace but had violated it Israel by threatening the "removal" of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He suggested the Bush administration was tilted toward Israel. "At this point, prospects are dismal," Carter said. "The U.S. does not seem to be making any strong effort to implement" the road map outlined by President Bush, and the other parties to the blueprint the United Nations, the European Union and Russia are not very involved, he said ... "The United States is not being evenhanded," Carter said by telephone from his home in Plains, Ga. "You have to have a mediator, willing to negotiate freely with both sides, and equally firmly with both sides"... Israel's official decision to "remove" Arafat, which Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested Sunday might mean killing, exile or isolation, also drew strong criticism from Carter. "It just sends a wave of increasing animosity not only through the Palestinians but the entire world," he said. "That statement and others are totally contrary to the position of the U.S. government, as well. The road map is supposed to preclude exile."

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2002 Congressional Candidates,
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003
"Top Ten 2002, Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds House: Current Cycle Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) Davis, Artur (D-AL) Majette, Denise (D-GA) Gephardt, Richard (D-MO) Cantor, Eric (R-VA) Hastert, J Dennis (R-IL) Levin, Sander (D-MI) Maloney, James (D-CT) Swett, Katrina (D-NH) Engel, Eliot (D-NY) House: Career Gejdenson, Sam (D-CT) Gephardt, Richard (D-MO) Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) Obey, David (D-WI) Frost, Martin (D-TX) Engel, Eliot (D-NY) Levin, Sander (D-MI) Lowey, Nita (D-NY) Gilman, Benjamin (R-NY) Evans, Lane (D-IL) ... Senate: Current Cycle Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Cleland, Max (D-GA) Levin, Carl (D-MI) Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Carnahan, Jean (D-MO) Baucus, Max (D-MT) Durbin, Richard (D-IL) Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Smith, Gordon (R-OR) Senate: Career Levin, Carl (D-MI) Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) Specter, Arlen (R-PA) McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Durbin, Richard (D-IL) Baucus, Max (D-MT) Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) Robb, Charles (D-VA)"

The Genetically Modified Bomb,
by Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams, September 10, 2003
"Imagine a bomb that only kills Caucasians with red hair. Or short people. Or Arabs. Or Chinese. Now imagine that this new bomb could be set off anywhere in the world, and that within a matter of days, weeks, or months it would kill every person on the planet who fits the bomb's profile, although the rest of us would be left standing. And the bomb could go off silently, without anybody realizing it had been released - or even where it was released - until its victims started dying in mass numbers. Who would imagine such a thing? Paul Wolfowitz, for one. William Kristol for another ... Thus, anybody who's part of a group with a shared genetic profile may be at risk in the future, suggest the authors of The Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" ... Consider the political leverage a nation would have if they could credibly threaten the extinction of all people worldwide with almond-shaped eyes, or the sterilization of everybody with a gene that tracks them back to a common ancestor or region. Three years ago, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and their colleagues suggested this is something the Pentagon should be thinking about. Not just germ warfare, but gene warfare. And it's not limited just to warfare: Imagine how genetic terraforming could replace diplomacy, could even render the United Nations irrelevant if entire ethnic groups were wiped out or could be controlled by the threat of extinction. Or how it could change the face of politics if an organism got loose that killed off all the people of a particular minority who tend to vote for a particular political party. Genetically targeted weapons could change world politics forever, according to PNAC. "And," their report notes, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." Given that Kristol, Wolfowitz, and their conservative PNAC associates like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, and John Bolton have already brought us two of their early 1998 recommendations - the seizure of Iraq and a huge increase in defense spending - it's tempting to wonder if this is another of their other politically useful ideas being explored by the Pentagon. Or maybe we'd rather not know. At least not those of us with politically problematic relatives."

Yet another wolf guarding the henhouse. "Amit Yoran" is Israeli. Interesting fact: "Adjusting for the number of Internet users in each country, the intensity of attacks from Israel is nearly double the attack intensity rate of any other individual country."
White House Names Yoran as Cybersecurity Chief,
By Roy Mark, siliconvalley.internet.com, September 15, 2003
"Amit Yoran, the founder of an Internet government security firm and a current vice president at Symantec, has been named by the Bush administration to head the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) cybersecurity division. In his new role, Yoran will be responsible for implementing the administration's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a report issued by the White House in February that depends more on private industry cooperation than government mandates and regulations ... Yoran is the co-founder of Riptech, an Alexandria, Va.-based firm that focused on government cybersecurity. In July of last year, Symantec bought Riptech for $145 million and Yoran stayed on as vice president for managed security services. Before joining Riptech, Yoran was director of the vulnerability assessement program for the Defense Department's computer emergency response team."

If Israel can ignore the IAEA, why should anyone else listen?,
Daily Star (Lebanon), September 16, 2003
"Media reports on Monday suggested that this week’s annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will include a serious discussion of Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. One can only hope that this takes place, that the long-running grievances of Arab and other countries are finally given their just due. With accusations relating to weapons of mass destruction having been a large part of the US pretext for invading Iraq and Iran now facing heavy pressure over similar claims, the double standard involving the Jewish state ­ which has steadfastly refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ­ has become too obvious to ignore any longer. None of this has deterred the Israelis, though, from speaking out against the alleged ambitions of others. In fact, Israel has been at the forefront of countries demanding that the IAEA get tough with Iran. The Israelis are not at all embarrassed that Tehran is a signatory to the NPT and they are not; nor does it bother them that no one thinks the Islamic Republic has nuclear weapons, while the Jewish state is estimated by experts to possess something in the order of 200-300 warheads, not to mention a variety of air-, land- and sea-based delivery systems. The unbridled hypocrisy of Israeli policy and rhetoric on this issue constitutes a major test for the IAEA, and indeed for two cornerstones of modern diplomacy: arms control and collective security. If the presumed violations of some countries are to be “punished” pre-emptively while those of others go unchecked, there is little point in cooperating with the co-opted organization that enforces its own regulations according to Washington’s whim. Israeli impunity relies on America for its sustenance, and the nuclear question is a case in point: US law is very clear in banning foreign aid to countries that either do not sign or fail to obey the NPT, but somehow more than $3 billion in illegal funds gets from Washington to Israel every year with nary a word of protest on Capitol Hill. If America is unwilling to comply with its own laws when these do not suit Israel’s purposes, why should anyone trust it to undertake an accurate accounting of international security arrangements? And if the IAEA is unwilling to assert its independence in the face of pressure from Washington, why should any of its members bother to help maintain the pretense that signed agreements mean anything at all?"

Having a Jewish wife won't save Dean,
By Zev Chafets, Jewish World Review, Septembr 16, 2003
"Many Jews aren't laughing at his latest outburst Last week, in the presidential free-for-all in Baltimore, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) blasted [Vermont governor and candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency] Dean for saying during a campaign stop a few days earlier that he wouldn't take sides in the Middle East. Dean added that he'd be "evenhanded," which in standard State Department English means pro-Palestinian. Later, Dean pleaded ignorance of the significance of the coded phrase. If so, his lack of diplomatic sophistication makes the pre-presidential George W. Bush look like Henry Kissinger. Lieberman also accused the Vermont Volcano of breaking a tradition of bipartisan presidential support for the Jewish State that goes back to Harry Truman. ... Dean's unmistakable ideological resemblance to Carter won't help the Vermont Democrat among supporters of Israel. Here's a hint to the Dean campaign: He won't be able to hide behind Bill Clinton — or Dr. Judith Steinberg. On a campaign stop in Iowa, Dean was asked by a woman named Norma Jean Sharp about his position on Israel. According to The Weekly Standard, Dean replied, "They'll be all right. ... I'm not going to let anything happen to Israel. My wife is Jewish." Jewish relatives are a dime a dozen in this year's Democratic field, from John Kerry's long-lost grandparents to Wesley Clark's departed Yiddishe papa. Heck, even Joe Lieberman has a Jewish wife."

Dean-Lieberman dustup reflects focus of Israel as political issue,
By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 16, 2003
"[Presidential candidate Joseph] Lieberman seized his opportunity when a reporter overheard [Democatic rival Howard] Dean’s comment to a supporter at a Santa Fe, N.M. rally. “I don’t find it convenient to blame people. Nobody should have violence, ever. But they do, and it’s not our place to take sides,” Dean said. Lieberman was soon chiding Dean at a debate. “Howard Dean’s statements break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republican and Democratic, members of Congress of both parties, have supported our relationship with Israel, based on shared values,” he said. Attacking Dean on Israel made sense for Lieberman, Wrighton said, because it’s an issue with which the Jewish senator from Connecticut is comfortable. “Lieberman has to differentiate himself, and he has experience here, and it’s an issue that is dear to one of his constituencies,” he said. Another factor was Dean’s front-runner status ... Supporters in Congress of another candidate, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri — who likely will face a tough challenge from Dean in the Iowa caucuses in February — wrote Dean a letter, saying: “We believe it is wrong to say the U.S. should ‘not take sides’ in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.” They wrote, “In these difficult times, we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel’s survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement.” For his part, Dean said, “I’ve learned that ‘even-handed’ is a sensitive word in certain communities.” He added, “perhaps I should have used a different euphemism.” Speaking to a CNN interviewer last week, he accused his political rivals of “demagoguery” and said, “What Joe and others are doing on Israel is despicable,” singling out Lieberman ... “Answering a question in the backyard is not a way to explain Israel policy,” said Steve Grossman, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, who is a close adviser to Dean. “There will be no light” between Israel and the United States in a Dean administration, he said. However brutish the debate, such exchanges can prove useful in clarifying positions and educating the candidates. Dean’s willingness to learn is a positive outcome, and suggests he’ll pay better attention to nuance, said the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, who wrote Dean asking for a clarification. “When I first met Gov. Bush, we discussed a lot of issues and he said, ‘I hadn’t thought about that,’” Foxman recalled. “It’s a learning curve. Dean’s sensitivity, and his understanding that this caused a lot of anxiety, is what’s important.”

U.S. May Study Israel Occupation Tactics,
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Yahoo! News, (from Associated Press), September 18,. 2003
"In an apparent search for pointers on how to police a hostile population, the U.S. military that's trying to bring security to Iraq is showing interest in Israeli software instructing soldiers on how to behave in the West Bank and Gaza, an Israeli military official said Thursday. Using animated graphics and clips from movies like "Apocalypse Now," the software outlines a "code of conduct" for avoiding abuse of civilians while manning roadblocks, searching homes and conducting other activities, said Lt. Col. Amos Guiora, head of the School of Military Law. Israeli troops have frequently faced criticism from Palestinian and human rights groups. Two weeks ago, Amnesty International said in a report that Israeli military checkpoints and curfews violate Palestinians' human rights. U.S. soldiers have also faced criticism in Iraq, where they have been accused of using excessive force. In a reflection of tensions in Iraq, guerrillas ambushed two U.S. military convoys Thursday, wounding two soldiers. And a nervous American patrol shot at a wedding party late Wednesday, killing a 14-year-old boy and wounding six other people after mistaking celebratory gunfire for an attack, witnesses said. Guiora told The Associated Press that U.S. military officials had recently seen the software, which was developed this year, and expressed interest. As a result, he said, the military is now working on an English version for them."

Latest contender for president comes from long line of rabbis,
By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 17, 2003
"Raised a Southern Baptist who later converted to Roman Catholicism, Gen. Wesley Clark knew just what to say when he strode into a Brooklyn yeshiva in 1999, ostensibly to discuss his leadership of NATO´s victory in Yugoslavia. "I feel a tremendous amount in common with you," the uniformed four-star general told the stunned roomful of students. "I am the oldest son, of the oldest son, of the oldest son — at least five generations, and they were all rabbis." The incident could be a signal of how Clark, who became the 10th contender in the Democratic run for the presidency on Wednesday, relates to the Jews and the issues dear to them. Apparently Clark, 58, revels in his Jewish roots. He told The Jewish Week in New York, which first reported the yeshiva comment in 1999, that his ancestors were not just Jews, but members of the priestly caste of Kohens. Clark´s Jewish father, Benjamin Kanne, died when he was 4, but he has kept in touch with his father´s family since his 20s, when he rediscovered his Jewish roots. He is close to a first cousin, Barry Kanne, who heads a pager company in Georgia. Clark shares more than sentimental memories with Jews. He couples liberal domestic views that appeal to much of the Jewish electorate with a soldier´s sympathy for Israel´s struggle against terror. Appearing in June on "Meet the Press" on CBS, Clarke said he agreed with President Bush´s assessment that Israel should show more restraint, a reference to the policy of targeting terrorist leaders for assassination. "But the problem is," Clark continued, "when you have hard intelligence that you´re about to be struck, it´s the responsibility of a government to take action against that intelligence and prevent the loss of lives. It´s what any society would expect of its leadership. So there´s a limit to how much restraint can be shown." Speaking to the New Democrat Network this year, Clark said that dismantling Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat´s Ramallah headquarters was "a legitimate military objective from their perspective. "For the Israelis, this is a struggle really for the existence of Israel," Clark said in remarks quoted on a support group´s Web site. Clark is also tough on neighboring Arab states, expecting more from them in nudging the Palestinians toward peace ... One of the leaders of the Draft Clark campaign said Clark´s strength on foreign policy would neutralize an advantage President Bush now has with Jews, and would bring the debate back to domestic issues, where the Bush administration is weaker with Jews. "It makes him credible and allows him to focus on domestic policy," Brent Blackaby said in a telephone interview from Clark´s campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Ark. Two of Clark´s top advisers are Jews who had prominent roles in the Clinton and Gore campaigns. Eli Segal was a top adviser to President Clinton in his first term; Ron Klain helped run Vice President Al Gore´s 2000 campaign."

Thinking About Neoconservatism,
By Kevin MacDonald, VDare, September 18, 2003
"Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so? The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure. Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that “the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest: “[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry. For example, it is certainly true that the neocons’ foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S. Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives — but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community. Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof. We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one. Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world. But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion. Now, however, as the U.S. acquires an empire in the Middle East, this ban must inevitably fall away. My views on these issues are shaped by my research on several other influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements, including the Boasian school of anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, Marxism and several other movements of the radical left, as well as the movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional immigration. My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work. I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests. In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All center on charismatic Jewish leaders—people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud— who are revered as messianic, god-like figures. Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee) ... Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration: (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan). As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker: “I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish ‘Question’.” Strauss has become a cult figure—the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples. While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives — and have even claimed to be simply “conservatives”— there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel. But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests. Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived. But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science—languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principle actors."

Why Israel?,
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, [Editorial], September 19, 2003
"Putting aside the second-class citizenship of the non-Jews in Israel and the spying of Jonathan Pollard and who knows how many others and the stealing of enriched uranium for their nuclear bombs, it is granted that Israel has some kind of representative government. So does Palestine. So what? The U.S.A. has given Israel $100 billion directly and the second Iraqi war is being fought for the benefit of Israel. The total cost to us is on the order of a quarter of $1 trillion. What has Israel ever done for us? Now comes Senator Joseph Lieberman, who says it is a tradition for us to support Israel; therefore, I guess, we support Israel. Can one imagine him as President making decisions on that basis?"

Dean Mideast Gaffes Seen Hurting Chances Frontrunner issues ‘mea culpas,’
by James D. Besser, Jewish Week, September 19, 2003
"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the frontrunner in the crowded race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, was furiously backtracking this week after demanding that the United States not “take sides” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But that might not be enough to avoid a costly backlash from some pro-Israel campaign donors and voters in several key states, observers say ... Several leading political scientists and Jewish politicos say Dean’s defense — that he doesn’t yet understand the nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — could add to his problems, especially with Jewish givers. “So far this is being followed by just a narrow circle, mostly inside the Beltway,” said Kenneth Goldstein, a University of Wisconsin political scientist. “But part of that circle are campaign contributors. And even if their fears are allayed in the short term, his comment that he said that because he’s really inexperienced and not very careful with his language could come back to hurt him.” A top pro-Israel fund-raiser put it in starker terms. “We have very long memories,” this source said. “I don’t think he can recover from it. If his best defense is that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s going to have a lot of trouble with the people in our community who write the checks.” Dean’s woes, this source said, could bolster GOP fund raising among Jewish donors, which Republican sources say has been rising rapidly in recent weeks. The controversy started two weeks ago at a campaign stop in New Mexico when Dean, in response to a question, said the U.S. must be more “evenhanded” in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that “it’s not our place to take sides.” He also said Israel must abandon “an enormous number” of settlements. That prompted sharp attacks from Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts, two of Dean’s top rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lieberman, who is struggling to keep up in a party that seems to be shifting to the left, accused Dean of advocating a “reversal of American foreign policy for 50 years.” Kerry used the controversy to reinforce his claim that Dean is not ready for prime time. Even more telling was a letter from 31 House Democrats, authored by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.). “This is not a time to be sending mixed messages,” the lawmakers wrote. “On the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel’s survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement.” In a CNN interview, Dean acknowledged that he “could have used a different euphemism” for describing his view of the proper U.S. stance toward the region ... Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, said the continuing controversy is unlikely to play much of a role in the Democratic primaries. “But the general election is something else again,” he said. “A Democrat needs about 75 to 80 percent of the Jewish vote, and the contributions that come along with the support. Should Dean or any Democrat fall to 60 to 65 percent, even though that is a large majority, the Republican would have enough to win in key states.”

Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV,
by Paul Craig Roberts, LewRockwell.com, September 20, 2003
"It is now absolutely certain that the American public and President Bush were bamboozled into invading Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, an unsavory assortment of lesser neo-Jacobin notables who inhabit the higher reaches of the Bush administration, and their neo-Jacobin allies in the Likud Party controlled media in New York City and Washington DC. On September 17 President Bush confessed his folly: "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Yet according to polls, a majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Whose propaganda led Americans to this utterly mistaken belief? An extensive search in Iraq has failed to turn up any evidence of any weapons of mass destruction, much less nuclear weapons. The image of "mushroom clouds going up over American cities," which was used to panic Congress into accepting an invasion of Iraq, has turned out to be – as every expert knew at the time – nothing but propaganda worthy of Heinrich Himmler and Paul Joseph Goebbles. The fabrications about Iraq’s intentions toward the US rival Hitler’s declaration that Poland had attacked Germany. Consider the implications if Saddam Hussein really had possessed WMD – especially ones that could be deployed in 45 minutes as asserted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair: the entire US-British invasion force, concentrated in a tiny area of Kuwait, could have been destroyed by one or two weapons. If Bush really believed Iraq had WMD, he was criminally negligent for making sitting ducks out of our troops. Senator Ted Kennedy is correct when he said on September 18 that the case against Iraq was "a fraud" made up to give Republicans a political boost. As much as I hate to admit it, the evidence is on Senator Kennedy’s side. However, being caught red-handed in fraud does not deter neo-Jacobins with an agenda. Clutching firmly to their propaganda that Iraqis are desperate to shower US troops with flowers and kisses but are prevented by dead-enders among the Saddam Hussein remnants, neo-Jacobins now agitate for invading Syria and Iran. On September 16, Undersecretary of State John Bolton in testimony before Congress declared Syria to be a "rogue state" armed with weapons of mass destruction and called for "regime change." On September 17, Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter testified to Congress that Iran has the ability to launch missiles with biological warheads and that Iran’s nuclear program is a genuine threat both to the Middle East and the US. On September 19, Paul Bremer, head of the US occupation government in Iraq, suggested in an interview with The Telegraph (UK) that Iran was involved in the bombings and killings of occupational forces in Iraq, echoing neo-Jacobin Michael Ladeen’s assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq unless it overthrows Iran. Here we go again. The same propaganda. Only the targets are new. Where will the troops come from to invade Iran and Syria? ... Yet, President Bush’s anti-Arab policymakers want to greatly multiply the attacks on our troops by inserting them into Syria and Iran! Are the neo-Jacobins in charge of the US government totally delusional? Are they totally disconnected from reality? Or is this more fraud to start two more wars before the American public wakes up to the neo-Jacobin agenda? The neo-Jacobins are rushing to get America involved in a general Middle Eastern war before Americans have time to think. The terrorist scare which worked the first time is being employed again. Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons. If the American public falls for the second round of neo-Jacobin propaganda, neither do they deserve, nor will they have, liberty and democracy. The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads. Israel has the real thing, not a mere desire for a program that might produce a weapon in the future. It is Israel – not Iran – who has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is Israel that occupies by force of arms parts of Syria and Palestine. Arabs do not occupy Israeli territory. It is Israel that treats Palestinians the way National Socialists treated Jews by bottling them up in ghettos and assassinating them at will. On September 18 President Bush declared: "Arafat has failed as a leader." What Bush means is that Arafat, unlike Bush, has failed to carry out Israel’s orders. Arafat’s support in Palestine far exceeds Bush’s support in the US or Sharon’s support in Israel. Every day the Israelis bite off another piece of Palestine. Arafat is a "failed leader" because he has not led Palestinians off into the wilderness for 40 years, the better to deliver Palestine up to Israel. The root of the Middle Eastern problem is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise. Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly in their disputes with Arabs. The inability of the US to impose an evenhanded settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the breeding ground of terrorists. The US invasion of Iraq has bred more terrorists. Bush’s neo-Jacobins will not be content until they have 600 million enraged Muslims at our throats. How did maniacs dead set on World War IV get in control of the US government?"

Israel Rejects U.N. Resolution on Arafat,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), September 20, 2003
"Israel dismissed a U.N. resolution demanding it retract threats to remove Yasser Arafat while the Palestinian leader hailed the vote Saturday, calling it an important sign of support for the Palestinians. The overwhelming vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Friday - 133 nations endorsed the measure - came as the incoming Palestinian prime minister vigorously defended Arafat, saying he is key to peace efforts and the United States should treat him as a real partner. Prime Minister-designate Ahmed Qureia's criticism of U.S. policy was the strongest sign yet he does not plan to challenge Arafat, whom Israel and the United States tried to circumvent by pressing for the creation of the post of prime minister. Instead, Arafat appears to have maintained a central role, handpicking Qureia after the resignation of the first prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, and moving to shape a Cabinet of loyalists from his Fatah party. Bush said Thursday that Arafat "had a failed as leader" and accused him of forcing out Abbas, who resigned Sept. 6 after wrangling with Arafat for months. Qureia called Bush's statement "regrettable" and said it "does not serve the peace process." "Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinian people and represents the will of these people," Qureia told The Associated Press on Friday. "President Arafat is a real partner." Arafat also responded Friday. "You have to know we are the authority of the Palestinians that has been recognized by all the Palestinians," he told ABC News. Bush "has to remember that President Clinton was dealing with me, his father was dealing with me. And he was in the beginning with me." Arafat's popularity soared after Israel's decision on Sept. 11 to "remove" him at an unspecified time. Israeli officials have suggested he may be exiled, killed or simply isolated at his shattered compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah. A first attempt at the United Nations to condemn the Israeli decision was thwarted by the United States, which vetoed a Security Council resolution because it did not censure the Palestinians for suicide bombings that have killed more than 400 Israelis in nearly three years of fighting. But Friday in the General Assembly, Palestinian diplomats won the support of the European Union and many African states by adding a condemnation of suicide bombings to match language in the resolution deploring Israel's "extrajudicial killings and their recent escalation" ... Only two other countries - Micronesia and the Marshall Islands - joined Israel and the United States in opposing the resolution, though 15 nations did abstain. General Assembly resolutions - unlike those of the powerful U.N. Security Council - aren't legally binding. But they do carry symbolic weight."

THE NEO-JACOBINS. Why the neocons abhor the spotlight,
by Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, October 1, 2003
"Surely it isn't modesty that makes the neocons shy away from the spotlight. Yet how else can we explain Joshua Muravchik's shock at the sudden discovery that entering the term "neoconservative" into Lexis-Nexis will cause an aborted search because "the number of entries exceeds the program's capacity"? That's what's so unique about the neocons: any other political movement would welcome all that publicity. But not them. Oh no: quite the contrary. Until very recently, most neocons denied their very existence as a coherent faction. Irving Kristol, author of Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, is the only self-admitted member of the species, and, as such, to him has fallen the task of issuing pronouncements in its name, such as this recent manifesto. But the neocons have been outed, so to speak, by their own success: not in building a mass movement, but in penetrating the top echelons of the U.S. government. As our great "victory" in Iraq turns out to have been purely Pyrrhic, people are casting about for some explanation. How did we fall into this quagmire quickly becomes: who dragged us in? A surprising number of ideologically diverse writers have come up with a similar answer: the neocons. Spanning the spectrum, from left to right, they include Michael Lind, Elizabeth Drew, Pat Buchanan, Joshua Micah Marshall, Jim Lobe, Paul Craig Roberts, to mention just a few. But Muravchik, writing in Commentary [September 2003], protests ... Muravchik scoffs at the idea that the neocons owe much of anything either to the cult of Leo Strauss, the philosopher of the "noble lie," or to Leon Trotsky, whose legacy informed such proto-neocons as Max Shachtman, Philip Selznick, and Irving Kristol. I will pass, for the moment, on the subject of the Straussian connection, since I have never been able to read a single one of Strauss's books all the way through. I am told that he is boring on purpose, because, you see, only the dogged few will get the true – esoteric – meaning. This seems fitting for a philosophy that, from what I can tell, is founded on the primacy of deception. Clearly this methodology is tailor-made for the gang that lied us into war ... But there is plenty to see, first and foremost the Trotskyist DNA embedded in the neocon foreign policy prescription. ... Albert Wohlstetter, the grand-daddy of what Lind calls the "defense intellectuals" – and who has a conference center named after him over at Neocon Central, the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, D.C. – was a member of the League for a Revolutionary Party (LRP), a Trotskyist grouplet founded in the 1930s by B. J. Field, a labor leader who led the New York hotel strike of 1934. (A close associate of his at the Rand Corporation has confirmed this to me.) Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seymour Martin Lipset, Martin Diamond, all were members of Max Shachtman's Workers Party, and then split into their own faction, the "Shermanites," who upheld an ostensibly revolutionary socialist doctrine that was, nonetheless, avowedly "anti-Bolshevik." And what about Sidney Hook, who never renounced socialism and yet was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Ronald Reagan: what is he, chopped liver? It's not like the neocons' Trotskyist legacy is any big secret. Even Jonah Goldberg knows about this. Jeanne Kirkpatrick's reminiscences of her education in the Young Peoples' Socialist League (YPSL, known as Yipsels) were a matter of public record until the Social Democrats USA took it off their website. Speaking of the YPSL, Muravchik is the past national chairman of that group. If he is saying that he knows of only one leading neocon with any roots in the Trotskyist movement, then perhaps he ought to be introduced to – himself ... If Muravchik wishes to deny that the neocons pursue the Likud party line with as much alacrity as the old Communist party cadre once followed the Soviet line, then I challenge him to come up with a single instance in which a prominent neocon criticized the government of Israel. In any dispute between Israel and the U.S., when has any neoconservative taken the American side? The answer is: never. Muravchik makes much of the Jewish heritage of many neocons, and tries to conflate anti-neocons with anti-Semities. But the ethnic factor is a historical accident: the really significant factor is the intellectual history of the neoconservative idea, especially as it relates to American foreign policy."

AP: FBI Sent Hamas Money in Late 1990's,
Yahoo! News (From Associated Press), Oct 6, 2003
"While President Clinton (news - web sites) was trying to broker an elusive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the FBI was secretly funneling money to suspected Hamas figures to see if the militant group would use it for terrorist attacks, according to interviews and court documents. The counterterrorism operation in 1998 and 1999 was run out of the FBI's Phoenix office in cooperation with Israeli intelligence and was approved by Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI officials told The Associated Press. Several thousand dollars in U.S. money was sent to suspected terror supporters during the operation as the FBI tried to track the flow of cash through terror organizations, the FBI said in a rare acknowledgment of an undercover sting that never resulted in prosecutions. "This was done in conjunction with permission from the attorney general for an ongoing operation, and Israeli authorities were aware of it," the bureau said. One of the FBI's key operatives, who has had a falling out with the bureau, provided an account of the operation at a friend's closed immigration court proceeding. AP obtained and reviewed the court documents. Arizona businessman Harry Ellen testified he permitted the FBI to bug his home, car and office, allowed his Muslim foundation's activities in the Gaza Strip to be monitored by agents, arranged a peace meeting between major Palestinian activists and gained personal access to Yasser Arafat during more than four years of cooperation with the FBI. Ellen's FBI handler in the late 1990s was Kenneth Williams, an agent who later became famous for writing a pre-Sept. 11 memo to FBI headquarters warning there were Arab pilots training at U.S. flight schools. The warning went unheeded. Ellen, a Muslim convert, testified he was taking a trip to the Gaza Strip to bring doctors to the region in summer 1998 when Williams asked him to provide money to a Hamas figure ...Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, said in an interview that the White House wasn't informed of the FBI activities. "We were not aware of any such operation," Berger said. Ellen testified the operation ended abruptly in early 1999 when he and Williams had a series of disagreements over the operation, disputes that began when Ellen angered the FBI by having an affair with a Chinese woman suspected of espionage. FBI officials said they tried to get Ellen to end the relationship and his work was terminated for failing to follow rules."

U.S. Should Tell Israel It's on the Wrong Road,
by James Klurfeld, Newsday, October 9, 2003
"Just as trying to be an honest broker in the Middle East does not mean giving equivalence to every act committed by Israel and the Palestinians, being a friend to Israel does not mean that the United States should condone everything and anything Israel does. If you see a friend going down a dangerous road, you have an obligation to warn the friend. I've criticized the media when they equated Israel's reaction to terrorism with the acts of terrorists themselves. There is no equivalence between terrorism and self-defense. The tendency to give equal condemnation to both is not only factually inaccurate but also morally wrong. But when Israel goes down a path that is fraught with negative consequences - both for it and for the United States - Washington has an obligation to say so. Israel's decision to send a warning shot across Syria's bow this week is such an example. Attacking Syria is a step that Israel has not taken in at least 20 years and represents a step down a slippery slope that does not appear justified by recent events. Does Syria provide a safe haven for leaders of terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad? Obviously. Would both the Israel and the United States be better off if it stopped that support? Yes. But the most recent atrocity committed against Israel, the bombing in Haifa that killed 19, was staged and organized from within the West Bank not Syria, according to almost all reports. There is a Curly, Moe and Larry quality to the Israeli reaction - if the guy on the left hits you, hit the guy on the right. That is disturbing. But my concern is much more with the Bush administration for giving Israel a green light for this action and, by implication, further actions. Israel, after all, is being asked to absorb an intolerable level of violence. The attack on Syria borders on the reckless. It opens the possibility of an escalation of hostilities that could lead to large-scale bloodshed in the region and is almost certainly not in the United States' interest given the task it faces in Iraq ... [T]he Bush administration seems to be backing [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon on anything he does. A measure of how radical a departure this administration's foreign policy is that it has abandoned any pretense of being a fair broker in the region and has consistently sided with Israel. The same neo-conservative group of officials that brought us the war in Iraq seems to be behind the Israel-is-always-right policy of the administration."

[Klayman is a Jewish convert to Christianity.]
Larry Klayman Enters Fla. Race for Senate,
ABC News, October 9, 2003
"What do Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro have in common? Each has been sued by Larry Klayman. The prosecutor-turned-watchdog also has brought cases against Iraq, the State Department, the Teamsters even his mother. Now, after nearly a decade of legal activism, Klayman is turning his attention to politics. He has entered the race for the Republican nomination for the Florida Senate seat held by Bob Graham, who ended his Democratic presidential bid this week ... Klayman's penchant for litigation is so pronounced it is difficult to find people to talk about him; some are afraid of being sued. "He opens up all the elephant guns in cases that perhaps don't really require that," said Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University. Born in Philadelphia, the 52-year-old Klayman is a former Justice Department lawyer and international trade attorney. He became renowned - critics say infamous - after founding the conservative, Washington-based watchdog group Judicial Watch in 1994."

Supreme Court Justice Breyer Is No John Marshall,
By William Hughes, Media Monitors, October 9, 2003
"There are nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest legal authority in the land. Unfortunately, one of them is an apologist for Zionist Israel and the regime of Ariel Sharon. His name is Stephen G. Breyer. He acts like he wants to "compromise" our civil and legal rights away and to undermine the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, too. Breyer spoke at the Columbia Law School, in NYC, on Sept. 12, 2003. He said the U.S. could learn from "compromises Israeli courts have struck to balance terrorism and human rights concerns." He insisted Israeli jurists have adopted "intermediate solutions" (Anne Gearan, AP, 09/12/03). Keep in mind that Breyer is hyping Israeli "justice" only six months after the murder of American activist, Rachel Corrie, by an Israeli bulldozer operator, at the Rafah refugee camp in Occupied Gaza. In Aug., 1994, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton appointed Breyer, who is Jewish, to the high court. This is the same president, who on his last day in office, Jan. 20, 2001, pardoned, at the urging of the Zionist Cartel, the billionaire fugitive, the Belgian-born Jew, Marc Rich ... At the Columbia Law School conference, [Breyer] didn't bring up anything about Israel's fragrant violation of Palestinian human rights. There was no mention of Israel's notorious death squads, the holding of detainees without trial or charges, the torturing of suspects, the lack of any meaningful due process rights for individuals, whose lands are subject to confiscation, and of Israel's imposition, too, of collective punishment on towns and camps, like at Jenin ("Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group," www.phrmg.org.). Breyer, in defending Israel's arbitrary practice of barring defendants from choosing a lawyer, whom the Israelis suspect might carry "terror instructions" from behind bars, made this dubious statement, "Maybe to have a lawyer not of your choice (is better) than none at all." In light of the Sixth Amendment's right of a defendant to the "assistant of counsel for his defense," in a criminal case, of his or her own choosing, Breyer's view on this important constitutional issue is truly appalling. What makes it even more relevant, however, is that famed criminal defense lawyer, Lynne Stewart, is facing preposterous criminal charges, drummed up by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, that she had helped "a jailed Egyptian cleric direct terrorism from prison." After visiting Israel in May, 2002, Breyer bragged that it was "a democracy," that believes in "civil rights," and the "protection of individuals by the rule of law." He also added, while ignoring the Israelis' brutal occupation of the Palestinians, that the U.S. shares with Sharon's Israel, "a common war against terror." Sure, Justice Breyer! On the legislative front, the Israel First Brigade in the Congress, has also been busy eroding our precious liberties at every opportunities. In the late 90s, it was then House member, and now the U.S. Senator from NY, Charles Schumer, who along with Sen. Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter (R-PA), that introduced the Star Chamber scheme of "secret trials based on secret evidence." Recently, it was two other rabid fans of Sharon, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Ct), that pushed the draconian "USA Patriot Act" into law, and without a public hearing, too."

US hawk warns Iran threat must be eliminated,
by Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian (UK), October 10, 2003
"An American official warned yesterday that the potential threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme had to be "eliminated" and predicted Tehran would try to "throw sand" in the eyes of the world to avoid a confrontation at the UN. John Bolton, deputy under secretary of state for arms control, who is regarded as the state department's chief hawk, was speaking to journalists in London where he reaffirmed the Bush administration's notion of "rogue states" which threatened US interests. Top of the list were Iran and North Korea, he said. "There is awareness of the threat posed by Iran and consensus that threat has to be eliminated," he said referring to the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr ... He said the existing non-proliferation treaty needed to be strengthened to deal with Iran which, he speculated, could have a nuclear weapons capability "probably towards the end of the decade". He said North Korea was being dealt with by multilateral talks conducted by China, and that Pakistan had denied trading in nuclear materials with North Korea. "We take them at their word," he said. Asked about Israel's nuclear weapons capability, he replied: "The issue for the US is what poses a threat to the US." On Iraq, Mr Bolton said "the purpose of military action was to eliminate the regime ... The real security risk was the regime".

Sec. Council postpones separation fence hearing to Tuesday,
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz (Israel), October 10, 2003
"The UN Security Council on Friday agreed to a U.S. request to postpone to next Tuesday an open discussion on the separation fence Israel is building in the West Bank and around Jerusalem. The decision was reached during a closed dicussion of Security Council members on the fence, which marked the first time the UN has addressed the issue. All UN member states will have the right to speak at Wednesday's hearing. During Friday's discussion, Syria presented a draft resolution condemning Israel. The Palestinians warned Washington on Friday that the Middle East peace process would be doomed if a U.S. veto allows Israel to continue building the fence. If Israel is allowed to continue construction, "this will mean the end of the two-state solution, and that will take us to either a more drastic and radical solution or perpetual conflict. It should be looked at that seriously," Palestinian UN envoy Nasser al-Kidwa said. Al-Kidwa called for a UN Security Council vote on Tuesday on a draft resolution seeking to bar Israel from building the fence on Palestinian land and denouncing plans for more than 600 new homes in Israeli settlements. After initial closed-door talks on the Palestinian request, diplomats said there was broad support in the 15-nation council for a resolution on the security barrier, although changes in the Palestinian draft were likely. Most members feel the wall "is illegal, and they want to say something about it," Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said. But U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte suggested Washington would use its veto to kill the measure."

Israel wants US to start a new war in West Asia,
by Dr M PUTRAJAYA, Utusan (Malaysia), Oct 11, 2003
"Israel is egging the US to start a new war in West Asia by invading Syria, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Saturday. "Israel has been urging America to invade Syria, but America seems to be reluctant. So, in order to force the hands of America, Israel is going to invade Syria. "When that happens, the Americans will have to support Israel due to domestic political reasons that make Jewish votes a major factor in its presidential election," he said when asked to comment on the recent Israeli attack on Syria."

Jewish Lobby achieves racist objective of Hatred and Intolerance Prevention, which some scholars regard as anti-European reinvention of Education for strickly minority interests.
Anti-Defamation League Commends Gov. Davis for Signing Legislation for Teacher Training on Hatred and Intolerance Prevention,
U.S. Newswire, September 11, 2003
"The Anti-Defamation League commends Governor Davis for signing AB 1250 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) today allowing teachers, instructional aides, and teaching assistants to receive hatred and intolerance prevention training. Assembly Bill 1250 adds the subjects of hatred and intolerance prevention training to the existing Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform Program, and does not require any new state funding. "Now, more than ever, it is our responsibility to provide a safe learning environment free from harassment, discrimination, and violence for all students in California. I applaud Governor Davis, Assemblymember Laird, and the legislature for approving this critical legislation, " said Jonathan Bernstein, director of ADL's Central Pacific Region."