Owen Parsons

It doesn't surprise me at all that Lasky would be CIA. For a corrective to the mythological edifice that people like Lasky have built up around Hiss, I'd recommend The Alger Hiss Story.

I'm now going to (hopefully) finish off the IDF's phony Qana timeline once and for all.

First, those who (like me) have no real physiological knowledge should read this Wikipedia article on rigor mortis (here).

Second, watch this Reuters video of the Qana bodies being hauled out (here).

Pay particular attention to the corpse with the raised arm. Notice how, while relatively stiff, it flops about somewhat.

It is immediately obvious that rigor mortis has set in. Therefore, the IDF's contention that the collapse occured at 8 A.M., an hour before the rescue teams and media arrived, can't be true. This is because rigor mortis "[a]ssuming mild temperatures... usually sets in about 3-4 hours after clinical death." At the same time, the bodies appear much too "fresh" to have been dead "for days," brought in from some morgue by Hezbollah, because rigor mortis "subsid[es] to relaxation at about 36 hours."

And again, read what the survivors have to say [here], [here], and [here].

The photo is from Australia's Herald Sun.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,...5007220,00.html

Thanks for that. I think my points about the photo and, more importantly, the numerous eyewitness accounts from survivors of the Qana massacre which refute the IDF's lie stand. In other news... here's a Reuters article reprinted under the the clever title "Making the desert bloom" on Norman Finkelstein's site:

Oil Spill Adds Ecological Crisis to Lebanon's Agony

July 28, 2006 | REUTERS Story by Lin Noueihed

BEIRUT - Along Lebanon's sandy beaches and rocky headlands runs a belt of black sludge, 10,000 to 30,000 tonnes of oil that spilled into the Mediterranean Sea after Israel bombed a power plant.

Lebanon's Environment Ministry says the oil flooded into the sea when Israeli jets hit storage tanks at the Jiyyeh plant south of Beirut on July 13 and 15, creating an ecological crisis that Lebanon's government has neither the money nor the expertise to deal with.

"We have never seen a spill like this in the history of Lebanon. It is a major catastrophe," Environment Minister Yacoub al-Sarraf told Reuters.

"The equipment we have is for minor spills. We use it once in a blue moon to clean a small spill of 50 tonnes or so. To clean this whole thing up we would need an armada ... The cost of a full clean-up could run as high as US$40-50 million."

The spill is especially threatening since fish spawn and sea turtles nest on Lebanon's coast, including the green turtle which is endangered in the Mediterranean, local ecologists say.

Carried by a north-easterly wind, the spill has travelled 70-80 km up the coast of Lebanon, which has been bombarded by Israel for 16 days in a war against Hizbollah.

An Israeli warship damaged by a Hizbollah missile on July 15 may also have spilled diesel oil into the sea, according to the Environment Ministry website (www.moe.gov.lb).

At Beirut's Sporting Club, seven men in navy overalls perch on the edge of a man-made inlet skimming sludge, using buckets on the end of sticks and pouring it into plastic containers.

The ground around them is black, as are their forearms and clothes. The air is thick with acrid fumes that sting the eyes and irritate the throat.

The team is part of a pilot clean-up commissioned by the Environment Ministry. Another mop-up is underway at the San Antoine Sandy Beach Resort in northern Lebanon.

MARINE LIFE DEAD

"It arrived the day after they hit the Jiyyeh power plant. The worst has passed now. A couple of days ago the whole coastline was black," said Walid Abu Nassar, surveying the damage to the Sporting Club, which he runs.

"First they tried to pump it out but that didn't work, now this. These are crude methods but Lebanon has no other way."

Lebanon has turned to oil producer Kuwait for help. A plane load of equipment is due to arrive from Kuwait via Syria by the end of the week, Sarraf said.

But one of the main problems is that an Israeli air and sea blockade in place since the war began on July 12 is hampering both the clean-up and the delivery of equipment.

"To really clean it up we need access to the sea, which we don't have," Sarraf said. "We need more equipment and mobilisation but for that we need the hostilities to end."

The migratory season is over so birds should not be badly affected and some oil may evaporate or decompose, but spills can smother or poison sea life, the Environment Ministry says.

Even if Lebanon is able to mop up, the marine ecosystem could take years to recover, local environmentalists say.

Commercial fishing and tourism has been at a standstill since the war began because of the air and sea blockade.

"July is hatching season for turtle eggs and baby turtles have to reach deep water as fast as possible to avoid predators. With the oil in their way, they will not survive," Wael Hmaidan, a local environmental activist said.

"The oil spill, part of which has settled on the sea floor, threatens blue fin tuna, which is an important but overfished commercial fish, as well as shark species."

Story by Lin Noueihed

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

Hezbollah's armed wing has a policy of avoiding contact with civillians (for reasons that are primarily tactical, not humanitarian). Read the Salon article I posted a page back.

Salon is contradicted by accounts that Hezbollah wears civilian clothes in order to immediately disappear into civilian buildings after launching rockets. This would hardly be the way to avoid civilian contact.

Here is a group of Hezbollah fighters, dressed as civilians, posing proudly in a civilian area:

I'd have to know the source of the photograph, but the fact that (some) of the fighters pictured are wearing civillian clothes doesn't actually mean that this is because they operate among civillians. I'd also note that two of the men in plain clothes are rather overweight and don't really look like their duties primarily involve combat and the other is operating the artillery. The men with guns, who would be the ones expected to run off into the crowds, are dressed for combat.

Also, this Guardian report has detailed testimony from survivors who were actually in the building at the time, and it dovetails perfectly with the Haaretz article. Here's a small excerpt, which serves as a short summary:

At about one in the morning, as some of the men were making late night tea, an Israeli bomb smashed into the house. Witnesses describe two explosions a few minutes apart, with survivors desperately moving from one side of the building to the other before being hit by the second blast. By last night, more than 60 bodies had been pulled from the rubble, said Lebanese authorities, 34 of them children. There were eight known survivors. [link]

Is Hezbollah dictating all of this eyewitness testimony, which just happens to refute the IDF's bogus and baseless contention?

Where is all this apologism for Israel aggression coming from, Ron?

This is not apologism. Destroying the building and blaming it on the Israelis would be a smart move by Hezbollah, considering the fact that they don't mind killing innocent people.

Hezbollah's armed wing has a policy of avoiding contact with civillians (for reasons that are primarily tactical, not humanitarian). Read the Salon article I posted a page back.

I don't know if Hezbollah did it or not. I do find it hard to believe that the residents survived one attack, then died right after that in another attack "in their sleep," as if they sleep through such bombardments.

The Qana survivors didn't say their compatriots died "in their sleep." This is just a CNN reporter's vague impression of the bodies, which isn't all that valuable as evidence.

Here's a piece that suggests that controlled demolition of sorts was used on the building in Qana, hours after the Israeli attacks on the area.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/8997.htm

Bring down a building, killing innocent people (or people brought in who were already dead), and blame it on someone else? Who has ever heard of such a thing?

Looks like crap to me. Perhaps the reason that "[t]heir faces were ashen gray" would be because they were, I dunno, buried under the rubble. The "unexplained 7 to 8 hour gap" appears to be an IDF fiction, with no substantiating evidence. Another report on the same site notes that "ome villagers, however, dispute that the collapse occurred at that time, saying that extensive damage occurred in the wee hours of the morning." [source] What did they say? I'm going to quote from a Haaretz article appropriately entitled "Qana villagers refute IDF claims building fell hours after strike":

Lebanese villagers in Qana who were witness to the bombing, however, say that the building's collapse occurred in the wee hours of the night.

Witnesses at the scene corroborated the IDF claim that the strike on the building, which is located in the Hariva neighborhood of Qana, was carried out at 1:00 A.M. After the initial strike, some of the building's residents exited in an attempt to survey the damage, in effect saving themselves.

A few minutes later, IAF planes struck the building once again, causing the walls to collapse on the residents who did not vacate, killing them in the process.

Arab media began reporting on the incident after dawn Sunday, approximately seven hours after the strike. The reports did not note, however, that the building collapsed a short time prior to Arab journalists' arrival on the scene. [link]

Where is all this apologism for Israel aggression coming from, Ron?

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation

Ah, good old Chavez.

Here are some photos of the first (1996) and second (2006) Qana massacres (link). What an anniversary.

Maybe its time for Israel to become the 51st state, or more accurately, for America to declare it is merely a colony, wholly controlled by Israel.

Yep, that's right. American imperialism is wholly controlled by tiny Israel. I've gone over the evidence that leads me to believe that this is untrue in my "Israel Lobby" thread, which Sid has opted not to challenge or debate. The neocons, while having a policy that is fairly Israel-centric, nevertheless are pursuing agendas that often differ from those of the Likud party which they supposedly serve.

Relax, Sid. I just like using the word "pimping."

Oh I see. Guess that's fine then. Go ahead and impute that I purvey sex for cash. Whatever turns you on.

But I didn't "impute that [you] purvey sex for cash." I said that you were pushing the material in the manner that a pimp would do for a "ho," not that you are literally a pimp. Its a metaphor I use frequently (though maybe not so much on this forum). Sorry it so offends your sensibilities.

In this context, I recommend a couple of recent articles by Christopher Bollyn, an investigative journalist who writes for American Free Press:

Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers

Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11

Those articles may contain true information. I would prefer it, however, if they were not written by Bollyn, who has a very serious record of dubious associations and bad "investigative reporting."

I note your concerns about a journalist's alleged "very serious record of dubious associations" appear to upset you more than the possibility that the world's only superpower is an open book to another State led by a man with such "dubious associations" he may be connected to the perpetrators of 9-11.

Bollyn's dubious associations (i.e. working for Carto) are plain for all to see. He also has a track record of purveying bad or misleading information (such as about the Pentagon debris [here] and the WTC seismic spikes [here]). I have no problem with believing all sorts of bad things about Olmert, but I'd prefer to have something I can actually take to the bank.

Incidentally, the State in question just murdered another score or two of children in the last 24 hours, while the world's only superpower continues to block international consensus for immediate ceasefire.

Even CNN reports that as "true information".

Of course its true. The good thing about it, though, is that I don't have to rely on Bollyn for the information.

But when will CNN/BBC/ABC investigate and report on the Israeli company with super-user access to the NSA's security software, so I can spare your sensibilities by quoting from a 'respectable' media source?

It doesn't need to be from the mainstream media at all. There are plenty of alternative media sources I trust; Bollyn isn't one of them.

You remind me of someone who, having silently witnessed a mass murder and the escape of the perpetrators, reserves howls of disgust for what he perceives to be a turd on the pavement.

I'm not sure if I've witnessed anything or not. To use your metaphor, the turd on the pavement is the only source of information I have for the mass murder, and that can hardly be classified as reliable.

He's been pimping the Fox News series on Israeli spying in America for awhile now, which very prominently features the art student ring.

More odd sexual innuendo.

A week ago, I was accused of 'masturbation' on this forum. Whatever next? Paeodophilia?

Relax, Sid. I just like using the word "pimping."

In this context, I recommend a couple of recent articles by Christopher Bollyn, an investigative journalist who writes for American Free Press:

Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers

Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11

Those articles may contain true information. I would prefer it, however, if they were not written by Bollyn, who has a very serious record of dubious associations and bad "investigative reporting."

No one I know - certainly not me - believes the "Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers" although Israelis may well have killed some of these 'tried-by-media' individuals (the ones that really existed, that is). It's reported that Mohammed Atta's father believes his son was murdered by the Mossad.

Atta's father's story has changed (see here). First there was no phone call on September 12th (see here). Then the Mossad forced him to make the call, after which they killed him (see here). Then he said his son was supposedly "hiding in a secret place so as not to be murdered by the US secret services," since the phone call (see here). Most recently, he has praised the London subway bombers and "said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son" (source). In addition to praising the 7/7 bombings, investigation by Daniel Hopsicker has turned up evidence that Atta senior was involved in some manner with the 9/11 attacks (see here). Not a reliable source, to say the least. Still, he said the Mossad killed his son, so what the hell? Let's roll with it.

Finally, Len, you mention the first WTC bomb attacks of 1993.

please don't get me started about that rather obvious false flag operation - or the appalling subsequent assault to civil liberties when Lynne Stewart, attorney for the framed blind sheikh, was jailed for carrying out a lawyer's duty to her client.

Not too convincing. Let's see, Ahmad Ajaj, a Palestinian associated in some manner with the Sheikh group, is identified by ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE as being a Mossad mole. That's quite a bit of openness, don't you think? Nevertheless, he "was in a federal prison in upstate New York serving a six-month sentence for having entered the country on a forged passport" on the day of the bombing, so it would seem that he was only involved in the planning but not in the implementation of the bombing.

Now, all of this is certainly fascinating but how it proves that the Sheikh was "framed" is beyond me. At most, all it could suggest is that the Sheikh himself is a Mossad asset. The real story, however, seems to be that the Sheikh was an asset of the CIA (see here). The Sheikh, whom you seem to have such sympathy for, was heavily involved in Mujahideen activities in Afghanistan and his group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya was behind the 1997 Luxor massacre of 58 tourists (which I suppose was a false flag operation by the Mossad to hurt the Egyptian tourism industry), among many other things.

I'm going to quote from the Village Voice article about the CIA and Sheikh Rahman, about earlier, similiar attacks on tourists:

The FBI received a violent reminder of the sheikh's agenda on November 12, 1992, when a terrorist hit squad linked to Abdel Rahman machine-gunned a busload of Western tourists in Egypt, injuring five Germans. In the last year, three Western tourists have been killed in Egypt and at least two dozen have been wounded, crippling the country's $2.5 billion tourist industry. When asked on an Arabic-language radio show in Washington, D.C., about terrorist attacks on foreign tourists, the sheikh replied, "Force is used with tourists. But tourists should use good manners. Tourism is not nightclubs, alcohol, gambling, fornicating. They should stay away from this behavior, the spread of AIDS and corruption with which they have filled Egypt."

What a lovable, huggable, character.

BTW, I'm also not so convinced by Len's debunking of the "art students." At the same time, I don't see how Sid can be saying he's never brought the art students up. He's been pimping the Fox News series on Israeli spying in America for awhile now, which very prominently features the art student ring.

The "hiding among civilians" myth

Israel claims it's justified in bombing civilians because Hezbollah mingles with them. In fact, the militant group doesn't trust its civilians and stays as far away from them as possible.

By Mitch Prothero

Jul. 28, 2006 | The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10-story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the "resistance."

Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And "everyone" apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit.

Two guided bombs struck it in a huge flash bang of fire and concrete dust followed by the roar of 10 stories pancaking on top of each other, local residents said. Jihad Husseini, 46, runs the driving school a block away and was sitting in his office when the bombs struck. He said his life was saved because he had drawn the heavy cloth curtains shut on the windows facing the street, preventing him from being hit by a wave of shattered glass. But even so, a chunk of smoldering steel flew through the air, broke through the window and the curtain, and shot past his head and through the wall before coming to rest in his neighbor's home.

But Jihad still refuses to leave.

"Everything is broken, but I can make it better," he says, surrounded by his sons Raed, 20, and Mohammed, 12. "I will not leave. This place is not military, it is not Hezbollah; it was an empty apartment."

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes.

But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah. Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble.

In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer.

People throw the phrase "ghost town" around a lot, but Nabatiya, a bombed-out town about 15 miles from the Lebanon-Israel border, deserves it. One expects the spirits of the town's dead, or its refugees, to silently glide out onto its abandoned streets from the ruined buildings that make up much of the town.

Not all of the buildings show bomb damage, but those that don't have metal shutters blown out as if by a terrible wind. And there are no people at all, except for the occasional Hezbollah scout on a motorbike armed only with a two-way radio, keeping an eye on things as Israeli jets and unmanned drones circle overhead.

Overlooking the outskirts of this town, which has a peacetime population of 100,000 or so -- mostly Shiite supporters of Hezbollah and its more secular rival Amal -- is the Ragheh Hareb Hospital, a facility that makes quite clear what side the residents of Nabatiya are on in this conflict.

The hospital's carefully sculpted and trimmed front lawn contains the giant Red Crescent that denotes the Muslim version of the Red Cross. As we approach it, an Israeli missile streaks by, smashing into a school on the opposite hilltop. As we crouch and then run for the shelter of the hospital awning, that giant crescent reassures me until I look at the flagpole. The Lebanese flag and its cedar tree is there -- right next to the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It's safe to say that Ragheh Hareb Hospital has an association with Hezbollah. And the staff sports the trimmed beards and polite, if somewhat ominous, manner of the group. After young men demand press IDs and do some quick questioning, they allow us to enter.

Dr. Ahmed Tahir recognizes me from a funeral in the nearby village of Dweir. An Israeli bomb dropped on their house killed a Hezbollah cleric and 11 members of his immediate family, mostly children. People in Lebanon are calling it a war crime. Tahir looks exhausted, and our talk is even more tense than the last time.

"Maybe it would be best if the Israelis bombed your car on the road here," he said, with a sharp edge. "If you were killed, maybe the public outcry would be so bad in America that the Jews would be forced to stop these attacks."

When I volunteered that the Bush administration cared little for journalists, let alone ones who reported from Hezbollah territory, he shrugged. "Maybe if it was an American bomb used by the Israelis that killed an American journalist, they would stop this horror," he said.

The handful of people in the town include some from Hezbollah's political wing, as well as volunteers keeping an eye on things while the residents are gone. Off to the side, as we watch the Israelis pummel ridgelines on the outskirts of town, one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years.

Although Israel targets apartments and offices because they are considered "Hezbollah" installations, the group has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones.

"You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

Perhaps once a year, Hezbollah will hold a military parade in the south, in which its weapons and fighters appear. Media access to these parades is tightly limited and controlled. Unlike the fighters in the half dozen other countries where I have covered insurgencies, Hezbollah fighters do not like to show off for the cameras. In Iraq, with some risk taking, you can meet with and even watch the resistance guys in action. (At least you could during my last time there.) In Afghanistan, you can lunch with Taliban fighters if you're willing to walk a day or so in the mountains. In Gaza and the West Bank, the Fatah or Hamas fighter is almost ubiquitous with his mask, gun and sloganeering to convince the Western journalist of the justice of his cause.

The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid. In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me. But no fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them.

Even before the war, on many of my trips to the south, the Lebanese army, or the ubiquitous guy on a motorbike with a radio, would halt my trip and send me over to Tyre to get permission from a Hezbollah official before I could proceed, usually with strict limits on where I could go.

Every other journalist I know who has covered Hezbollah has had the same experience. A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews. All he will say is, "I'll be gone for a few months for training. I'll call when I'm back." Presumably his friends and neighbors may suspect something, but no one says anything.

Hezbollah's political members say they have little or no access to the workings of the fighters. This seems to be largely true: While they obviously hear and know more than the outside world, the firewall is strong.

Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.

Earlier in the week, I stood next to a giant crater that had smashed through the highway between Tyre and Sidon -- the only route of escape for most of the people in the far south. Overhead, Israeli fighters and drones circled above the city and its outlying areas and regular blasts of bombs and naval artillery could be heard.

The crater served as a nice place to check up on the refugees, who were forced by the crater to slow down long enough to be asked questions. They barely stopped, their faces wrenched in near panic. The main wave of refugees out of the south had come the previous two days, so these were the hard-luck cases, the people who had been really close to the fighting and who needed two days just to get to Tyre, or who had had to make the tough decision whether to flee or stay put, with neither choice looking good.

The roads in the south are full of the cars of people who chose wrong -- burned-out chassis, broken glass, some cars driven straight into posts or ditches. Other seem to have broken down or run out of gas on the long dirt detours around the blown-out highway and bridge network the Israeli air force had spent days methodically destroying even as it warned people to flee.

One man, slowing his car around the crater, almost screams, "There is nothing left. This country is not for us." His brief pause immediately draws horns and impatient yells from the people in the cars behind him. They pass the crater but within two minutes a large explosion behind us, north, in the direction of Sidon, rocks us.

As we drive south toward Tyre, we soon pass a new series of scars on the highway: shrapnel, hubcaps and broken glass. A car that had been maybe five minutes ahead of us was hit by an Israeli shell. Three of its passengers were wounded, and it was heading north to the Hammound hospital at Sidon. We turned around because of the attack and followed the car to Sidon. Those unhurt staked out the parking lot of the hospital, looking for the Western journalists they were convinced had called in the strike. Luckily my Iraqi fixer smelled trouble and we got out of there. Probably nothing would have happened -- mostly they were just freaked-out country people who didn't like the coincidence of an Israeli attack and a car full of journalists driving past.

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

And the civilians? They see themselves as targeted regardless of their affiliation. They are enraged at Israel and at the United States, the only two countries on earth not calling for an immediate cease-fire. Lebanese of all persuasions think the United States and Israel believe that Lebanese lives are cheaper than Israeli ones. And many are now saying that they want to fight.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/...llah/print.html

Sorry to disappoint, Owen, but I think I'll give this topic a miss. More accurately, I'll lob a quick reply, then bow out.

Fine with me, as I did not make this topic with you in mind specifically, although I did reuse material from a previous reply to you because it was relevant. Not much point in replying, but here goes anyway.

I've decided to try not to debate "Israel Lobby Deniers" any more. It's too emotionally upsetting and lends credibility to their self-evidently fallacious position.

Cute, Sid. I will adress this one last time: I had a bad feeling about the way our prospective "debate" would be heading when you posted an already discredited IHR article and then misleadingly juxtaposed it with the Lipstadt letter. I don't enjoy wasting valuable time and energy getting into arguments with people who are exceptionally intellectually dishonest and hard-headed, and you have given every indication that this is the case with yourself. Daniel's quote that "If it's not clear by now what Sid is 'on about,' it never will be," drove this point home for me.

I see the 'conflict' in Gaza is hotting up again - another 24 Palestinains murdered, including two toddlers. Israel makes the former South African racist regime look like boy scouts when it comes to cruelty and contempt for their neighbours.

Yes, its horrible, but Israel's actions are not a unique case of evil, as you seem to imagine. An example that comes readily to mind would be NATO's bombing of an Albanian refugee column returning to Kosovo. You may see the pictures here.

In the 1956, Eisenhower forced a cessation of hostilities by placing Israel under fierce pressure and refusing to back its western imperialist allies.

LBJ was the leader of support for Israel in Congress at the time.

These days, the USA daren't even call for a ceasefire after hundreds of civilian deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

The U.S. makes all sorts of dishonest exceptions for all sorts of thuggish governments. You make it sound like Israel is the only nation ever that has brutalized and subjagated a minority population while the U.S. either turns the other way or tacitly encourages it (hmm... what about Turkey and its Kurdish population, as just one example? What about East Timor?). In fact, the U.S. and its European allies engage in this sort of behavior themselves, as the example above shows.

Israel wasn't worth really anything to the U.S. pre-1967, as it was still a marginal, left-wing, "socialist" nation. Israel "proved" its usefulness in smashing inconvenient Arab governments in the Six Day War and thus earned for itself U.S patronage. This was also the time when the American Jewish elite class found it advantageous to support Israel and politically convenient to remember the Holocaust (see above, or go read Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry) This only increased (and how) during the Yom Kippur war, as Israel was a good counter to all the Soviet influence in the region.

But of course, a global Jewish cabal makes things so much more simple.

So what changed? Why, from the Johnson era onwards, did US policy tilt so strongly towards Israel?

Perhaps the US Establishment finally found the true Christian God? (the theology theory) Perhaps they came to believe that most middle eastern oil did not in fact lie under anti-Zionist soil or sand? (the oil-illusion theory) Perhaps the military industrial complex has been able to persuade successive US Governments since JFK just to stir up trouble in the middle east - and to hell with the consequences for oil supplies and other US interests in the region (the MID theory).

Perhaps you should have read the Finkelstein article I linked to above. I'll just quote some relevant portions for you and leave it at that:

Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. For different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis ­ and Israelis projected themselve ­ as experts on the "Arab mind." Accordingly, the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years this or that Arab country needs to be smashed up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.

The claim that Israel has become a liability for U.S. "national" interests in the Middle East misses the bigger picture. Sometimes what's most obvious escapes the eye. Israel is the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region. Every other country the U.S. relies on might, for all anyone knows, fall out of U.S. control tomorrow. The U.S.A. discovered this to its horror in 1979, after immense investment in the Shah. On the other hand, Israel was a creation of the West; it's in every respect culturally, politically, economically ­ in thrall to the West, notably the U.S. This is true not just at the level of a corrupt leadership, as elsewhere in the Middle East but ­ what's most important ­ at the popular level. Israel's pro-American orientation exists not just among Israeli elites but also among the whole population. Come what may in Israel, it's inconceivable that this fundamental orientation will change. Combined with its overwhelming military power, this makes Israel a unique and irreplaceable American asset in the Middle East.

In this regard, it's useful to recall the rationale behind British support for Zionism. Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann once asked a British official why the British continued to support Zionism despite Arab opposition. Didn't it make more sense for them to keep Palestine but drop support for Zionism? "Although such an attitude may afford a temporary relief and may quiet Arabs for a short time," the official replied, "it will certainly not settle the question as the Arabs don't want the British in Palestine, and after having their way with the Jews, they would attack the British position, as the Moslems are doing in Mesopotamia, Egypt and India." Another British official judged retrospectively that, however much Arab resentment it provoked, British support for Zionism was prudent policy, for it established in the midst of an "uncertain Arab world a well-to-do educated, modern community, ultimately bound to be dependent on the British Empire." Were it even possible, the British had little interest in promoting real Jewish-Arab cooperation because it would inevitably lessen this dependence. Similarly, the U.S. doesn't want an Israel truly at peace with the Arabs, for such an Israel could loosen its bonds of dependence on the U.S. , making it a less reliable proxy. This is one reason why the claim that Jewish elites are "pro"-Israel makes little sense. They are "pro" an Israel that is useful to the U.S. and, therefore, useful to them. What use would a Paul Wolfowitz have of an Israel living peacefully with its Arab neighbors and less willing to do the U.S.'s bidding?

[...]

Unlike elsewhere in the Middle East, U.S. elite policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict would almost certainly not be the same without the Lobby. What does the U.S.A. gain from the Israeli settlements and occupation? In terms of alienating the Arab world, it's had something to lose. The Lobby probably can't muster sufficient power to jeopardize a fundamental American interest, but it can significantly raise the threshold before U.S. elites are prepared to act ­ i.e., order Israel out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.S. finally pressured the Indonesians out of Occupied East Timor. Whereas Israel doesn't have many options if the U.S. does finally give the order to pack up, the U.S. won't do so until and unless the Israeli occupation becomes a major liability for it: on account of the Lobby the point at which "until and unless" is reached significantly differs. Without the Lobby and in the face of widespread Arab resentment, the U.S. would perhaps have ordered Israel to end the occupation by now, sparing Palestinians much suffering[.]

This could be an interesting discussion, so I'm going to get the ball rolling with some (edited and rewritten) excerpts from another notorious thread on why I don't believe the "Israel Lobby" controls America and why I don't believe "Israel" is behind the Iraq war.

I've also said the influence of the much ballyhooed Israel Lobby is overrated. The "Israel Lobby" is the excuse that right wingers use because they feel uncomfortable blaming the United States' foreign policy on the United States power elite. Mearsheimer and Walt, if you haven't noticed, are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Sorry Sid, I really don't feel comfortable aligning with power.

This isn't to say I don't think the Lobby has power or influences U.S. policy, I just don't believe it controls it. I agree with Norman Finkelstein's take. See here.

This vast political, economic and military assault on the Arab and Moslem world – on several fronts - is not inherently a popular agenda in the west. It is not even a mainstream oil industry agenda. The head of Britain's only oil mega corporation, BP, spoke against the Iraq invasion in the run-up to March 2003 – but his words seemed to carry little weight with Tony Blair.

If we are going to go by public statements, Martin van Creveld, the man you have identified elsewhere as "Israel's contemporary Dr Stangelove," has also vehemently denounced the Iraq invasion, calling it a "foolish war." See here. You don't pay much attention to that.

Or read this article that shows that the "neo-cons" such as Richard Perle, were trying to sell the Iraq war to Israel, not the other way around.

An adviser to INC [iraqi National Congress] chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria.

(...)

"I went to speak to [Ambassador Gold] just to say that I think it's in Israel's best interest to help the Iraqi people get this thing done," Mr. Brooke said. "The basic case I made was that we need help here in the U.S. to get this thing going."

For his part, Mr. Gold said Israel had no current plans to ally itself with the INC. "We're always interested in hearing impressions from people around the region, and Middle Easterners from many countries are always willing to share their perspective with us," Mr. Gold said.

A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

With regard to the American Jewish community, Mr. Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."

Former Ambassador Dore Gold, who was the one approached in 1998, has written an article on the subject of the Iraq war. He makes it quite clear that Israel wanted to attack Iran, and did not regard Iraq as much of a threat, just like Mr. Perle says above. In his article, Gold makes some telling observations about the "Neocons." He points out, for instance, that Perle has endorsed the division of Jerusalem, a position that is anathema to the Israeli right wing.

I agree with what Norman Finkelstein has to say about these people:

The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel ­ in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.A.' s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto? (source)

Norman Finkelstein, btw, is the one who exposed Alan Dershowitz's plagiarisms and wrote the book "The Holocaust Industry." He is a vehement opponent of Israel's policies, as you are undoubtedly aware.

I've also pointed out in the past that the Neocons, Perle most prominently among them, pursue a policy that is strongly supportive of Islamic extremism and terrorism in Chechnya, Bosnia, and Kosovo. While this is not detrimental to Israel, it is not something that really agrees with a Zionist ideology and is very much opposite the stated position of, oh, say, Ariel Sharon. This is all very suggestive of working in the U.S. interest. I do think the Neocons have a geo-strategic vision in which Israel plays a big part, sure. But they are attempting to be the puppet masters of Israel; Israel does not control them.

More details on this NATO force:

US, Israel ready to back NATO-led force in Lebanon

Sun Jul 23, 6:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and

Israel said that they were ready to support an international force led by

NATO in south Lebanon to ease tensions.

No US troops are likely to be in the force, which according to a US media report could be between 10,000 and 20,000 strong and led by a contingent from France or Turkey.

There could be delicate questions, however, over whether the force's mission is to disarm Hezbollah or to support the Lebanese army's efforts to take control in the south of the country.

John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday the US administration would take the idea of NATO leading a buffer force "seriously".

In Jerusalem, Defence Minster Amir Peretz said Israel supported the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said, however, that the United Nations should take the lead if an international force is to be established.

As Israel pursues its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an operation which has left hundreds dead and forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes, the proposed force is to be discussed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her crisis mission to Italy and the Middle East this week.

"It's a new idea. We'll certainly take it seriously," Bolton said on CNN television's "Late Edition" programme when asked about the possibility of NATO leading the force.

"I think we have been looking carefully at the possibility of a multinational force perhaps authorized by the Security Council, but not a UN-helmeted force," he added.

Rice had already stated that the United States was open to the proposal. The Israeli defence minister discussed the idea during talks in Jerusalem with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

"Due to the weakness of the Lebanese army, Israel supports the possibility of deploying a multinational force with a strong mandate," a defence ministry official quoted Peretz as saying, adding that the force could be sponsored by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Siniora, who called for an immediate ceasefire, said no concrete proposals have been offered for a multinational force.

"If it is going to be considered, then it has to be under the flag of the United Nations," he told CNN.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other leaders have already called for a "robust" force, to take the place of the 2,000-strong UN observer mission already in Lebanon.

The Washington Post quoted US officials as saying that planning for a force is in early stages and that the United States cannot contribute because it is already stretched by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rice said Friday she did not think US ground forces would take part.

Officials quoted by the Washington Post said the force could be 10,000-20,000 troops and be led by a French or Turkish contingent. Italy, Brazil, Pakistan, India and Germany have also been named as nations that could send military units.

"The questions about what kind of force it is -- what its command structure is, is it a UN force, is it an international force -- those are the discussions that are going on and I think are going to go on over the next few days," Rice said Friday.

However, on Sunday Mohamad Chatah, an advisor to Siniora, said the issue of a multinational force is "not at the centre of the problem."

"What -- you send troops to finish a war that Israel couldn't finish?" he asked on CNN.

"And unless we have a clear solution to these problems and a political framework, a multinational force, whether NATO or a UN force, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"We need to agree, quickly, on an end to this and a political solution that makes sense. And then a multinational support (force) can provide a lot of assistance to our own armed forces."

Bolton said that any force would have to be part of an effort to implement UN Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for Lebanese government forces to be able to assert their authority over all of the country's territory.

"I think you don't want a multilateral force that usurps that role," Bolton said on the "Fox News Sunday" programme. "You want a multilateral presence, an international presence that strengthens the Lebanese government's ability to control all of its territory." (link)

Isn't it funny that while the Lebanese P.M. wants a UN force, our own Ambassador to the UN (who is trying to bring about "reform") wants a NATO force "perhaps authorized by the Security Council." Blair and others are sick of the UN and want something a little more "robust." We can gather from all this that Siniora has no say in the country he is supposed to govern and that NATO will bypass the Security Council altogether, just like they did in Kosovo. NATO is going to "help" him "implement" resolution 1559, whether he wants their help or not.

Also, Israel is committing more war crimes. This comes from HRW:

Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon

(Beirut, July 24, 2006) – Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions in populated areas of Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said today. Researchers on the ground in Lebanon confirmed that a cluster munitions attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed one and wounded at least 12 civilians, including seven children. Human Rights Watch researchers also photographed cluster munitions in the arsenal of Israeli artillery teams on the Israel-Lebanon border.

"Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when used around civilians," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "They should never be used in populated areas." (Human Rights Watch)

Rice Sees Israeli Bombs as Birth Pangs

WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice has described the plight of Lebanon as a part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" and said that Israel should ignore calls for a ceasefire.

"This is a different Middle East. It's a new Middle East. It's hard, We're going through a very violent time," the US secretary of state said.

"A ceasefire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo.

"Such a step would allow terrorists to launch attacks at the time and terms of their choosing and to threaten innocent people, Arab and Israeli, throughout the region."

She was speaking on Saturday after meeting with members of a United Nations team that had just returned from the region.

More than 300 Lebanese civilians have been killed in 11 days of Israeli air and artillery strikes against Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese Shia group. (Palestine Chronicle)

I keep making the same mistake here, thinking what I have to say might make a difference and those I'm arguing with might be sane and/or honest. Does it make sense to respond to something as asinine and plainly ignorant as this? I won't bother with any of this any longer. If it's not clear by now what Sid is "on about," it never will be.

You know, Daniel... you're right. Its become quite obvious that Sid is so set in his ways that "debating" him will be a totally futile and infuriating endeavor. I agree with the sentiment Chomsky expressed when he wrote, "…The Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes." (link)

This thread has, I would say, brought out the worst in me. The "enjoyment" I have gotten out of "mopping the floor" with him is a totally unhealthy sort of enjoyment. Some people are able to argue with these types and maintain a sort of sanity and composure, but I don't think I'm one of them. So, to make everything more pleasant for everyone, I will be exiting this discussion.

Also, thanks for posting the Merton piece. I'm only somewhat familiar with him, but it is quite powerful.

I find that courtesy works for me.

Sorry, but after you (falsely) said that I was a Zionist when you should have known better (since I'm pretty sure you read your own thread in the Politics forum) and then implied that I only "claim" to believe what I am posting, I am inclined to give you just about zero courtesy. I'll try better, but you'll have to bear with me, Sid.

I shall not shy away from the "full and fair debate" you demand, Owen.

But before agreeing this it occurs here, I'd first like to check with the moderators.

Is such a debate welcome at all in The Education Forum?

If so, should it take place here - oe elsewhere in the Forum?

Is it OK to cite references such as this?

Or may one only cite references such as this?

Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with it. But that link hardly rebuts my argument. The link I posted a while ago directly responds to your link and refutes it. This would have been obvious if you had bothered to read it. I want something new, Sid. This is really pathetic.

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt"

Bertrand Russell

Len - I hope you don't imagine that I've got it in for you, but it sticks in my gullet that you deploy a quote from Bertand Russell in your signature on this forum.

Russell was a prominent and very early crtitic of the Warrren Commission.

Need a reference to prove it?

I'm certain that Len doesn't believe the Warren Commission. Get a clue.

Feel like answering my post, Sid? Are you ready to get clobbered in that "full and fair debate" you've been asking for? Or will you be intellectually honest and admit that your biases took you down the primrose path? I have to say I'm enjoying mopping the floor with you. It'd be shame to stop now.

It looks like Israel is tired of acting like NATO and now wants to bring NATO into the fray. They've just been paving the way for NATO occupation. This comes from Arutz Sheva, a right-wing Israeli news source:

Peretz Opens Door to NATO Force

12:37 Jul 23, '06 / 27 Tammuz 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that

Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon. He said the presence of an international force is due to the "weakness of the Lebanese army." However, European officials have pushed for a United National force. Previous U.N. patrols have been ineffective and often have openly aided Hizbullah terrorists to attack Israel.

Ministers Peretz spoke following a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier. Israel and NATO have forged closer relations the past year, and NATO officials visited Jerusalem earlier this year. (source)

(This isn't my discovery by the way, thanks go to Francisco Gil-White's latest article, although he draws all the wrong conclusions from this.)

EDIT: I've just found some additional interesting information. Apparently Israel conducted a joint "tactical exercise" with NATO about a month ago (its first).

IDF AND NATO STRENGTHEN TIES

"For the first time since its founding in 1949, NATO will fully integrate Israeli naval forces into a military exercise, Arutz-7 reported. Israel has previously only been allowed to observe such exercises. The military exercise will take place in the Black sea off the coast of Romania. The exercise will involve simulated combat between missile boat fleets as well as search-and rescue drills.

Senior IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers said that the NATO mission was designed to strengthen ties between Israel and the alliance and to look into possibilities for future military cooperation. Some analysts have speculated that Israel would apply for membership in the NATO alliance, but IDF officials have indicated that formal membership would limit Israel's ability to apply military force independently, as it sees fit." (source)

From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel in first NATO tactical exercise

"The purpose of the exercise, explained Lavi, was to create better interoperability between the Israeli Navy and NATO naval forces. To do that, the exercise practiced communicating between the fleets and emphasized how the different independent systems on each boat worked in concert with one another." (source)

Sorry, the quote function is screwed up.

I would have little interest in debating the current (or past) official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two if the matter were not raised, repeatedly and with tactical ruthlessness, by people such as Len and yourself.

Sid, I believe if you look at this thread in an objective manner, you will realize that it is you who pulled the Holocaust into this with your "preferred historical narrative" bit. And before this thread, you engaged in "historical revisionism" in the thread about the Nazi occupation of France. Don't play innocent.

I'm confused about your identity, Owen. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not, you claim to be a teenage non-Jewish ex-Zionist. Yet you seem to devote most of your effort (on this forum at least) to enforcing orthodoxies dear to the heart of Zionists, drawing on copious references drawn from sources beloved of Zionists. Odd.

I "claim," huh? Yeah, I'm probably a deep cover Mossad agent, just like Chomsky and I.F. Stone. Earlier you called my debunking of your laughable Holocaust denial arguments a position that I "claim to hold." I'll be quite frank here and say that I find your postings very creepy. Its not going to make you any friends.

I thought my position should have been obvious from my recent postings. Anyway, lets be clear. I started off anti-Israel, then, after attempting to be objective and reading pro-Israeli material, I got carried away with that. I then endorsed a ludicrous position that the United States is an enemy of Israel and I now regret doing so. Around the time of Israel's invasion of Gaza, I came to the conclusion that I was correct the first time. Since this is a recent development, the majority of my posts are still rabidly pro-Israel, as I haven't had time to make up for it yet. As for drawing on references "beloved of Zionists," if you have been paying attention to your own thread in the Government and Politics forum, you'll notice a posted a link to an online version of Livia Rokach's book, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

Let's see, what "pro-Zionist" positions have I taken lately? I posted a link to a CAMERA article because I think they make quite a good case that that particular Ariel Sharon quote is phony. This isn't indicative of being "pro-Zionist." It is indicative of an interest in truth and a desire to weed out phony material, so that the case against Israel's actions can be made more strongly.

I've also said the influence of the much ballyhooed Israel Lobby is overrated. The "Israel Lobby" is the excuse that right wingers use because they feel uncomfortable blaming the United States' foreign policy on the United States power elite. Mearsheimer and Walt, if you haven't noticed, are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Sorry Sid, I really don't feel comfortable aligning with power.

This isn't to say I don't think the Lobby has power or influences U.S. policy, I just don't believe it controls it. I agree with Norman Finkelstein's take. See here.

Until the beginning of this century, I had approximately zero intellectual interest in the topic of The Holocaust, assuming that the official view was indubitably correct. I had never heard or read anything to the contrary. If ever I encountered such material, I dismissed it, assuming it to be the work of 'neo-Nazis'. This happened very rarely if at all (I don't remember reading anything critical of the official version). I'd never actually met anyone of who was a doubter or critic, but imagined they must be very bad people. I'd marched against their type in 'Rock Against Racism' rallies long, long ago.

The reason you probably never heard anything contrary is because there is nothing to debate and the arguments put forward by the "revisionists" are totally fraudulent, as I have shown and you haven't even tried to challenge.

On several occasions, the western mass media reported anomalies relating to the 9-11 and anthrax stories - then dropped these subplots without follow-up. Most people simply didn't notice. For instance, the remarkable Israeli spy ring story was actually broken on Fox TV in the USA in a remarkable 4-part special in late 2001. The Fox story contained not just one scoop, but several. It also pointed to massive Israeli surveillance of US telecommunications. Videos and transcripts of this are still available via the internet – google Fox News Israeli Spyring.

Yes, Sid, I have watched those videos. The information is interesting and telling, but it really doesn't indicate Israeli involvement in 9/11. That requires some rather perverse leaps that aren't supported by evidence. And as you yourself note, it was broadcast on Fox News of all places, as a 4-part special. This would tend to indicate that the "Jews" don't find this information particularly threatening, otherwise it wouldn't have been broadcast, or it would have been pulled mid-series.

Around this time, on bulletin boards such as The Guardian, for the first time in my life, I found myself branded an 'anti-Semite'. The accusation was deeply upsetting. I was quick to try to correct the record, but began to discover that the accusation is hard, if not impossible, to refute. I began to see that, at least on occasion, the accusation is used without any rational foundation, as a tactic to close down discussions and intimidate the accused and other participants.

I agree that labelling people anti-Semites is a way of shutting down discussion. On the other hand, so is labelling people whose position you disagree with "Zionists," whether they profess to be Zionists or not, or implying that they don't really believe what they say they believe. You do this all the time, and it is also an "accusation... without any rational foundation." It is also "hard, if not impossible, to refute." Look in the mirror, Sid. What you are doing is no better than the Zionist propagandists.

I was annoyed about these accusations and very concerned to deny them. No I'm not one of those terrible people, I would protest! I loathe neo-Nazis too! Actually, I've been a leftie all my adult life! Occasionally, someone would appear in a forum who clearly did not believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, in full or in part. Under pressure to show my credentials as a decent human being, I occasionally watched the ritual virtual execution of such people on forums such as The Guardian Talkboard and said nothing, or even expressed support in the form of comments such as "yes, he/she went too far there!". I became aware that "Denying The Holocaust" was a banning offense at GT. I presume it still is?

Who knows? "Revisionist scholarship" is totally fake, as I've demonstrated already and you have yet to challenge. I can understand why people would get offended by it and want it out of their sight. Its also driven by an extreme right-wing political agenda about 99.9% of the time. Just because something is shunned doesn't make it true.

It should be noted that Noam Chomsky, a man you apparently think is part of your global Jewish/Zionist conspiracy, went out of his way to defend the free speech of Robert Faurisson, one of the most vile of the Holocaust deniers. Right-wingers and Zionists still rake him over the coals because of this. See here, here, and here.

Over time, as I became more used to the emotional recoil from what I regarded as an unfair but potentially damaging allegations, I developed a little curiosity about the underlying subject matter. I noted a considerable (but by no means total) overlap between '9-11 orthodoxy enforcers' and 'Holocaust orthodoxy enforcers'.

You will also notice an overlap between "9-11 orthodoxy skeptics" and "Holocaust orthodoxy enforcers." This tells us nothing.

Somewhat later on, I listened to one of Philip Adams' Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interviews. He devoted an entire hour-long show to an interview with the Cambridge-based academic Richard Evans, one of the David Irving's strongest critics. Adams and Evans worked as a duo during this long interview. All questions were favorable to Evans and seemed pre-arranged to solicit the strongest assault on Irving that could be packed into an hour-long show.

Richard Evans does indeed make mincemeat of Irving's work. See here.

By that time, I had somewhat sheepishly visited David Irving's website, in an attempt to better understand that of which I was being accused. Expecting web pages festooned with Swastikas and poorly written rants glorifying Hitler, I was surprised to encounter material rather more rational than I had imagined – and of clear contemporary relevance.

I am impressed that you are so guillible. Yes, Holocaust deniers make an effort to appear rational and reasonable. In the real world, however, David Irving has documented ties to right-wing extremism. See here and here.

It was also clear that this is not a simple topic. There is obviously no single conspiracy in which all Jews participate at the expense of all non-Jews. I mentioned earlier that some of the activists and authors who subsequently helped enlighten me on the existence of, and dangers associated with, powerful Jewish/Zionist networks, were of Jewish origin. In addition, gentiles such as Adams serve as enforcers or gatekeepers on behalf of the pro-Zionist cause (I imagine Mr Adams would deny this claim. He poses as an honest broker in the middle east debate. But I believe that's a myth. Adams enforces Zionist 'bans' on topics and individuals proclaimed beyond the pale by the Len's and Owen's of this world. Adams may have had Edward Said on his show years ago, and be pals with 'respectable' critics of Israel, but he does NOT seek to "cover all points of view" as he so often claims to do).

Last time I checked, Edward Said denounced Holocaust deniers, putting him in the same sandbox with the "Len's and Owen's of this world," and also Mr. Adams.

Right now, Israel is terrorizing and destroying this tormented and beleaguered nation – smashing its infrastructure to smithereens for the second time in a generation. Iraq… well, the best analysis of Iraq that I have read for some time was written by Saddam Hussein. Read it HERE. Saddam recognizes a Zionist agenda when he sees one, although he may have been a little slow on the uptake in 1990. I find his letter more truthful than anything I've heard from Blair, Bush or Howard on the subject. As for Palestine - don't get me started on Palestine itself and its systematic, brutal strangulation!

Saddam is typically paranoid. Some of the things he says in his letter are true, truisms, even. However, his theory that the Zionists are behind the attack on Iraq is not one I support. See below.

This vast political, economic and military assault on the Arab and Moslem world – on several fronts - is not inherently a popular agenda in the west. It is not even a mainstream oil industry agenda. The head of Britain's only oil mega corporation, BP, spoke against the Iraq invasion in the run-up to March 2003 – but his words seemed to carry little weight with Tony Blair.

If we are going to go by public statements, Martin van Creveld, the man you have identified elsewhere as "Israel's contemporary Dr Stangelove," has also vehemently denounced the Iraq invasion, calling it a "foolish war." See here. You don't pay much attention to that.

Or read this article that shows that the "neo-cons" such as Richard Perle, were trying to sell the Iraq war to Israel, not the other way around.

An adviser to INC [iraqi National Congress] chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria.

(...)

"I went to speak to [Ambassador Gold] just to say that I think it's in Israel's best interest to help the Iraqi people get this thing done," Mr. Brooke said. "The basic case I made was that we need help here in the U.S. to get this thing going."

For his part, Mr. Gold said Israel had no current plans to ally itself with the INC. "We're always interested in hearing impressions from people around the region, and Middle Easterners from many countries are always willing to share their perspective with us," Mr. Gold said.

A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

With regard to the American Jewish community, Mr. Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."

Former Ambassador Dore Gold, who was the one approached, has written an article on the subject of the Iraq war. He makes it quite clear that Israel wanted to attack Iran, and did not regard Iraq as much of a threat, just like Mr. Perle says above. From his article, its quite clear the Gold regards the "neo-cons" as a bunch of charlatans. He points out, for instance, that Perle has endorsed the division of Jerusalem, a position that is anathema to the Israeli right wing.

I agree with what Norman Finkelstein has to say about these people:

The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel ­ in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.A.' s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto? (source)

Norman Finkelstein, btw, is the one who exposed Alan Dershowitz's plagiarisms and wrote the book "The Holocaust Industry." He is a vehement opponent of Israel's policies, as you are undoubtedly aware.

Let's be clear. This agenda to assault, disparage and disempower the Arab and Moslem world and to support the regional super-dominance of Israel - is a Zionist agenda. Gentiles are involved in large numbers, to be sure. But the agenda is driven by Zionists. Likewise, with help from many gentiles, Zionists drive the assault on free speech about the occurences of World War Two.

Israel does have an area mapped out that it would like to dominate, but this doesn't mean that the United States government is going to support this when it conflicts with its interests. The United States is going to support Israel's interests only insofar as they support the interests of the United States.

This is not about fermenting anti-Jewish sentiment or inciting pogroms. Indeed, what chutzpah to insinuate that or to make that accusation, when Arabs and Moslems have been unjustly accused of the crime of the century and are being bombed, harassed and hassled from pillar to post in a phony 'War on Terror' based on Zionist lies.

Your proof that Israel is behind 9/11 is seriously wanting. I don't really know what to make of the 9/11 conspiracies at this point, but the Israeli angle is by far the slimmest. It seems to me that you've latched on to this particular theory because it confirms your biases. And lets not fool ourselves, there is a lot of Muslim terrorism.

Additionally, as long as historical claims are used to justify present actions, in my opinion, we're also well advised to examine ALL aspects of history – and listen to, consider and debate ALL points of view about them.

Free speech is more than nice. It's necessary.

I suggest you use your free speech to defend your outrageous views on the Holocaust. The only one who is having trouble impartially examining history here is you.

Not really sure why you're so pissed off but I won't be losing any sleep. I've never been a fan of joining lynching mobs, especially when I don't think Sid has said anything to deserve it. Len, Owen and yourself have an opinion about Sid's views and I have mine. It's funny that you seem so pissed off because I haven't fallen into line on this. The holocaust argument, which Owen seems determined to focus on, is an argument I'm not very keen about debating. I'm less inclined to challenge the historical record on this than Sid. On some of the wider issues, I think they are worth debating. Who's scared of debate?

I can understand why you wouldn't be "keen about debating" it, Mark. Indeed, why would Sid seem so determined to "challenge the historical record on this"? It does seem ridiculous, outrageous even, sort of like denying that the Earth is round. It certainly takes some extreme biases to forward the totally ludicrous and fraudulent "arguments" that Sid has. Indeed, one would have to be a "fanatic," a "bigot," and an "intellectual fraud." Wouldn't you agree?

You keep shifting the goal posts. First, Sid wasn't really denying the Holocaust (because that would make him a "fanatic," the implication goes). Next, its a "very interesting debate." Finally, his Holocaust denial is irrelevant to the "wider issues." What's it gonna take?

First, congratulations. For someone who, according to your bio, is still at High School, you have a remarkable grasp of a range of issues from a Zionist perspective - and show remarkable skill in presenting the Zionist perspective. You have an extensive knowledge of pro-Zionist sources. You are also extremely active and prompt in your replies whenever your nemesis pops up, as I do from time to time. I suspect you have a well-paid career ahead of you.

Please, if you hadn't noticed (and I'm sure you have), I am currently in the process of radically de-Zionising my views. This backhanded compliment looks very much to me like an attempt to associate debunking of Holocaust denying BS with "the Zionist perspective." Spare me.

Len and yourself are the ones obsessing about this particular topic - not me. I haven't made a post specifically on this subject. I suspect you and Len lead the debate in this direction, hoping I will walk into a trap, get banned and disappear entirely from the forum.

I am only interested in refuting your stupid arguments which in essence amount to apologism for Fascism (like Hitler was really no worse than FDR and Churchill; what an eminently reasonable and sensible position). Although your posts make me feel ill, I am not attempting to get you banned.

Third, Owen, after reading your response quickly, I think it generally helps add weight to my key point that there is, indeed, something to discuss here, and that at the very least it should be open to discussion. You have made criticisms and cited references. I could try to rebut them. Wouldn't it be nice to have a full and fair debate, with neither side subjected to intimidation? Who knows what the outcome might be? Perhaps you would convince me of the correctness of your position, not through intimidation or censorship - but through fair and open debate. Long term, if you (or anyone else), seeks genuine concurrence with the views you claim to hold, that's the way to get it – not via bullying or stand-over tactics.

I do not object to a "full and fair debate" and I am not trying to censor you. Put up or shut up. If you hadn't noticed, I've been making posts on this forum with the intention of proving that the Bosnian and Kosovo "genocides" are imperialist hoaxes. Andy Walker called this "very close to full scale denial." I do not object to pursuing controversial areas of history if there is something to back them up.

I suspect, however, you may argue that any attempt at rebuttal on my part "proves" my guilt, as I must draw on references from sources that have already been declared heretical by your side of the debate. This was the approach of my Zionist opponents on the Web Diary forum - and I've seen the same practice applied elsewhere.

Go ahead. Try to rebut my arguments. I am confident that you can't, but I would not attempt to get you banned if you are able.

I wanted to find something resembling an open debate on this topic, and finally encountered something of the kind - but it's well over a decade old. It took place on radio in the USA in the early 90s. You won't find a link to it on websites that you find acceptable. Yet I presume it's authentic? (Please correct me if you doubt its authenticity - I do not wish to purvey fraudulent information).

What a cute attempt at humor for some one who purveys fraudulent information with the purpose of questioning the "authenticity" of the "official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War II."

It's a rather long audio file, but in my opinion, well worth the time invested. The radio host, himself Jewish and disinclined to give credence to doubts about the official orthodoxy, nevertheless did a good job and was generally fair to both sides of the 'debate'. You can find the file - in two formats - under the title Mark Weber and Ted O'Keefe :: 1990 :: KFI AM640 Los Angeles in both Real Audio and MP3 formats at this location on the web (scroll down the page).

Looking at the description, it appears that there was only one side to this particular debate, as their opponent didn't show up. I have better things to do than listen to a two hour Weber-O'Keefe lovefest.

David Cole was a young Jewish American who visited the notorious concentration camp in the early 1990s, interviewed some of the staff, and made a video of his experience. A campus tour of the USA was planned – some ten years ago – in which Mr Cole was to present his video and discuss the content with students. The tour was abandoned when David Cole issued a public retraction, in the form of an open letter to Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defence League (the JDL, not be be confused with the ADL, was/is a Jewish terrorist organization, quite active in the USA at the time).

Whoever said that physical intimidation doesn't work?

David Cole's views are mostly influenced by the phony "Leuchter report" and the bogus 4 million canard. He also pulls out the usual distortion and confusion with the soap, among other things. These people have nothing.

The JDL is a Jewish terrorist organization, and terrorist organizations often resort to violence or threats of violence to defend their viewpoints. There are also many Arab terrorist organizations. But of course, Arab terrorism apparently doesn't exist in your delusional mind, as you persist in putting it in quotation marks.

Stirring up trouble (and getting Sid Walker branded as a dangerous fanatic) was precisely Len's motivation for starting this thread. However, this has backfired badly, IMO.

Sid has been branded a bigot, a fanatic and an intellectual fraud, charges which I believe are without foundation. He has responded to critics with courtesy, civility and even encouragement, using reason and logic to support his arguments. Part of the fascination here is that this type of debate is so rarely conducted...anywhere. Owen, while sometimes resorting to name calling, is a fine debater and thinker.

A very interesting debate. Thanks, Len.

Mark, I agree with Dunn's barely coherent post. You are being "intellectually dishonest" and totally ridiculous. Just stop. Defending this quack is only going to "backfire" on your reputation.

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

John, I agree that there are much better and productive things to discuss. However, Colby has suceeded in smoking Walker out and now I feel that it is important to expose his charlatanism.

Sid,

Banquet of food for thought there. Normally I would expect certain others to slice it up like a sausage, regularly taking pieces of it out of context but after reading this and Steve's contributions, they might resist.

In fact, think I saw Len heading for the hills.

Mmmm mmmm, oh yes, what a delicious banquet.

Mark, your views on Sid Walker, the intellectual fraud, are seriously delusional. I don't say this as a member of the "Jewish Lobby." Get a grip.

I will now proceed to demolish everything he has written below that purports to be factual information related to the Holocaust, as that is all I am really interested in at this point.

That's arguable, in my opinion - and should be open to free and unfettered argument. After all, it was American-made nuclear bombs dropped under the orders of an American president that unleashed a nuclear holocaust on Japan, on two separate days in 1945. The Germans, by contrast, in World War Two, eschewed the use of WMDs.

Yes, and I'm sure thats why the Nazis were attempting to make nuclear weapons.

Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time.

"Inasmuch as it is impossible for the International Committee to visit the camps where these people are interned, the Committee is not in a position to check on the distribution of relief supplies. For this reason these concentration camps are not included in the category of internment camps to which the Blockade authorities allow relief supplies from overseas to be sent, Furthermore, the International Red Cross Committee does not receive any lists of the names of the Detained Civilians."

See here and here.

One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale.

Please see here, here, here, and here, for instance, about the alleged "lack of forensic evidence" and the "logistics."

One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.

Uh huh. See here and here.

Interestingly, they also admitted to things that now are not part of the current "official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two". There was a confession, for instance, that fat from Jewish corpses was used by the Germans to make soap. The story persisted for some time. I recall being told of this horror in the 1960s.

There was no "confession." What you have written is a pile of crap.

One British POW at Auschwitz reported that the inmates were threatened that they would be turned into soap and that "Though I have no personal knowledge, I got the impression that the manufacture of soap from inmates was being done at Auschwitz by rendering the fat from the gassed bodies."

Thats it.

However, two British POWs did say that there were limited experiments of this nature at the Danzig Anatomic Institute. See here.

In 1981, Deborah Lipstadt, who serves these days as one of the chief custodians of orthodoxy for the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, wrote that the Jewish soap story had no basis in fact at all. In other words, it had been invented. So much for the reliability of Nuremburg testimony!

This is bogus. What Lipstadt denied was that there was any sort of mass production. Lipstadt didn't make a turn around, she never held this belief in the first place.

Around 1990, the official tally of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced by more than half. Millions of deaths were simply sliced off the official figure. Yet as far as I know, the has been no subsequent change to the orthodox figure of "six" million Jewish deaths. As most of the people allegedly slaughtered at Auschwitz allegedly were Jews, how can this be?

You guys (and by guys I do mean Holocaust denying hoaxsters) really need to drop this bogus argument. Piper used this before and I debunked it before. I may be mistaken, but I don't remember him ever responding. The phony 4 million number for Auschwitz was provided by the Soviets and then accepted by the museum. This is true. HOWEVER, most historians doubted this and used the 1 million number long before the tally at the museum was changed. The 4 million figure was not used to calculate the standard number of 5-6 million holocaust victims. This is a red herring. See this series (here, here, here).

Apart from anything else, some of the most articulate whistleblowers on this subject are of Jewish origin. Isarel Shamir (whose very mention so offends poor Owen's sensibilities) is one of these.

Oh yes, poor me. I do find Shamir's strange notion that some Jews in the middle ages ritually murdered Christian children to be offensive. Nor am I the only one. There is a man you may have heard of, Nigel Parry, who runs an invaluable little website called Electronic Intifada. Also Ali Abunimah (a co-founder of EI) and Hussein Ibish. See here and also here. As I said before, I seriously doubt Shamir is Jewish. He has lied all over the place about his background.