Owen Parsons

EDIT: SEE BELOW

I think it is very possible that Mr. Walker does not know who Israel Shamir really is and what he is all about. Here is an earlier post of mine about Shamir: If, after reading this material, Mr. Walker still wishes to have Shamir as one of his heroes, I will have to withdraw my earlier judgment that he is not anti-Semitic. These are strange charges, as I'm pretty sure Chomsky hasn't even bothered to address most of these alleged conspiracies in the first place.

Hey, I don't like the guy or the World Bank (the World Bank under Wolfowitz, by the way, recently gave the Palestinian Authority a $42 million dollar grant; see here and here). I think you are missing the whole thrust of my posts, or you are willfully misreading them. Hitchens may see him as a great humanitarian (I don't), but what he says is independently confirmable. See above. An Israel run policy would probably have resulted in bombs falling on Bosnia and Croatia, not Serbia (what actually happened). Feith also signed off on the paper (addressed to Netanyahu) advocating doing away with American financial aid to Israel. See above. Someone who advocates doing away with American financial aid to Israel can't reasonably be accused of using America as a tool of Israel, I would think. What Hitchens says about Wolfowitz is independently confirmable. See ya.

Owen, we shall have to agree to differ, for now at any rate. I find Edward Said rather more credible on this topic. Mr. Said seems to finger Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle as supposedly working to produce pro-Israel policy. Let's take a close look at these three: 1.) Wolfowitz. I'll quote Christopher Hitchens here on this one: "On the excruciating question of Israel/Palestine, Wolfowitz is not at all the "Likud" fan that his defamers portray. He almost went out of his way to be jeered and hooted at a pro-Israel rally in Washington in the early days of the Bush administration, by telling the gung-ho crowd not to forget the suffering of the Palestinians. He has spoken quite clearly of linkage between the demolition of Arab rejectionism [Note: by Arab rejectionism, I suppose it is meant Arab rejection of the two state solution] and the demolition of Jewish settlements." (Here). Hardly "openly advocat[ing] Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Gaza," as Said says. 2.) On Feith, he did at one time advocate Israel dropping out of the Oslo process (which I certainly think is significant, but not for the immediately "obvious" ones), but now supports the two state solution. "Many Palestinians say that their aim is to live dignified lives, in freedom, in peace and prosperity in their own state. That goal could be achieved. The U.S. government supports it. Israeli leaders have for years acknowledged that a Palestinian state will be the ultimate outcome of any negotiated peace. As President Bush noted on April 4th, 'Israel has recognized the goal of a Palestinian state. The outlines of a just settlement are clear: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security.' But that goal grows increasingly remote as terrorism belies and precludes diplomacy -- and darkens the Palestinian people's future. President Bush has called on Israelis to show 'a respect for and concern about the dignity of the Palestinian people who are and will be their neighbors. It is crucial to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians seeking to provide for their own families." (Here). There is another very interesting thing about Feith (and Perle). Namely this, "Fourteen nations, including the US, support a $400 million "Bosnian Defense Fund," which reportedly collects cash and equipment contributions for a "train and equip" program that is operated by the US. According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, a former Naval Officer who has worked with the NSA: "Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries [saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt] deposited millions of dollars into US coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians .... According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle." (Here). And here: "Richard Perle and Douglas Feith act as advisors to the government of Bosnia during the Dayton peace talks. They do not register with the Department of Justice, as required by US law. Richard Holbrooke is the chief NATO civilian negotiator and Wesley Clark the chief NATO military negotiator." More about Perle: "After the Dayton peace talks, Richard Perle serves as a military adviser to the Bosnian government." (Here). This is the same Bosnian government of NATO's favorite Islamic extremist Alija Izetbegovic, who illegally and undemocratically seized power and then illegally succeeded from Yugoslavia. This is the same Bosnian government that was at war with the Serbs. Serbia, for a time, at least, received support from Israel (here) (here). Ariel Sharon also reportedly voiced support for the Serbs (here), but this is also denied (here), so make of that what you will. 3.) Perle. I have already gone over his and Feith's intense support of Bosnia, but there is more. "Israel's new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform." (Here). This would seem to be advocating less (much, much less, in fact) U.S. aid and help to Israel, wouldn't it? So much for Jews subverting America in favor of Israel. Also, please note that these aren't "fighting words," but I think the casual reader of the thread might find all this interesting.

He seems like a pretty shadowy figue. Here's the NameBase: SFORZA ANTHONY J Cuba 1959-1962 Chile 1970 Mexico 1970-1971 Assn. Former Intelligence Officers. Membership Directory. 1983 Atlantic Monthly 1982-12 (45-6, 55-6) Corn,D. Blond Ghost. 1994 (261-2, 302) Fonzi,G. The Last Investigation. 1993 (384) pages cited this search: 9 The Atlantic Monthly stuff looks like it could be promising. Also, here's a link to the notice Robert talks about on the AFIO website. Fonzi has a very interesting and informative footnote on him: "I had not previously mentioned Sforza's name to Carbajal and he didn't know it was familiar to me. It had appeared, along with the names of Morales and Shackley and the others, in that "Highly Sensitive" document I had recieved in 1978. "This man handled anti-Castro activities on behalf of the CIA," the document noted. "He still runs a Cuban 'blow-up group.' ...Sforza is a hit man and should be regarded as dangerous." Like Morales a veteran deep cover agent, Sforza ran an import-export business in Miami after his "retirement" from the CIA. He died within six months of Morales, also from a sudden heart attack."

I will de-satirize the following post and then succinctly answer it. Remarkably disproportionate representation of Jews among the USA's billionaires (more than 50% according to a Jewish sociologist and expert on Jewish power within the USA) May or may not be true, but irrelevant unless some relationship can be shown between Jewish billionaires and U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. Extraordinarily high number of Jews in positions of influence, authority and control within the US mass media, the publishing industry, banking and the military-industrial complex Let's see some documentation, this is an opaque and very general charge and thus hard to rebut. The Jews don't run the media. Fact that more than half of the members of Congress show up, when invited, at American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meetings Sure, AIPAC is a political lobby. This is what political lobbies do (i.e. work Congress). AIPAC just happens to be very good at what it does. It is not part of the U.S. government. I would also note that AIPAC has been strangely compliant with the U.S.'s Oslo strategy. Impressively high proportion of both major US political parties funds received from Jewish donors See above. Billions of dollars of aid, including high-tech military assistance, that the USA regularly donates to Israel Israel recieves a lot of financial aid, true, but unlike Jordan and Egypt, many of its debts have not been forgiven (here). I have also pointed out the the U.S. threatened to withdraw this aid if Israel did not participate in the Madrid peace talks (y'know, to get the PLO back into the territories). As for arms, Saudi Arabia gets more of these. Longstanding sweetheart deals between key elements of US 'and Jewish 'intelligence' agencies I'd like to see some documentation of this first. Constant hyping of the case for Palestine in the US mass media (and in general, the western mass media) I have indeed seen much hyping of the "case for Palestine" in the U.S. mass media, if by that you mean the case for a Palestinian state, so I'll leave this unchanged. Incessant vilification of Arabs as a hapless people responsible for their own desperate plight who have a natural propensity to 'terrorism' Again, I could bring out just as much contrary documentation of media bias against Israel. I don't know where I've seen it suggested that Arabs have a natural propensity for terrorism in the media. If the media reports on Arab terrorism, it is because there is indeed a great deal of Arab terrorism. Wholly disproportionate coverage given to Israeli deaths and injuries in the continuing struggle – and contrasting tendency to downplay Arab deaths and injuries and portray the Israeli victims as 'militants' Last I checked, "militants" is the media's weasel word for "terrorists" and it only uses this word when the dead are, indeed, terrorists. Way the US mass media repeatedly overlooks the blatant injustice to Arabs, for more than 50 years, in view of their uncompensated eviction from their land of origin and / or confinement as second class citizens within an Jewish-supremacist State and / or highly restricted freedom under armed occupation by high-handed and heavily armed Jewish troops This stuff about Israel being a supremacist state is so much BS. 20% of Israel's population are Arabs. Said Arabs have all the rights of their fellow Jewish citizens, including the right to vote and hold office (both of which they do). Israeli Arabs also own almost as much land (3%) as the 80% Jewish population (3.5%), despite being considerably less in number. The armed occupation is a myth; I have gone over this many times. Freezing of all US aid to the Israeli Administration, even when its people face economic ruin up to and including starvation, because of the PA's refusal to recognize the State of Israel and refusal to condemn ALL attacks against Israelis - even though Palestinians themselves are repeatedly subjected to attack by Israeli troops and far more Palestinians are killed in the conflict each year than Israelis. The Hamas government has only had their financial aid stripped. They still get humanitarian aid (y'know, food and stuff). They aren't at risk of starving. And yes, more Arabs are killed than Israelis, but this is misleading, as I have shown in my response to Mark above. ... and many other powerful and easily documented arguments that might further assist his case. One must also consider the large number of Jews in positions of power within the US Administration - not only under Bush II, but Clinton as well and others before him - and the tendency within America to speak of the Jewish 'Lobby' in hushed tones because it's known to be remorseless when crossed. Yawn... more about "Jews" in positions of power, which is a very general charge which doesn't actually add up to support of Israel. All in all, Gil-White is a most courageous and patriotic American. I do hope his exceptional courage in speaking on this important but highly sensitive topic out doesn't completely wreck his career. Funny you should mention that, because Gil-White's writings on Israel (and Yugoslavia) have wrecked his career. See this lengthy and detailed chronology of Gil-White's trouble with the University of Pennsylvania here. Also, who is Scott, John?

As of this writing you still have not engaged with his writings in any meaningful manner. I think that American aid and comfort to the PLO has been demonstrated in many cases, as with the U.S.'s rescue of the PLO from Lebanon (not to mention the fact that the PLO was providing security for U.S. diplomats there, according to anti-Israel CIA man Mr. "Contra program" Vincent Cannistraro), and browbeating the Israelis into accepting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories, which the Clinton administration inherited. Quite above and beyond some weak protests. In other cases, he shows, at the very least, that the U.S. is not such a special friend of Israel. I have already shown that LBJ was not such a special friend of Israel. I'm not firmly dug in at all. I have just not seen you effectively counter what I am saying. Israel does control the borders, yeah, and it regularly uses troops to take out terror cells in retaliation to terrorist attacks on Israeli civillians, not to enforce military rule. The PA, meanwhile, has a very prolific record of killing so-called "collaborators" and likes to broadcast anti-Semitic propaganda on its state-run television stations. The PA also squanders money that should be used to better living conditions. As for Palestinian casualties, see here: "According to the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 2,329 Palestinians have died in the conflict between Sept. 2000 and June 15, 2003, and 785 have died on the Israeli side. On the Palestinian side, 867 were "non-combatants killed by the opposite side." In contrast, on the Israeli side, 604 killed were non-combatants killed by the opposite side." Thus, while it is true that at 76.9 percent, most Israelis killed were civilians, it is not true that most Palestinian fatalities were civilians. Only 37.2 percent of Palestinian fatalities were civilians." I have already said I am not a fan of Irgun or Menachem Begin. What I am pointing out is that what Irgun did is different than what the various Palestinian terror groups do. I also think Begin had moderated considerably by the time he was Prime Minister. Begin pulled out of the Sinai (in accord with resolution 242) and demolished the Israeli settlements there, which caused him quite a bit of trouble. Sure, I have no problem with a debate about the benefits or lack thereof of America's supposedly cozy relationship with Israel. I just think the Mearsheimer/Walt paper is very shoddy.

That's fine with me, if you now see that the issue is perhaps not so black and white. I'm getting a little weary of this discussion myself. I'd also like to clarify that my thoughts are not identical to Gil-White's on American foreign policy towards Israel. I certainly think the CIA has an anti-Israel/pro-PLO stance (he does a good job showing this in some of his other articles), which can probably be traced back to its absorption of the Gehlen organization, and select Presidents (specifically Reagan, Bush 1, possibly 2, and Nixon before Cold War concerns led to him supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war) also have such a stance. I don't see a consistent American policy to undermine/destroy Israel, as Gil-White does, but I think his article does a good job of demonstrating that America gives Israel no special preference over other Middle-Eastern countries, sometimes less. I also hold Jimmy Carter in higher regard than he does. My thread title was perhaps a little too sweeping. No, I say it is a lie because it is. Almost all of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories live under Palestinian Authority rule, which has many of its own issues, to say the least. When Israel does intrude it is to take out terrorist cells in response to terrorist attacks. With the withdrawal from Gaza, btw, the Egyptian government has been given the responsibility for controlling weapon smuggling along the border. Yes, I know about the King David Hotel bombing. I am not what you would call the greatest admirer of Irgun/Etzel's methods, but the crucial difference between what Irgun did and various Palestinian groups do can probably be summed up thus: the phone warning. I also think the Hotel could probably be classified as a military target. Killing civillians was not the goal. Also, Begin was never my PM because I am an American. Just a small point. I do indeed have a great deal of admiration for Ben-Gurion though. He's my kind of Socialist. Here is the total of his involvement with this bombing: "He was also involved in occasional violent resistance during the short period of time his organization cooperated with Menachem Begin's Irgun, though he refused to be involved in terrorism of any kind, and insisted that violence only be used against military targets. Ben-Gurion initially agreed to Begin's plan to carry out the King David Hotel bombing, with the intent of humiliating (rather than killing) the British military stationed there. However, when the risks of mass killing became apparent, Ben-Gurion told Begin to call the operation off; Begin refused." (source) I say they are heavily factual because they cite sources and statistics. As for "who the hell runs and funds CAMERA" see here. I could care less if the Mossad ran it, as I've found most of the information on the site to be unrefuted and thorough. Ditto with the IDF. Unless someone shows that the IDF is lying about the smuggling tunnels they've uncovered, the source stands. Again, the links I posted are solid. The second link is entirely dedicated to the deconstruction of a single footnote in the paper and the CAMERA link has many more examples along this line. In one instance, the Mearsheimer/Walt paper refers to a PNAC paper to support their point that Israel is trying to get America to fight its wars. The article then shows that the only reference to Israel in the paper has nothing to do with this and invites the reader to check for themselves by linking to a PDF of said paper. These are only a few examples. My point was that Johnson did not necessarily always give Israel top priority, and seems to prefer Jordan over Israel in many areas, particularly arms.

While I can not say that I approve of housing demolition in all or many cases, what is missing from your presentation is context. Namely, why the houses are demolished in the first place: to stop weapons smuggling. The IDF has a lengthy list of weapon smuggling tunnels uncovered here. See also here. They are NOT for settler expansion (citation). Also, they do have an agenda. Here is ICAHD founder Jeff Halper as terrorism apologist: "The acts of terrorism most condemned by the US and other states are those of non-state actors, in which the legitimate resistance of oppressed peoples to their oppression gets tragically lumped with the loony and pointless terrorism of Bin Laden, Carlos and other 'professional terrorists," and here he is again, "The Palestinians' need to resort to terrorism raises questions of fundamental fairness. One cannot expect a people to suffer oppression forever, to abrogate their own rights in favor of those of others." Also, here is Halper denying Israel's right to exist: "A Jewish state has proven politically, and in the end, morally, untenable." All these quotes can be found here. Also check out his latest op-ed on the ICAHD website where he tries to make a bizarre comparison between Hamas and Gandhi. Israeli shelling, btw, is in response to terrorist rocket firing. The above links show actual factual errors in the paper. This is not about debate being quelled. Surely both sides of a debate should be presented. Now you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing, attacking the messenger but not the message. CAMERA is one of my favorite sites on this subject because their articles are detailed and heavily factual. Contrast this with the pro-Palestinian watchdog group "Palestine Media Watch" which tends to use sweeping claims and generalities. Read this. Johnson was not an ally of Israel. Here is a relevant portion: "President Johnson and Secretary of State Rusk were particularly concerned about the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and Rusk warned Israel that it would "lose U.S. support" it if developed nuclear weapons. The administration probed the possibility of an indirect arrangement to prevent the introduction of advanced weapons by Israel and the United Arab Republic. After an exchange of letters with President Nasser, President Johnson sent veteran diplomat John J. McCloy to Cairo to discuss possible limitations on missiles. Nasser told McCloy the problem in the Middle East was not missiles but Palestine; nothing could stop the arms race in the area except the solution of the Israeli problem. U.S. efforts to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union to reduce the flow of arms to the area were unproductive. Bilateral U.S.-UAR relations also continued to be problematic. President Nasser's intervention in Yemen and the Congo, acceptance of Soviet arms, and frequent anti-American statements undermined President Johnson's efforts to develop good relations with him. The U.S. Congress threatened to cut off all P.L. 480 aid to the UAR, but Johnson and Rusk argued successfully for legislation that permitted carrying out the remaining commitments of the existing P.L. 480 agreement. Rusk advocated continued engagement with the UAR, and in February 1966 President of the UAR Assembly Anwar al-Sadat visited Washington, bringing about a moderate warming of relations. By mid-1965 the number of terrorist incidents and skirmishes on Israel's borders were on the rise. The United States opposed Israeli reprisals and in 1966 voted for a UN Security Council resolution censuring Israel after a large-scale Israeli retaliatory raid into Jordan. After threatening Israel with suspension of military shipments, President Johnson assured King Hussein of U.S. support, and in December 1966 the United States and Jordan reached agreement on a military aid package. After Israel protested the agreement, the Johnson administration, under domestic political pressure, approved an offsetting Israeli request for additional arms." Also note that Kennedy also had "sham" inspections and the only reason Johnson approved the arms package was after "domestic political pressure" to provide a counterpoint to a Jordanian arms deal. Again, did you read it? The quote about the territories being "indispensible to Israeli defence" is in reference to a Pentagon study of the time. The question being asked is why would an "ally" of Israel embark on an action to remove what is, in its own estimation, "indispensible to Israeli defence"? While we are speaking of territories, I would like to emphasize again that living conditions in the Occupied Territories improved vastly under Israeli control over the previous Jordanian and Egyptian occupation.

No.... I first rebutted his charges and then, after seeing his bit about superior "independent" and "alternative" journalism, revealed the hypocritical, somewhat irrational millieu he operates in. This seems like an excuse for you to avoid engaging with my critique by painting it as an ad hominem argument, which it wasn't. We are once more back to handwaving. Have you even read what he wrote? It is not about "Israel's allies [having] a duty to assist Israel to destroy its enemies." This is a straw man. Rather, he shows that the U.S. has been helping Israel's enemies (namely, the PLO, a terrorist organization with genocidal goals that traces its origins back to the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was an active participant in Hitler's Third Reich), not just refusing to destroy them. I don't know why you keep harping on "scientific method." Gil-White explains his reasoning with each example and writing political analysis is not exactly a science, in any case. This seems like an excuse for you to avoid engaging in a substantive debate. Lets look at Gil-White's examples case-by-case, starting with the two I mentioned in the first post of this thread. We can then debate whether these U.S. actions were pro- or anti-Israel. On the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, I will point you here for some critiques of the myriad errors in their paper (Here) (Here). I don't think that calling them anti-Semitic is warranted, at least not until they start denying the holocaust and saying that the "Jews" run the media. At that point, they become fair game . I do think calling gentlemen such as Piper and our friend Mark Wilson anti-Semitic is warranted however, as they fit one or both of the above two criteria. Now, lets get to the topic at hand, namely, whether U.S. foreign policy favors Israel or the PLO.

I do not think you are anti-Semitic at all, though I disagree with your views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I take issue with one of your "Jewish" heroes. On Israel Shamir; I find it doubtful that he is even Jewish (Israel Shamir isn't even his actual name). He actually believes that Jews ritually murder Christian children and he has been somewhat supportive of holocaust deniers. He has since been disowned by many pro-Palestinian activists, including Nigel Parry, who runs the electronic intifada site. See his page on Shamir here. Also see this wikipedia page on him. You might want to consider dropping him from your pantheon. Not exactly a character witness to anti-Semitism (which, I emphasize again, I do not accuse you of). Also, Israel Shahak's books are filled with seriously distorted material on Orthodox Judaism, including flat-out lying. You may want to look into that. Also, I do not know in what way, shape or form Chomsky could be construed as pro-Israel. I guess blaming the U.S. government for Israel's actions and not vice-versa will do that. I completely agree that he is a gatekeeper, though. I believe he has acted in this role specifically in regards to the conflicts in the Balkans (a different bag of worms) and the JFK assassination, as do many other "left-wing" writers.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies...by_Settlers.asp http://www.cpt.org/hebron/documents/Tuwani_media_packet.doc These are our primary sources. The first notable thing here is that there is no evidence linking the settlers to this incident accept propinquity. Second, alleged actions of settlers should not be taken as reflective of Israeli government policy. I'll leave this one at that for now, but may come back to it. The reporting here is so bad, btw, that he got the name of the village completely wrong. [From the article: "The project is designed to make Palestinian claims to Jerusalem less viable."] I will first say that the only reason Jerusalem (which the Jews have an understandable attachment to) was split was because Jordan occupied this part of it during the 1948 war and later annexed it. Funny how no "left-wing" anti-Israel writers make a fuss about this. (Source) Now, here is a lengthy quote that will put this factoid about the 3500 housing units in context: "In March 2005, Israel announced the intention to build 3,500 homes on a strip of territory that has been declared state land between the community of Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem. The decision immediately caused an uproar as Palestinian officials claimed it was "a kind of terror against the peace process and against the Palestinian people" and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said it was at odds with U.S. policy. This is a good example of where it is important to understand not only the politics of the issue, but the geography. Ma'aleh Adumim is a settlement in the West Bank. It is also a suburb of Israel's capital, barely three miles outside the city limits, a ten-minute drive away. Ma'aleh Adumim is not a recently constructed outpost on a hilltop; it is a 23-year-old community that is popular because it is clean, safe, and close to where many residents work. It is also the largest Jewish settlement in the territories, with a population of 32,000. Because of its size and location, it is understood by both Israelis and Palestinians that Ma'aleh Adumim will not be dismantled or evacuated; it will be part of Israel after a peace agreement is reached. That is why the recently announced housing plan was conceived during Prime Minister Rabin's term. The development was part of his plan to link all of the large settlement blocs just outside Jerusalem's city limits. To understand why the plan has the support of Israel's majors parties, just look at a map. If Ma'aleh Adumim is not linked to Jerusalem, the city would be an island. We hear a lot about Palestinian concerns about the contiguity of a future Palestinian state, but the same principal applies to the future boundaries of Israel. Why should it be a problem for Israel to fill in the empty gap between the city and this bedroom community? The corridor is approximately 3,250 acres and does not have any inhabitants, so no Palestinians will be displaced. And why shouldn't Israel be able to build in and around the city that the U.S. Congress said "should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel" and "should remain an undivided city"?" (Source) Also, see this article. And please note how Condi voices her displeasure with this development. As for the "separation barrier," I suggest you read this link. This is totally unsubstantiated. If Israel were actually attempting to keep journalists out of the territories, one wonders how Mr. Petrovato, a political radical, manages to visit as often as he does. It would have also been nice if Petrovato would have provided some actual quotes from these "Israeli officials." Meanwhile, there are many documented instances of Palestinian Authority intimidation of journalists. Also, see here. It should be noted that John Petrovato is an "International Solidarity Movement activist." Said Solidarity Movement claims to be involved in peaceful protest, but nevertheless has admitted to knowingly working with Hamas and Islamic Jihad members (Source) (Source). For peaceful purposes, of course. In addition, ISM cofounder Adam Shapiro is in favor of suicide bombing, but only against "Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Fascinating. And again, the "Occupied Territories" are not occupied in the sense implied, as 99% of the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories have been living under Palestinian Authority rule for over a decade now. The bit about "harsh military occupation" has been a lie for some time now.

oh really? what's amusing is how you continue to dodge the context of this thread and your persistence to insinuate i have a problem with Jews and that i'm an anti semite rather even once adress the theory of this topic. I think your previous comments and the material on the sites you link to convicts you of anti-semitism. And sorry if I have expressed little interest thus far in the Mossad-did-it theory, as the only evidence I have seen thus far relates to PERMINDEX, whose links to the CIA are much more clearly documented and stronger than the supposed Mossad ones. I've also already had some unpleasant interaction with Mr. Piper, though I confess to not having read his book. After coming across his article that attempted to lower the number of holocaust dead through straw man argumentation, I lost interest in trying to obtain it. If he has some more substantial arguments, I'd like to see them.

How amusing. Prior to this you spoke of the "Jews" and "Israel" as if they were one and the same.

Gil-White does a debunking of both the Deir Yassin massacre and the more recent Jenin "massacre" elsewhere on his website, as two examples. His main focus in the article we are discussing is U.S. foreign policy. His argument is circumstantial in the extreme, and his claim that his book has been banned appears to be based on nothing. I find it strange that you can so easily brush off his holocaust denial views. My point was that there is no reason for the U.S. Government to say what its policy actually amounts to, because you had brought up the fact that the government's words indicate support of Israel. Nothing confusing here.

Of course he applies his interpretation to historical events. We all do, especially on this forum. Anyway, I will be more than happy to discuss supposed Israeli injustices toward the Palestinians in the thread. I think you will find that, despite what the PLO or Hamas might say (or various "left-wing" writers), there have been very few. I never said you were "explicitly anti-Israel" for tying the Mossad in with the Kennedy assassination, I said the government doesn't voice an "explicitly anti-Israel" view because it goes against American public opinion. What are you going on about? I don't find Piper to be a reliable source on anything, as he is a proven Holocaust denier. Edit: And maybe the reason some people have been "frightened off" is because they can't back up their opinions. I have noticed that Mark Wilson has made himself scarce, but then he cites sites that propagate holocaust denial and racism (and not just against Jews), as Len Colby has shown, and says that the "Jews" control the media. I'd be a bit embarassed too. Its unbelievable. And please don't pull out the free speech card. My arguing a case does not prevent you from doing the same.

Sure, the link is here. I reiterate my opinion that the article is solid. It does not become "bizarre" merely by virtue of it contradicting your worldview, or most establishment opinion. Seeing as how most supposedly "left" and "progressive" material looks at the issue from "only one perspective," its useful to have a counterpoint.

Ah, I see. I did indeed misread your reply. Anyway, yes, I do deny that Piper's book has been banned by the U.S. government. This is an assertion that he likes to make but I haven't seen it backed up. Provide some examples. Last I heard, polls show that most Americans support Israel. Gee. Anyway, I speak of the U.S. government's motivation in saying what it doesn't actually mean, not the anti-Israel views of private citizens. You've done some misreading of your own. More hand waving. Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources, which are all quite credible. I look forward to seeing your non hand waving efforts in this thread I have just started: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6577 Let's see who comes out looking the most absurd. I prefer dealing with facts, not some arbitrary definition of "common sense."

U.S. words indicate support of Israel, not actions (and lets not forget the aphorism "actions speak louder than words"). This is achieved by redefining the terms and boundaries of the debate. Being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans, as that would be just a little too, you know, blatantly Nazi-esque. I suggest you actually confront Gil-White's documented facts, rather than voicing your disbelief (with nothing to back it up). These articles, by the way, are not things I just found to "support my ideas," rather, they have shaped my thinking on the issues. Let's start with just the two I have already brought up: Why did the United States rescue the PLO from Lebanon, and then why did they browbeat the Israelis into participating in the Madrid peace talks (with the goal of getting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories) by threatening withdrawal of financial aid? If the U.S. was truly pro-Israel, they would have let the PLO (which was still seen then for the terrorist organization that it actually is) be exterminated, thus ending their supposed "resistance" to Israeli occupation (how interesting that in the PLO's original charter, before the Six Day War, when Israel gained Gaza and the West Bank, they explicitly disavow any interest in these areas, which were then occupied by Arab states and the living conditions were worse than they became under Israeli control). Also, do you still hold that the Palestinian leadership is not responsible for the living conditions in the territories that they have actually been running for over a decade now? Let's engage in a real debate here. I have continually cited sources; you have been waving your hands and avoiding issues, seemingly only because you have a prior belief in Israeli villainy and U.S. complicity in said villainy. I started out with this position also (Norman Finkelstein used to be one of my favorite "experts" on the conflict), but reexamined my position and changed. You might not do this, but at least try to support and back up your pronouncements.

U.S. words indicate support of Israel, not actions (and lets not forget the aphorism "actions speak louder than words"). This is achieved by redefining the terms and boundaries of the debate. Being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans, as that would be just a little too, you know, blatantly Nazi-esque. I suggest you actually confront Gil-White's documented facts, rather than voicing your disbelief (with nothing to back it up). These articles, by the way, are not things I just found to "support my ideas," rather, they have shaped my thinking on the issues. Let's start with just the two I have already brought up: Why did the United States rescue the PLO from Lebanon, and then why did they browbeat the Israelis into participating in the Madrid peace talks (with the goal of getting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories) by threatening withdrawal of financial aid? If the U.S. was truly pro-Israel, they would have let the PLO (which was still seen then for the terrorist organization that it actually is) be exterminated, thus ending their supposed "resistance" to Israeli occupation (how interesting that in the PLO's original charter, before the Six Day War, when Israel gained Gaza and the West Bank, they explicitly disavow any interest in these areas, which were then occupied by Arab states and the living conditions were worse than they became under Israeli control). Also, do you still hold that the Palestinian leadership is not responsible for the living conditions in the territories that they have actually been running for over a decade now? When has the government banned books on the Liberty? I haven't seen it, but feel free to help me here. I have, however, seen many former government and intelligence officials alleging a deliberate Israeli attack. This includes Richard Helms(!), who has something of a reputation for dishonesty when it serves state interests, lying about the CIA's own reports; and this from the same auto-biography in which he trotted out the official line on the Kennedy assassination and again defamed Garrison. Also, we find NSA men like Oliver Kirby and former NSA directors like William Odom implicating Israel and lying about their own intercepts, which have recently been released. You can see all of these instances trotted out on the front page of the "USS Liberty Memorial" website, where they proudly state the following: "AMERICAN LEADERS SUPPORT USS Liberty SURVIVORS The Israeli government, the AntiDefamation League, and certain notorious apologists for Israel insist that the attack was a tragic accident and that the US government accepts that assertion. Not so. Virtually every knowledgeable American official with the lone exception of Robert McNamara is on public record calling the attack deliberate and the Israeli story untrue. Here are a few of those American leaders." This amount of official support seems to me to be unprecedented in cases of real conspiracies. You also speak of "Israel's motive" to attack the ship, but do not provide said motive. Please do so. Motive for the attack has always been one of the (very) weak points in the case for conspiracy. Let's engage in a real debate here. I have continually cited sources; you have been waving your hands and avoiding issues, seemingly only because you have a prior belief in Israeli villainy and U.S. complicity in said villainy. I started out with this position also (Norman Finkelstein used to be one of my favorite "experts" on the conflict), but reexamined my position and changed. You might not do this, but at least try to support and back up your pronouncements.

[MERGED, SEE BELOW]

Well, of course there is "Jewish influence in the media." The media has many different influences. What I deny is that there is any massive, organized, control of the media on the part of the "Jews." The fact that you are able to speak of both "Israel or Jewish propaganda" says something. A belief that Israel is pulling the strings of American foreign policy is not anti-Semitic, though it is not very informed (I note that you have not yet adressed any of the American actions I have pointed out that are very much in the interests of the PLO, not Israel). When you start speaking of some imaginary propaganda, propagated by the Jews as a people, you have become anti-Semitic. The fact that Nixon spoke in a racist manner about Jews would indeed support the point that he was an anti-Semite; its a no-brainer. This is a trait that most sensible people find reprehensible. It does not indicate "Jewish" control of the media. In addition, you have not felt it necessary to take the anti-Israeli garbage propagated in the major media by CIA men into account, as well as the many, many examples of anti-Israel bias in the media, documented here and here. See here and here. Boston is really not credible. Robert S. McNamara, an alleged participant, denies this and thinks it unlikely that LBJ would have done this. It's one man's word against another's. Taking into account the circumstances of the attack (ship didn't sink, Israelis were using inappropriate weapons, no plausible motive), I find McNamara's denial more credible. As for the flag, see here, here, here, here, and here. Also here: "Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over." And what a surprise to find Richard Helms' endorsement of the conclusion that the Liberty was deliberately attacked (here) and lying about the conclusions of the CIA's own reports. "...for heaven's sake." Also, do you still hold to the belief that Israel is responsible for the poor living conditions in the "Occupied Territories" rather than the Palestinian Authority, which actually runs them?

[COMBINED WITH POST BELOW]

Well I see it didn't take long for a plausible theory to denigrate into the usual "Jews control everything" diatribe. In case you're unaware, Scott, there's many people who believe the US media is run by those whose loyalty to Israel prevents them from objectivity in the analysis of Middle Eastern affairs. Myself included. How many stories on Fox or NBC are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians? Do you think the Palestinians have been oppressed and dispossessed or is it just "poor leadership", as the Israeli lobby contemptuously suggests? Will the History channel be presenting an (objective) doco on the USS Liberty, an unresolved historical issue if ever there was one? Funny you should mention the History Channel not airing an "objective" documentary, because they have indeed aired a documentary on the Liberty that you would probably find "objective." See here. As for the plight of the Palestinians, they have been running almost all of the "occupied territories" for some time now, thus making the very phrase "occupied territories" a misnomer and placing the blame for their plight squarely on the Palestinian leadership. See this article by Professor Efraim Karsh, whose writings documenting the fabrications of the Israeli "New Historians" (Benny Morris, Illan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, etc.) were initially responsible for turning my views around on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I also find it hilarious that Mr. Wilson goes off on Stone for portraying Nixon as an anti-Semite (something I don't actually recall from my viewing of the movie, but whatever) and then, in the next paragraph, cites with approval the comments of Nixon and Billy Graham to the effect that the "Jews" run the media. I don't know how I missed this before. Edit: Oh yes, and to return to U.S. foreign policy in Israel, I'd like to note that the U.S. threatened to withdraw financial aid from Israel if Israel did not participate in its project to resettle the P.L.O. in the West Bank, the Madrid Peace talks. What an "ally."

I've never seen this particular allegation anywhere before. It sounds like another in the long line of myths which permeate anti-Israel propaganda. If someone can provide me with a citation or link, I'll look into it.