{ 17 } Comments

1. Neil Levine | September 5, 2005 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

   You say America invaded Iraq because of Israel. What is your source for this claim? If Israel really is able to dictate the foreign policy of the world's superpower to this extent then that's one hell of a party trick.

   Reply - Quote
2. Haitham | September 5, 2005 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

   I hate open ended questions. They are waste of time, and most of the time has no real objective but to distract attention to the opposite direction of facts.

   Anyway, with a simple google search, you could get 100's of articles documenting speeches and actions that confirms my claim.

   To save readers time, here is two links and some excerpts from these articles:

   1. War Against Iraq: Converging U.S. and Israeli Agendas - Ronald Bleier

   On the one hand it would seem to go against all logic that a tiny country like Israel, albeit with the with the world's 7th, most powerful army and armed with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, could shape U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless it shouldn't be so surprising that this is the present case. We recall that the tiny Cuban lobby exercises powerful influence over Cuban policy even though they are at odds with the otherwise influential farm lobby. Similarly when it comes to Middle East issues, the extraordinary power of the Zionist lobby has been a fact of life for many years. On the other hand, the U.S. would not venture on such a war if its leadership didn't see clear political and strategic gains for itself.

   The Israeli connection to the Iraq war was highlighted by the furor over Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's response in early March to a constituent question during a town hall meeting. He said: that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."

   He would have been on safer ground had he limited his remarks to the leaders of the Jewish community. Jews, like all other groups, are split on the war. One poll taken shortly before the beginning of the war indicated that 59% of Jews supported the war, matching the rest of the country. But the congressman was correct and extraordinarily courageous in pointing to the leadership of the major Jewish organizations and suggesting that they could have blocked this war. As a 13-year veteran member of the House, Jim Moran has been around long enough to understand how political power on Middle East issues operates in Congress. War against Iraq has so isolated the United States and makes so little sense that were it not perceived as good for Israel it would have had a more difficult time arousing sufficient support. Much of the mainstream media which is also largely controlled by pro-Zionist Jews played an important role in allowing this extremist agenda to go forward without significant question or debate. (See appendixlisting Jewish leadership of much of the mainstream media,)

   When Congressman Moran says that the leadership of the Jewish community is influential enough to change the direction of where this is going, he is stating a simple truth about the power of the Zionist lobby which helps to explain the silence and timidity of the Democrats. The power of Zionist interests explains in part why many high profile Democrats such as Senators John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer and others voted to give President Bush the authority for war in October 2002 despite the manifest recklessness of the venture. They understand that opposition to perceived Israeli interests might well have a dramatic impact on campaign contributions since Jewish sources reportedly donate 50% or more of the total receipts to the Democratic party. (See Mother Jones 400; http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/special_reports/mojo_400/)

   Support by the leadership of the Jewish community for war against Iraq represents a culmination of 50 years of U.S. support for Israel's expansionist and oppressive rule. The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests — has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be.

   A measure of the influence of right-wing pro Israeli hawks in this administration is the way they have allowed Ariel Sharon free reign to apply extraordinary and unending pressure on the Palestinians and to destroy the possibility for Palestinian civil society. The Bush administration signaled their intention to leave the Palestinians to the tender mercies of the Israeli government as soon as they took office when they announced that they would allow the contending parties to settle their own differences. This ignored the disparity of power between the two sides and predictably the situation has deteriorated to its current awful level, ever spiraling downward with widening ripples into a hopeless future.

   In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was recognized that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was at the heart of the Al-Qaeda attack and there was a fair amount of attention to the subject even in the United States. However, as time passed, the issue returned to its familiar marginalization, banished from the major media. But it is already clear that the war against Iraq will only exacerbate matters as Sharon continues to put more and more pressure on the Palestinians. As a result, the Muslim and Arab world are likely to be further inflamed, even more now as a longer than expected war is bound to inflict terrible suffering on many Iraqis. All the talk of a road map towards a Palestinian state is widely regarded as mere public relations from a Bush administration dead set against any concessions to the Palestinians.

   2. Iraq: A War For Israel - By Mark Weber

   Whatever the secondary reasons for the Iraq war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish "neo-conservatives" holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush - who was already fervently committed to Israel - resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.

   This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author.

   Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.

   Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said in an interview:

   "Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."

   President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its hardline premier is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of "leading Israeli commentators," the London Times reported, the address was "so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon."

   Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the "security of Israel is the key to security of the world."

   In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." He also told the gathering: "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America."

   Reply - Quote
3. Neil Levine | September 5, 2005 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

   It was an open ended question because I was interested to see which websites you read to build your opinions.

   Reply - Quote
4. Haitham | September 5, 2005 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

   I don't read websites to build my opinion, I was born anti-Zionist. Just like any other Palestinian. It's in our blood

   Anyway, I read everything, and have no reservation on reading the opposite as far as they are objective and reasonable.

   Reply - Quote
5. Neil Levine | September 5, 2005 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

   How can you tell if something is objective and reasonable though? For example, the second URL you quote (IRH) features some links and references which I would consider to be highly dubious. Then again, my opinion about the validity of the references is a reflection of my already formed opinions - a vicious circle.

   I, like you, have somewhat built-in default opinions based on ethnicity but I try to approach things from the view that everything I believe is wrong and everything I read is incorrect. This forces me to question all the sources I read on the internet, including yours

   Reply - Quote
6. Ji-Young Park | September 5, 2005 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

   I can tell something is objective and reasonable when the mainstream American media has a more balanced representation of different views. Unlike you Neil I don't have "default" opinions based on my ethnicity regarding Zionism and the atrocities committed against Palestinians. For every report of Palestinian terrorism, there are many more incidents of human rights violations and violence against Palestinians that are completely ignored.

   Watch Haim Yavin's five-part documentary. I'm sure you know who he is Neil.

   Notice my name? I'm a Korean Buddhist.

   Reply - Quote
7. Oscar | September 6, 2005 at 2:05 am | Permalink

   Hi Haitham. I agree with your views, and I am surprised you didn't show this American Conservative Magazine article by Patrick Buchanan called "Whose War?" to Neil:
   http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

   Reply - Quote
8. Haitham | September 6, 2005 at 10:43 am | Permalink

   Thanks for your insight, Ji-Young and Oscar.

   As I said before, an open ended question has no answer. It normally drags us to endless useless debate. However, sometimes it is important to answer so that you don't look to be faking claims.

   The fact that the American (Zionist) media stream is biased is well known everywhere in the world, but not inside USA. That's unfortunate of course, but it's a fact. That's why when someone from the humble Americans hears something he is not used to, he doubts it. That's a result from the 'American Style' that they live, and I don't blame them. They have other things to worry about than questioning the source of the news, or the truth behind what they are hearing, or the other side point of view. e.g. See how their media covered Gaza disengagement (here , here and here). Was that balanced and fair? By all means, NO.

   Now, with blogs from all around the world, talking and publishing the story that you will never hear in the Zionist media, it is sort of a shock that will need some time (I hope not too much) until Americans realize that lies their media were telling them for decades.

   I'm a proud member of Global Voices Online, a blog with no nationality and focus on all blogs of the world other than the Americans. Why? Because we are afraid that as the Zionist media is dominating the world mainstream, American Blogs would do so too. As of now, Global Voice Online is among the top 100 visited blogs worldwide, and we intend to keep it so.

   Summary, we should be tolerant enough to accommodate the shock status of those under the OCCUPATION of the Zionist media. Sooner or later, I'm sure they will find the freedom, and hear the truth

   Reply - Quote
9. Neil Levine | September 6, 2005 at 10:52 am | Permalink

   Ji-Young: not sure I understand your first sentence. In general, the vast majority of all media is not objective, especially so in America. As you say though, when a publication or outlet airs both sides of the argument, and leads the reader to make up his own mind, this can probably be considered objective. It is the unfortunate case that nearly all reporting has to be forensically analysed for its worth based on investigating the sources and the background of the reporter. It's a tiring process and naturally one that most people are understandably not interested in. Forming an opinion on volume of reporting is a precarious position to take though, especially on the internet. I am sure there is more documentary evidence of Palestinian suffering quantively, but again, I would not want to rely on this to build an objective opinion, without balancing it against qualitative arguments from both sides.

   I had not heard of Haim Yavin, but will see if the documentary is available to download somewhere. I am not sure why you assume I had heard of him. I am not Israeli if that is your implication.

   Reply - Quote
10. Ji-Young Park | September 6, 2005 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    Hi Neil,

    The first part of my statement was tongue in cheek.

    I didn't mean to imply that you are Israeli, it does not matter to me. I just thought that you would know of him if you are commenting on Palestinian/Israeli politics.

    You can read more about him here http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=584282

    I know you question the internet as a source of information (as do I, but I question print journalism as well)

    Reply - Quote
11. Ji-Young Park | September 6, 2005 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    For those who might not want to click on the link to Haaretz Daily. The more salient points.

    "Now Yavin is telling Israelis, "We are mired in stalemate." It is doubtful that Ariel Sharon will lose "middle Israel" because of him. It is extremely doubtful that Yavin is powerful enough to bring an end to the settlement enterprise, but the message that emerges from the series has already stirred more public debate than any other television program in a long time. This is primarily due to the identity of its creator. He is a Zionist to the depths of his soul, the paragon of consensus. To hear this from him is much more jarring.

    Nonetheless, while watching the emotions aroused in Yavin by what he witnesses in the territories, the question inevitably arises: Where was he until now? Where were he and his colleagues, the television broadcasters, the military reporters and community development correspondents, the defense commentators and diplomatic experts while the outrage was created - the nightmare that Yavin is now discovering. Where were they when the settlements plundered and exploited land, when the settlers abused their neighbors, when apartheid roads were paved for Jews only and when the Palestinians were imprisoned in their communities because of the settlers?

    Why didn't they report to us in time about the brutal behavior ("We're storm troopers," Yavin says in the film) of the settlers at the checkpoints and roads, about their punishment raids, about the calamity they have imposed on Israeli society, about the obstacles they have rammed into the chances of peace.

    After all, it was always clear to everyone. It only required the desire to see and report. There was no need for in-depth journalistic investigations to expose the truth unfurling in the territories. It was enough to honestly and courageously set up a camera and present things as they are. But television - and to a great extent the print media, too - kept this from its audience."

    Reply - Quote
12. Ji-Young Park | September 7, 2005 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    More.

    Blah, blah, blah about what is reported. What is not reported?

    "in recent years, all television viewers in Europe have seen more about what is happening in the territories than their Israeli counterparts. We were intentionally kept in the dark because of an unusual collaboration between journalists and editors who did not wish to show, consumers who did not wish to see, and the government and Israel Defense Forces, who did not want us to see. The role of the media is to open eyes; the Israeli media not only failed to prevent the closing of eyes and blurring of senses, it even encouraged this."

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=584282

    To that I would add Americans have been kept in the blind along with "Israelis"

    Reply - Quote
13. iamnasra | September 8, 2005 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    At times God gives us crisis for a reason…some of us have family over there too…sometime crisis are given by God to open our eyes of many things…

    Inshallah khair and may God help those who in pitfall at the moment as human we should never take pleausre on others suffering

    Reply - Quote
14. Anti-ZioNAZI | September 14, 2005 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Anti-zionism all the way. Did you all hear about the crazy Israeli rabbi praising hurricane Katrina as a punishment on the Americans for the "gaza pullout"?
    Hey ZioNAZI slimball, feel free to return that American welfare check anytime.

    Reply - Quote
15. gothik | October 5, 2005 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    The major problem with the information is that you aren't presenting all the facts. The reason why federal troops were sent into New Orleans was to supply aid and help get the people out of the flood region, but amidst their attempt, looters and rioters were stealing all they could get their hands on and shooting at the troops. They invaded several hospitals to satiate their own drug addictions with medication stored in the hospitals, not to mention other unnecessary things.

    New Orleans would have had a wall if it had not been for the politics at the local level and national levels presenting Bush with great opposition over a wall.

    In addition to that the governor of LA refused clearance for the feds to assist people out at first, claiming that if no aid was given, they would leave town on their own. And as a result many people died. Please note, that governor is not of the same political party as the President. She is what many call a Democrat (much like Clinton).

    There's a great deal of internal strife in this country(btw, I am American); the majority of our media will only portray a certain percentage of what happens, as is clearly evident from your report, that your country does the same. To say that Americans don't realize what's being reported is only half truth, and by me admitting to knowing that as a truth shows that your statement isn't accurate. A great deal of us are furious that mainstream media doesn't report the important details.

    By the way, the clash of civilizations has already started; it started long before the wall conversation.

    Reply - Quote
16. Philip | April 3, 2006 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    Oh, and I can assure you, the US appreciates the offers from friendly nations like Kuwait, Egypt and Qatar. The Kuwait offer was amazingly generous.
    But offers by Iran, North Korea and Cuba are naturally suspect. Why? Because all 3 have tyrannical political systems and have made unambiguous anti-US statements. Iran, it should be noted, refused US aid to earthquake victims in their nation, even by American relief organizations unconnected to the government.

    Reply - Quote
17. Philip | April 4, 2006 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Forgive me, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Gothik is right…the looters were not stealing baby blankets. They were stealing TVs, drugs, etc. They were firing on relief helicopters, the same helicopters that rescued people from the roofs of their homes. They were breaking into homes and raping women. Your media sources aren't telling you the whole story. New Orleans prior to Katrina had about 5-7 times the average crime rate as the rest of the US.
    The US is a republic made up of 50 states that function semi-independently. If a governor tells the federal government not to intervene (as Louisiana governor Blanco did), then according to the 10th Amendment of our Constitution, the feds cannot. I live in the same region as New Orleans, and we got hit by major hurricanes both in 2004 and 2005 (Ivan and Dennis). Our local officials did their job to prepare, and despite the widespread destruction, we had little loss of life. Granted, we do not have any above sea level lakes (although the Pontchartrain is more like a sea). But if we had, they would have already been fortified. Louisiana repeatedly misappopriated their levee improvement funds for decades, both federal and state money. A levee is not just a wall, by the way. It is a rather complex structure, especially given what it has to withstand. It is very different from the wall in Israel.
    Had Bush, at the beginning of his term, somehow become tyrannical and forced a new levee on New Orleans, the levee would have been, at best, halfway complete when Hurricane Katrina hit.
    Haitham, you trust your media too much! I know this stuff firsthand. I grew up watching the residents of New Orleans breathe a sigh of relief after one and another and another near miss hurricane season after hurricane season. Each time, instead of getting serious about their levees, New Orleans and Louisiana they would move on to their own pet projects as if the near-misses never happened. The demonization I see of Bush in these blog comments are extremely far-fetched and baseless.

    Reply - Quote

{ 5 } Trackbacks

1. Je Blog | September 6, 2005 at 11:00 am | Permalink

   Bush's Wall of Apartheid and New Orleans

   Great post from Haitham of Sabbah's Blog, he wrote :" Sorry, the clash of civilizations will not happen. Despite all the efforts to pit Arab against Americans, Arabs Do Not Hate Americans….

   Reply - Quote
2. Global Voices Online | September 11, 2005 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

   From the Jordanian Blogosphere

   On International Affairs:
   On the Jordanian blogging front, talk related to Katarina can still be heard. Jameed mentions an opinion that suggests that the focus on looting by "violent gangs" was a means "to divert attention from the t…

   Reply - Quote
3. And Far Away... | September 12, 2005 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

   Jerusalem stays and the wall falls

   There's going to be a candlelight vigil held in front of the UN building in Shmeisany on Wednesday the 14th of September at 7 PM in silent protest against the the Wall that's being built in Palestine.

   Reply - Quote
4. Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Jordan: Silent Protest Against the Wall | September 12, 2005 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

   [...] building in Shmeisany on Wednesday the 14th of September at 7 PM in silent protest against the Wall that's being built in Palestine. [...]

   Reply - Quote
5. Palestine Blogs reBlog | September 12, 2005 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

   Jerusalem stays and the wall falls

   Jerusalem stays and the wall falls - There's going to be a candlelight vigil held in front of the UN building in Shmeisany on Wednesday the 14th of September at 7 PM in silent protest against the Wall that's being built in Palestine.

   Reply - Quote

Post a Comment