Israel, and its neighbors

[G M]

"Ok show me an example of his Anti-Semitism, and what an Anti-Semite is for you today"

XIII. 10 Chomsky Lies About His Collaboration With Holocaust Deniers
10.
The Lie: “In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion… to sign a petition calling on
authorities to insure Robert Faurisson’s ‘safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.’”272
The Truth: According to Serge Thion’s collaborator Pierre Guillaume, Chomsky signed and
promoted the petition months after their meeting, without being asked by them.273 According
to Robert Faurisson, the petition was written and circulated by the American Holocaust denier
Mark Weber.274
9.
The Lie: “I was asked to sign a petition calling on authorities to protect Faurisson’s civil
rights, and I did so. I sign innumerable petitions of this nature, and do not recall ever having
refused to sign one.”275
The Truth: Chomsky had already boasted of his refusal to sign a petition for human rights in
communist Vietnam. On that occasion, he had explained that “public protest is a political act,
to be judged in terms of its likely human consequences,” which included the likelihood that
the American media “would distort and exploit it for their propagandistic purposes.”276
8.
The Lie: “I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson’s ‘freedom of speech
and expression.’ The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity
of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are
taken for granted in democratic societies…”277
The Truth: The petition that Chomsky signed dignified Faurisson’s writings by (a) affirming
his scholarly credentials (“a respected professor” of “document criticism”); (b) describing his
lies as “extensive historical research”; (c) placing the term “Holocaust” in derisory quotation
marks; and (d) portraying his lies as “findings.”278
7.
The Lie: “is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not
know his work very well. But from what I have read… I find no evidence to support either
conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him,
272 “His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.
273 Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point,” in Droit et Histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1986), p152.
274 Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (Avukah Press, 1995),
pp55-6.
275 Réponses inédites à mes détracteurs parisiens (Paris: Cahiers Spartacus, 1984); Language and
Politics (AK Press, 2004), p290.
276 Unpublished interview, March 28, 1977; Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), p176.
277 “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression,” October 11, 1980,
published as the preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de
falsifier l’histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980).
278 The text of the petition is reproduced in Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the
Holocaust Deniers (Avukah Press, 1995), pp53-4.
41
either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a
relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”279
The Truth: Chomsky was well aware of Faurisson’s Nazi-style bigotry, including his claim
that “with good war logic, Hitler would have been led to intern all the Jews who had fallen
into his hands… It was necessary to avoid all contact between the Jew and the German
soldier.” Faurisson even defended the imposition of the yellow star on Jewish children, who
“committed all sorts of illicit activities or resistance to the Germans.” He had written for neo-
Nazi publications and spoken at neo-Nazi meetings.280
6.
The Lie: “Serge Thion [is] a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all
forms of totalitarianism…”281
The Truth: Serge Thion is a longstanding denier of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia
as well as the Nazi Holocaust. He had published a book reprinting and defending Faurisson’s
denials of the Holocaust.282
5.
The Lie: “Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have
frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I
describe the holocaust as ‘the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human
history’).”283
The Truth: The phrase in Chomsky’s Peace in the Middle East? occurred in a passage
setting out “the Zionist case” for Jewish statehood, which he opposed.284
4.
The Lie: [Denying that he allowed Holocaust deniers to publish the French translation of his
Political Economy of Human Rights:] “I make no attempt to keep track of the innumerable
translations of books of mine in foreign languages… I contacted the publisher, who checked
their files and located the contract for the French translation – with Albin-Michel, a
mainstream commercial publisher, to my knowledge.”285
The Truth: According to Holocaust denier Pierre Guillaume, “Chomsky accepted without
demurring that his book should be published in a series that I controlled and proposed Serge
Thion and Michele Noel for the translation. That is, he accepted that his personal work would
279 “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression,” October 11, 1980,
published as the preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de
falsifier l’histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980).
280 Interview with Robert Faurisson, Storia illustrata, Italy, August 1979, reprinted in the neo-Nazi
Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1981; see Nadine Fresco, “The Denial of the Dead: On the
Faurisson Affair,” Dissent, Fall 1981.
281 “His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.
282 Serge Thion, Vérité historique ou Vérité politique? Le dossier de l’affaire Faurisson. La question
des chambres à gaz (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980).
283 “His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.
284 Peace in the Middle East? (Fontana, 1975), p53.
285 Letter, Outlook (a Canadian communist magazine), June 1, 1989.
42
suffer harshly from the backlash of the vile reputation given to us [i.e., Holocaust deniers]…
His book appeared with Hallier-Albin Michel Publishing, in my series.”286
3.
The Lie: “I never wrote a ‘joint article’ with [Holocaust denier Pierre] Guillaume… [there is]
no hint of any collaboration with me [in preparing Guillaume’s article].”287
The Truth: Near the end of his article, Guillaume wrote: “The first version of the preceding
text included numerous errors of detail and an error of evaluation that Chomsky indicated to
us while reaffirming that his position was fixed and unchanged. We corrected in the text
errors that did not affect the reasoning and we give, below, Chomsky’s comments.” 288
2.
The Lie: “I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even
denial of the holocaust.”289
The Truth: The idea of denying the existence of gas chambers and the Holocaust was the
brainchild of antisemites and neo-Nazi activists. Denial of the existence of gas chambers and
the Holocaust is a propaganda tactic of antisemitic and neo-Nazi individuals and movements
all over the world.290
1.
The Lie: “Returning to my involvement in the Faurisson affair, it consists of signature to a
petition, and, after that, response to lies and slander. Period.”291
The Truth: Chomsky lied about the views of Holocaust deniers (Faurisson, Thion), published
one of his books (Political Economy) in a series directed by a Holocaust denier (Guillaume),
allowed his writings on the subject (Réponses inédites) to be published in book format by a
Holocaust denier (Guillaume), assisted with an essay (“Une mise au point”) by a Holocaust
denier (Guillaume), and argued that there is nothing antisemitic about Holocaust denial. He
has praised Holocaust deniers, endorsed their political and academic credentials, collaborated
in their propaganda campaigns, and whitewashed their antisemitic and neo-Nazi agenda.
286 Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point,” in Droit et Histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1986), p154.
Translated from French.
287 Letter, Outlook (a Canadian communist magazine), June 1, 1989.
288 Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point,” in Droit et Histoire (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1986), p170.
Translated from French.
289 Quoted in W.D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,” Quadrant, October 1981.
290 As observers had already noted: see Lucy Dawidowicz, “Lies About the Holocaust,” Commentary,
December 1980.
291 Réponses inédites à mes détracteurs parisiens (Paris: Cahiers Spartacus, 1984); Language and
Politics (AK Press, 2004), p291.

[AndrewBole]

OF course they can, and they must be critisized. But, in what way ? And especially with what etiquette ?

if you do post Kamms note, read it in full, and then the response from Chomsky. Just like I said with the Said debate

Why does the left depend on lies, if they are just "speaking truth to power"

See, theres politics again. Chomsky is not a politician. And he is not the political left, by a long shot. He is a critic of the uttermost European tradition, especially that of the German and French enlightenment

And the quotes you posted there, how is this fact GM ? It is heresay at best. Facts, fantasies, he is stupid, everything he says is wrong, blahblahblah. Lets see what Paul Postal of the New Yorker has graced us with, or Sidney Hook of the Humanist

ah Bogdanor, I was waiting untill you will bring him up.

not to mention that he does not want to confront Chomsky in person at all, the way he is discrediting him is complete and utter bullshit. Just read the posts you copied here. The alleged "lies", half of the stuff isnt even lying, just disagreeing. But obviously you need to discredit the Left wing idiot, and say he is lying.

The very first quote you put here, you can see Chomskys whole point in his book The Golden Age Is In Us, which of course Bogdanor nowhere uses in full, just out of context references to the actual thoughts, nor does he paste full references.

or the Soviet crimes quote. Take a look at what Chomsky offers in the context of this quote in World orders, Old and New. Some evidence, this time in the form of testimony from a Guatemalan refugee, that in fact his assessment as we approach the 90's was true. Reasonable people might disagree. Chomsky if he were so inclined might offer additional evidence to support his claim. Bogdanor might offer counter evidence. All good. It's not a lie in any case. But of course, his critics somehow have a way of misusing his actual works in total or somehow forget to paste where their "lie" is coming from.

Lets look at another, the China one. Once again Chomsky goes on to source that claim here (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19670420.htm) and otherwise discuss the complexities of regarding it as expansionist. If Chomsky has been misled by his sources (Ginsburgs and Mathos) this cannot be called a lie.


and so on and so on

Endless lines of ad hominem arguments, I cant accept this GM.

[G M]

"Chomsky is not a politician"

Did I say he was a politician? No, as I said before, he's a hypocritical fringe loon hater of America, the west and especially Jews.

[AndrewBole]

gah, now he brings up Guillaume. La vielleTaupe, where have we heard that again ? Oh I think they were refered to as the "neo Nazis" in the case with collaborating with Sayid.

You want to see neo nazis ? Come to Berlin one time, and Ill take you to a street, and a nice biker bar. Better dont have any hair on your head though.

Guillaume et the gang REUSED THE NAME OF THE PUBLISHING COMPANY LAVIELLE TAUPE, which in the beggining published philosophy texts, that Chomsky AND  Said sometimes worked with. AFter the thing went zugrunt, along came Guillaume, the ultra left radicalist, who brought the place up, REUSED THE NAME and started his own propaganda of anti semitic craze. Much of the previous collective condemned the act, and thought it a sad decline of an otherwise compelling intellectual. Chomsky and Said also fall in this bunch of "previous" collective.


Look, GM, google whatever you want, but be mindful of what you read and how you read it. There is a certain manner as to how people are critisized, and if its a well versed, argumented dialogue, that speakers, intellectuals, philosophers duly embark in. But not like this,   I dont have time nor the strength to answer and reply to any shit you dig up on anyone from the bowels of the internet and quite frankly I dont care anymore.

[G M]

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1185

EXCLUSIVE: Noam Chomsky’s Secret, Friendly Letters to a Holocaust Denier


Posted by David Stein on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 · 55 Comments


 
A CounterContempt exclusive: Newly uncovered documents reveal that leftist icon Noam Chomsky has had a much more active dialogue with Holocaust deniers than he’s ever let on.
 
By David Stein
 
Background
 
In the late 1970s and early ‘80s, leftist author, professor, and anti-Israel activist Noam Chomsky became embroiled in what would become known as “The Faurisson Affair.” In 1979, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon, Robert Faurisson, was fined by a French court for claiming in Le Monde that the Holocaust was a hoax.
 


Chomsky, a rabid critic of Israel, was asked by a friend of Faurisson’s to sign a petition supporting Faurisson’s right to free speech. The petition did not mention Faurisson’s views; it merely defended his right to express them.
 
Chomsky signed the petition. In the ensuing uproar, he explained his reasons in an October 1980 essay. He claimed to be completely uninterested in Holocaust denial. Faurisson’s views, he wrote, were irrelevant. All that mattered is that people have the right to express political or historical views – however unpopular – free from government prosecution. Regarding Faurisson, Chomsky wrote, “As far as I can determine, he (Faurisson) is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.” This was patently false, as Faurisson’s anti-Semitism was well-documented. However, Chomsky continued to claim ignorance of Faurisson’s views (and of Holocaust denial in general).

Chomsky’s essay was used by a denial publishing house as a preface for a book about Faurisson. Chomsky admitted that he had issued the essay with no restrictions regarding how it could be used, but he claimed to have asked the deniers to refrain from using it in their book. According to Chomsky, his request arrived too late, and the book (with the Chomsky preface) was published.
 
And that was that. Chomsky has continued, for the past thirty years, to defend his role in L’Affaire Faurisson. His defense always consists of the same points: His lack of knowledge of Faurisson’s work, and (more importantly) his absolute, total lack of interest in Holocaust denial. Chomsky has stressed, time and again, that the subject doesn’t interest him, and that he doesn’t care about, nor does he have knowledge of, anything the deniers say or write.
 
In short, Chomsky’s defense can be paraphrased as, “Look, I helped a guy out because I don’t believe in government censorship. I don’t care who he was; I’d have helped anyone in the same way. And now it’s done and I have no interest in knowing anything about who this guy is or what he believes in.”
 
But, according to recently uncovered documents, that’s simply not true.
 
The Chomsky Letters
 
From at least 1984 through 1992, Chomsky corresponded with a man who, during those time periods, was one of the leading authors and editors in the Holocaust denial movement. And it was a very friendly correspondence, complete with praise for the denier’s work, and an offer of assistance on Chomsky’s part.
 
The denier in question is L.A. “Lou” Rollins. At the time of the first Chomsky correspondence, Rollins was a writer and contributing editor at the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the North American headquarters of Holocaust denial and Nazi literature. And although the IHR has, in the past two decades, attempted to reinvent itself as a “respectable” Holocaust denial institute by eschewing clumsy, vulgar anti-Semitism in favor of pseudo-academic “historiography,” back in 1984 there was no subtlety in the IHR’s presentation. The publishing arm of the IHR sold such titles as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the “pro-Hitler” reprint of “Mein Kampf,” “The Testament of Adolf Hitler,” “The International Jew,” “The Turner Diaries,” KKK leader David Duke’s autobiography “My Awakening,” and various anti-Semitic and white supremacy booklets and leaflets. Contributors to the IHR included former SS Standartenführer Leon Degrelle, and former Nazi General Otto Ernst Remer.

Below is a page from the IHR’s English-language re-release of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher’s 1934 German children’s book “The Poisonous Mushroom” (click to enlarge):
 


It is against this backdrop that Chomsky and Rollins corresponded. In the first of the recently uncovered letters, Chomsky expresses happiness that Rollins was able to find Chomsky’s anti-Israel book “The Fateful Triangle” useful in his work. Chomsky tells Rollins that he’s pleased to hear that he (Rollins) is writing about Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who Chomsky proceeds to call “one of the major frauds of our time.” He compares Wiesel to Nazi collaborators, and accuses him of “exploiting the Holocaust to justify oppression and murder.”

Chomsky promises to send Rollins “news clippings from the Jewish press” to assist him with his anti-Wiesel screed (Rollins’ Chomsky-assisted essay would appear in the fall 1985 edition of the IHR’s “journal”).
 
Chomsky closes by writing, “I’m looking forward to hearing more about your study.”
 
The most recent of the newly-uncovered correspondences is from June 14, 1992. It’s a fairly dull discussion of a letter from a third party that Rollins had sent to Chomsky for his perusal.
 
We have in our possession additional materials covering the Chomsky/Rollins correspondences, and we will be releasing them in due time. But, for now, these two letters aptly demonstrate a long-term, extremely friendly exchange of ideas between Chomsky and a leading figure at the largest Holocaust denial publishing house in America…an exchange in which Chomsky clearly expressed an interest in the denier’s work, and even offered his assistance.

http://www.countercontempt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/IMG1.pdf

Anti-semetic enough for you, Andrew?

[G M]

Look, GM, google whatever you want, but be mindful of what you read and how you read it. There is a certain manner as to how people are critisized, and if its a well versed, argumented dialogue, that speakers, intellectuals, philosophers duly embark in. But not like this,   I dont have time nor the strength to answer and reply to any shit you dig up on anyone from the bowels of the internet and quite frankly I dont care anymore.

Your inability to defend your leftist frauds is duly noted. Thank you for your time.

[AndrewBole]

thank you for the patronising tone. You rock.

again, ad hominem. Logical fallacy. I have a friend that denies the Holocaust. Does that make me a fraud too ?

Further more, to what you posted again - hats of, great source.

some comments :

1) why aren’t Rollins letters included?
2) Chomsky maintains an open door with letters and responds to all, often devoting 6 hours a day. Is Chomsky expected to meticulously screen every piece of mail he receives (well actually in the days of the Unabomber they were but I digress), and find out who the writer is? And again keep in mind these are from pre-internet days.
Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?
Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite? While in the 1992 letter he refers to Holocaust Deniers as “far out nuts”!

There are no facts here, only a misconstruence of Chomskys writings. And how does ending occupation of & settlement development in the West Bank call for a new Holocaust?

These letters prove nothing. Where in these letters does Chomsky say “I deny the Holocaust ever happened.” He doesn’t.

Besides, nothing about Chomsky is “misconstrued” in this article. The letters are there, in their entirety, for all to read. People can draw their own conclusions

Smearing Chomsky in this way will only work for an audience that is either (a) thoroughly ideologically committed to a pro-Israel position already, or (b) unlikely to open one of Chomsky’s books to measure his views against your descriptions of him. I suspect your distortions will backfire on those who do choose to check for themselves, because they will see how dishonest you’ve been, thereby discrediting by association any debate on Israel/Palestine that might come from honest figures on your side, thus feeding into, rather than combating, anti-Israeli and antisemitic (for those who can’t tell the difference) sentiments.

By all means expose genuine holocaust deniers if you really think anyone takes them seriously. Holocaust denial seems to be relatively common in Arab states that neighbour Israel, but in the rest of the world, holocaust denial is so marginal that the mainstream views it as utterly laughable and just not worth thinking about or critiquing.

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.

Without including the actual letters, this come across as a smear job.

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

[G M]

again, ad hominem. Logical fallacy. I have a friend that denies the Holocaust. Does that make me a fraud too ?

If you write a forward for his book about how the Holocaust didn't happen, yes. Just as Chomsky did.

[G M]

"Chomsky, himself a Jew"

Being a Jew doesn't mean one doesn't hate Jews, just as Chomsky peddles his Anti-Americanism while enjoying his American lifestyle, which many leftists do.

[G M]

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

I will. I'm curious if he still wants to praise Pol Pot and Mao.

[AndrewBole]

GM, BOTTOM LINE : If you write to Chomsky he writes you back.

Do it. Lets see what the answer is.

I will. I'm curious if he still wants to praise Pol Pot and Mao.

cant wait

[G M]

Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

[G M]

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

[G M]

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.


How does Israel's human rights record match up to China's, or Communist Vietnam, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, all of whom Chomsky has praised? Why the selective outrage? Couldn't be anti-semitism, could it?

[G M]

And again Andrew, if Israel is so horrible, why do people flee to it, including the "palestinians" when given the opportunity?

[AndrewBole]

Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

ask him

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

AHHAHAHA, brilliant. And I suppose the Communist Party was its Good offspring. Id like to hear more of this ? If it holds you very well may have given me extra special stoff, for my post graduate.

Chomsky, himself a Jew who lived for part of his life in Israel, is a threat to the Israeli government (and certainly not to its people) because he has been very critical of its human rights record. No government should be exempt from criticism, especially on those grounds.


How does Israel's human rights record match up to China's, or Communist Vietnam, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, all of whom Chomsky has praised? Why the selective outrage? Couldn't be anti-semitism, could it?

slippery slope, logical fallacy. Insuficient argument. Cant se relevance, you do grasp the notion of anti semitism right ?

GM, I beleive I expressed this already when we had our blasts with Said. I am not taking sides in the Israel PAlstine dispute. I am not pro Palestine nor Pro Israel. I dont actually have much interest in it otherwise, and to this day I do not know which side to "actively" support. I rain down on stuff here, only because the method by which guys here can argument some stuff for the sake of "history". But I get dragged along into other discussions sadly, on the account of my work, that is waiting behind me on the desk. But no matter...

[G M]

Unless the Rollins letter in 1982 ended with “oh by the way I publish neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic books” what is Chomsky to know about him?

I dunno, but Chomsky has a long history with Holocaust Deniers, so you want to argue that this was a fluke?

ask him

Notice in the 1982 letter he condemns “good Germans” and laments the exploitation of the memory of victims of the Holocaust, why would he do so if he held the beliefs of a neo-Nazi anti-Semite?

Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

AHHAHAHA, brilliant. And I suppose the Communist Party was its Good offspring. Id like to hear more of this ? If it holds you very well may have given me extra special stoff, for my post graduate.

Let me clear it up for you: Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

In other words, all of Marx's offspring were evil, and as far as a body count, the Nazis don't even come close to what Stalin, Mao and Chomsky's hero Pol Pot did.

BTW, how's that european socialism working out for you these days?

[Crafty_Dog]

Well!  Lively exchange so far! (and 9 posts have been made while I was on the phone and writing this!)

For myself, I'd like to get back to this (there's stuff in your reply to my previous post that I could go into, but I sense too much water has gone under the bridge since then):

"While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community"

If YOUR butt were on the line (and you weren't such a fan of Chomsky   ) this might carry a tad more weight    

As for "The reaction of the international community"     Be serious please
1 These are the men who sent waves of children against the Iraqis to clear mine fields for the soldiers to follow.  You think the bleatings of the UN are going to matter to them?   They will be the strong horse of the neighborhood, and everyone will kneel to them in gratitude for killing all the jews, chant "Allah Akbar!" and about how death matters more to them than life.  

[G M]

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-432369

Iran's brutality: Women and children first
 
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
 
 
by  James Zumwalt
Source: Human Events

Following World War II, much was written about Western democracies ignoring the aggression of rogue states Germany and Japan—opting for appeasement—until such aggression could no longer be tolerated.  The question repeatedly asked is why warning signs went unheeded.  At some future time, historians of another generation will ask the same question in the aftermath of a nuclear attack by a 21st Century rogue state.
While timing is in question, it is clear Iran eventually will possess a nuclear weapon.  If allowed to do so, there is no doubt in this historian’s mind that Iran’s president and resident madman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will use it.
There are warning signs we have received and, like our pre-World War II leaders, have ignored.  But even more telling is evidence of violence perpetrated upon two groups of his own people—groups Western culture has long regarded as deserving special protection: women and children.
During the eight year Iran-Iraq war, Tehran very quickly learned its army was no match for Iraq’s.  When Iraqi minefields began claiming Iranian soldiers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini concocted a scheme to reduce these losses.  He encouraged Iranian children to volunteer for a special force known as the Basiji.  Lightly armed but more often unarmed to avoid the loss of weapons, the Basiji were trained to form human waves to march through Iraqi minefields towards the enemy.  This process—through the sheer loss of numbers of children—eventually cleared a minefield, providing Iran’s professional soldiers an unencumbered approach route to Iraqi defenses.
Most of these children were illiterate and from poor families in the countryside.  Often, their only asset prior to enthusiastically sacrificing their lives was a plastic key given to each young martyr—told by his Basiji trainer, it was to open the gates of paradise in the afterlife.
Khomeini ordered 500,000 plastic keys from Taiwan for this purpose.  During the war, he sent 450,000 children to the front.  This “man of the cloth” undoubtedly found it more wasteful to have ordered 50,000 extra keys than to have ordered tens of thousands of innocent children to their deaths.
Islamic extremist logic came into play during the war when some believers became concerned the childrens’ bodies were either being vaporized by the mines or body parts were being strewn about the battlefield.  Not to be deterred by these concerns, the logic applied was the children were instructed to wrap themselves in blankets beforehand so their bodies would remain intact!
One of the Basiji trainers was a young Islamic extremist now serving as Iran’s president.  Because of this special relationship between the Basiji and Ahmadinejad, the former was brought in by the latter to take an aggressive role in suppressing protests in Iran following Ahmadinejad’s theft of office in the rigged 2009 election.
It is Ahmadinejad who now oversees another egregious policy—this one aimed at unmarried women he seeks to execute.  Under Islam, it is forbidden to execute female virgins. The arrests, trials and ordered executions of female reform activists has created a problem.  Due to Islam’s prohibition against executing virgins, if a woman is unmarried, steps have to be taken to cure this—but without violating Islam’s prohibition against unmarried sex. To circumvent both prohibitions, the female convict is drugged and a sham marriage performed with a prison guard who then brutally rapes her.  A witness to this brutal act sneared, “I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their ‘wedding’ night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning.” Video evidence of this atrocity has recently been smuggled out of Iran.
President Obama expressed confidence he would succeed in enticing Iran’s leadership away from their nuclear arms ambitions by extending an olive branch.  IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN—for this regime is incapable of reason!  An unabated Iran will only result in a future generation of historians one day asking how Obama could have been so naïve about Ahmadinejad’s intentions.  They will wonder, aware of Ahmadinejad’s brutality towards Iranian women and children, how Americans could have failed to have foreseen the fate awaiting them once he acquired nuclear weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf wars who writes often on national security and defense issues, is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will: Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields" (found at: www.jgzumwalt.com).
 

[AndrewBole]

Well!  Lively exchange so far! (and 9 posts have been made while I was on the phone and writing this!)

For myself, I'd like to get back to this (there's stuff in your reply to my previous post that I could go into, but I sense too much water has gone under the bridge since then):

"While Ahmadinejad indeed acts a madman, I have doubts that if push comes to shove, the nuclear tools would be just flying everywhere. They have much too much to loose. Do you think they would nuke the terrtiory, then go live there afterwards ? The whole area would be destroyed and impossible to settle for at least 50-100 years or more, dunno the facts, im no physicist. I severly doubt that solution, although you never know with crazy folks...Besides that, they would get insurmountable number of enemies, from states in their direct proximity, due to fallout and the like, not to mention the reaction of the international community"

If YOUR butt were on the line (and you weren't such a fan of Chomsky   ) this might carry a tad more weight    

As for "The reaction of the international community"     Be serious please
1 These are the men who sent waves of children against the Iraqis to clear mine fields for the soldiers to follow.  You think the bleatings of the UN are going to matter to them?   They will be the strong horse of the neighborhood, and everyone will kneel to them in gratitude for killing all the jews, chant "Allah Akbar!" and about how death matters more to them than life.  

hi Marc

yes I agree it is a bit of an out landish claim. But I have faith (and Im an agnostic !!) How does reading stuff from Chomsky (far from being a fan) affect the weight ? Well in regards to "butts" on the line i live closer to them than you 
But yeah, I agree that the usual UN gibberish is not to be taken seriously, but in the case of a nuclear explosion that close to Europe... I think you are being to direct here.

yes you may also look at the extremists that way, but alas, that is but one facet of the populace. Like I said,  you have all sorts of passive, non agressive forms of revolt. And we all know how quickly can monstrocities cease, when there is a big player pressing (or not pressing) strings in the background....hint - Bosnia

And the case of "kneeling" for killing all the jews......again, cannot say for a fact. I may be too young, but I am carefully conservative here. Who knows, living among nuclear debris and fallout...I dunno, its 5 in the morning, my brain is melting slowly. I guess what im trying to say is, there is too much on the line for other countries, closer, that would bring more complications down in the case of the nuclear solution.

[G M]

Smearing Chomsky in this way will only work for an audience that is either (a) thoroughly ideologically committed to a pro-Israel position already, or (b) unlikely to open one of Chomsky’s books to measure his views against your descriptions of him. I suspect your distortions will backfire on those who do choose to check for themselves, because they will see how dishonest you’ve been, thereby discrediting by association any debate on Israel/Palestine that might come from honest figures on your side, thus feeding into, rather than combating, anti-Israeli and antisemitic (for those who can’t tell the difference) sentiments.

Obviously these poor people need to read Chomsky to learn how evil America is.
________________________________________________________________________

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.
Noam Chomsky

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/noam_chomsky.html
_________________________________________________________________________
http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-09-14/news/30158216_1_refugee-status-bahai-hugs

Refugees from Iran arrive Wednesday in South Bend

September 14, 2011|By DAVE STEPHENS | South Bend Tribune Staff Writer

The last time they were together there were tears and hugs and cries of sadness.

On Wednesday, after nearly eight years and several thousand miles, there were tears and hugs and cries of joy.

The hugs began the moment Ali Sohrab saw his brother walk through Gate A of the South Bend Regional Airport, the first time the two had been together since Sohrab fled Iran in 2004.

The tears came next, followed by sobs of joy.

Sohrab's parents were next, followed by his sister-in-law and her two children, ages 7 and 4.

For the first time in nearly a decade the entire Sohrab family -- practitioners of the Bahai faith and victims of religious persecution in their native Iran -- were together again.

"Unbelievable," Ali said, seated next his elderly mother, struggling to find the word that could match his emotions.

"Unbelievable."

Refugees

It was 2005 when Ali Sohrab arrived in South Bend with his wife and two children.

As a practitioner of Bahai in Islamic Iran, Sohrab had been arrested twice, refused opportunities to work and his children were denied access to higher education.

In 2004, Sohrab told authorities his family was going on a vacation to neighboring Turkey. Instead, they never went back.

Milad Sohrab, now 19, said he remembers a final meal with his extended family. Much crying, much food, an emotional night for a then 11-year-old.

"Then we were at the airport and were all ready to leave, and that's the last thing I remember,' Milad said.

In 2005, with the help of South Bend area churches, the modern-day pilgrims arrived in South Bend, where Ali's sister already lived, having arrived in 2003.

Since that time, the family members have been able to communicate via e-mail, phone calls and online video messaging. But they couldn't exchange a hug or share a meal.

And for the family in Iran, the threat of persecution was always real.

Together

Last year, the family members still in Iran made the decision to flee.

But coming to America isn't that easy.

The Sohrab's fled to Turkey, where they filed for refugee status with the United Nations. Then they waited.

In South Bend, officials with the American Red Cross began helping with their case, as part of their international relief efforts that they coordinate around the world.

Since the Red Cross began coordinating local refugee efforts last year, the agency has helped about 50 people, in 17 different families, immigrate to the South Bend region, said Gena Robinson, director of emergency services for the Red Cross.

In most cases, Robinson said, the Red Cross tries to be very quiet about refugees coming to the United States, out of fear for family members back home. But with Sohrab's family all arriving safety, family members said it was OK to share their story with the world.

Ali, who said he couldn't sleep Tuesday night because of his excitement, said his family members couldn't have found a better place to relocate.

"You don't have freedom over there, you have a very hard life," Ali said. "You can't get jobs, you can't work, its dangerous situation to be Bahai."

But in America?

"Here, it's everybody is free," Ali said. "You can get jobs, you can get anything you want, if you are willing to work for it. You can do anything you want, you just have to do it."

Settling

Ali said his family planned on having a large dinner together Wednesday night, before the new arrivals settled in with family and friends.

Robinson said the Red Cross will spend the next 90 days actively working with the family, helping them transition into their new lives.

There will be a new language to learn. A new land to navigate. Jobs to be found. A new culture to absorb.

Ali is confident, after enduring persecution and the separation of time and space, that nothing will separate their family again.

"I'd like to do everything I can for them," Ali said. "They are my family. They are my heart."

Staff writer Dave Stephens:

dstephens@sbtinfo.com

[G M]

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
Noam Chomsky

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/noam_chomsky.html
____________________________________________________________________________________


http://netnebraska.org/extras/statewide/pers/sudanese.html


Originally aired December 7, 2001
  SUDANESE REFUGEES: "Lost Boys" of Sudan


 
People living in Sudan have been at war for many years because of religious and ethnic differences. Many died in combat, while others fled to avoid being forced to fight in the war. Some headed to neighboring African countries...others to America. They started coming to Nebraska about 10 years ago. Now thousands live in Eastern Nebraska.

Their long journey wasn't easy. They walked hundreds of miles every day, with no food and water and the constant fear they would be attacked by animals. Starting over in Nebraska was also a challenge. They had to find jobs and places to live, and learn our language. "Statewide's" Andrea Gallagher says Nebraska's "Lost Boys" believe it was worth it to be in America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT - Sudanese Refugees
Reported by Statewide correspondent, Andrea Gallagher.

Imagine arriving at an airport, and experiencing the hustle and bustle of business travelers….then getting on an escalator where you can go from one place to another without even moving your legs. Most people don't give this a second thought…..
 But for these young Sudanese refugees - the airport was a first glimpse of our world and its modern conveniences.
[Paul Matiop/Sudanese Refugee] "It seemed as a dream to me, I was you know in one day and one time I was in a desert and it was a dream to come here. I see a lot of things, funny things, a lot of vehicles, we don't have vehicles, a lot of foods, and there we don't have a lot of food. It is like a dream to be here."
[Santino Angok/Sudanese Refugee] "We are thankful for new life, we have suffered a long time, ten years in the bush in Sudan."
Today, the young refugees look at photos of their former life in Sudan. They want to remember their family and friends. Walking thousands of miles in the bush - not knowing if they would make it out alive --is something that will always haunt them.
[James Aguto/Sudanese Refugee] "I left my country in 1987 and I just walked to Ethiopia for ten years…..away from parent….so it is real difficult….terrible fighting in Sudan."
[Paul Matiop] "Also sometime when we went to desert, you use your urine as a water to drink."
[Santino Angok] "That war destroyed our homeland…they kill ladies and small children and all the generation has been killed."
 These refugees came to America with help from the First Baptist Church in Bellevue. Pastor Ron Elliott said the congregation wanted to help out in any way possible.
[Pastor Ron Elliott/1st Baptist Church] "When I heard about the opportunity of sponsoring them and knowing what was going on in their country, the circumstances they were living in, it seemed like it was what God wanted us to do."
 Elliott says the congregation welcomed the refugees with open arms…. An overwhelming amount of clothing was donated for the refugees who had next to nothing. They also received furnishings for their new home. Other church members took time to teach them how to do things we take for granted.
[Pastor Elliott] "Helping them get adjusted to life in America. Right now they're getting their learner's permit, learning how to drive, also teaching them to cook, how to live in American society." Pastor Elliott says he'll always remember meeting the young men at the airport.
[Pastor Elliott] "It was an interesting experience when they came out of the airplane and we greeted them, we had a sign in their own language saying 'welcome', and they were just so excited to be here. They had no luggage, no baggage at all…just the clothes on their backs was all they brought with them. And even when we came to the escalator at the airport they didn't know what to do."
The 4 refugees live together in a Bellevue apartment. Initially, the church helped with the rent and donated furnishings like books, furniture and even a television.
[Pastor Elliott] "When they went to their apartment, the caseworkers showed them the microwave, the sink, the hot and cold water. Those kinds of things they're not used to. Even a bathtub and a shower - how that works - so it was just a whole new world and whole new experience for them, but they've done well, they've adjusted."
Now the young men are able to pay their own rent because they found jobs. They work in the custodial department at Nebraska Health System in Omaha. They're grateful for the jobs, and being together.
[James Aguto] "It's good to stay together, now we are like brothers, but each of us have his own tribe and we are together because of friendship."
Most of the time, they will work in the evenings and leave the rest of the time for school. It's important to develop good work habits now, because they don't want to be cleaning forever.
[Paul Matiop] "I want to be police."
[James Aguto] "The favorite thing is learning. The favorite thing is also the helpful people, to have work, to survive by your own….that is the great thing we are doing now because now I am working."
Helen Evans works with the Heartland Refugee Resettlement Program in Omaha. She says there's around 5-thousand Sudanese refugees living in Eastern Nebraska. Her organization helps the refugees get off to a good start.
[Helen Evans/Refugee Resettlement Program] "We have an opportunity to work with various different cultural groups. Probably the most prominent now is the Sudanese. We also have Bosnian, and we have Vietnamese, some Cuban, some Haitian, so just the opportunity within their lives. Helping them get acclimated to Omaha and welcome to their lives here and letting them know about the opportunities we have here in America."
 Kuot Ngor also works at the Refugee Resettlement Program. He left Sudan and came to America back in 1995.
[Kuot Ngor/Caseworker] "I never had peace in my life. I was born in war since it started in 1956, and then I grew up in that war and it's never stopped."
 Kuot says it took him awhile to get used to the fast-paced way of life in America. Cars and traffic especially shocked him. It took him awhile before he could gain enough composure to cross a busy street. [Kuot] "Everything is so very different. In Africa, things really go slow and here when I came here I see everything very fast and I wouldn't even think I would be here in this environment."
But that wouldn't be the worst of his problems. Along with the fast-paced society came many luxuries he wasn't used to - like credit cards. Now he helps other refugees so they can learn from his mistakes.
[Kuot] "Actually I went through a lot of troubles. I have bad credit and I couldn't know to adopt to American culture. I was very frustrated. I thought it was going to be very bad.
Another problem some refugees run into is spousal abuse. In their country, it is not unusual to beat a wife if she does not obey the husband. In America, this behavior is not tolerated.
[Kuot] "They get in trouble because the woman wants to take advantage of freedom they got here and they want to move on very fast and that can get them in trouble with the man, so if they could help understand and go slow until they understand the culture here and customs here, it would be very fair."
Meanwhile, the young refugees are still getting accustomed to American life. Tasting American food is something different….they've never had so many choices before…now they have to choose wisely.
[John Kuol] "In our place, we don't have a lot of sweet food, we use only corn, beans and some oil. And the thing that was very scared for me. Even now I don't make good use of them."
[Paul Matiop] "Ice cream makes my blood cool as I was in a desert place."
[Santino] "We have security, medical also because we can have good life and food…and this is for a human being to live…if you have basic needs you can live and you will be happy in your lifetime….but in Sudan we didn't have basic needs."
 The Sudanese population in Eastern Nebraska continues to grow….Four years ago, there were fewer than 30 Sudanese families in the Omaha area….now there's more than 35-hundred. Many of them are leaving other communities to come here.
[Helen] "We have a lot of people with warm hepers and open minds who are willing to help out."
[Pastor Elliott] "Most of those are secondary refugees. They've been settled somewhere else in the United States but come to Omaha because they've heard that there are a lot of their own people here."
Elliott says he hopes to sponsor another group of refugees in the future….but for now, he just wants to make sure these young men have every opportunity to succeed.
[John Kuol] "I appreciate what happened to me and I've very happy to be here."
[James Aguto] "It's like miracle because staying here is much better than the place we were."
[Santino Angok] "To look for the future….to start another life…"
The Lost Boys finally found their home.

[Rachel]

GM-- Nice Posts

Friedman is wrong
By JPOST EDITORIAL
12/15/2011 23:58

His misunderstanding of Israel is evident in his underlying assumption that appears in his columns repeatedly: that were Israel to just leave the settlements, peace would flow like a river.
Talkbacks (77)
 
 
For the past several years, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, that guru for American Jewish liberals, has shown that he doesn’t really understand Israel or the region.

His misunderstanding of Israel is evident in his underlying assumption that appears in his columns repeatedly: that were Israel to just leave the settlements, peace would flow like a river.

Well, Israel uprooted all 21 settlements from Gaza in 2005, but instead of peace, received an unending barrage of missiles in return.

The settlements are a consequence of the conflict, not its cause. The PLO, if anyone has forgotten, was established in 1964, three years before the Six Day War and any thought of a West Bank settlement.

As for Friedman’s failure to understand the region, readers need look no further than his breathless “Postcard from Cairo” columns at the outset of the Arab Spring last February. To have read Friedman then was to believe this was 1989 all over again, and that Hosni Mubarak would be deposed and replaced by the Egyptian version of Vaclav Havel.

In one piece, he castigated Israel for not being more supportive of the protesters in Tahrir Square. “The children of Egypt were having their liberation moment,” he wrote, “and the children of Israel decided to side with Pharaoh – right to the very end.”

Wrong. Israel wasn’t supporting Pharaoh, but rather deeply concerned that following the Egyptian revolution, Sinai would turn into a terrorist base, the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline would be a constant target of attack, the Israeli Embassy in Cairo would be ransacked, and the Muslim Brotherhood – and Salafists to their right – would win the country’s parliamentary election.

Click here to find out more!
Now, in his latest piece on Israel that appeared Wednesday entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir,” Friedman demonstrated that he also doesn’t know America.

In a line that could have come straight from the pens of AIPAC-bashers Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Friedman wrote that he hoped Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whom he loathes, understood that the standing ovation he got in Congress earlier this year was not for his politics, but rather one that was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

That’s right – that wicked, despicable Israel lobby.

According to Friedman, anybody who supports Israel must be on the nefarious Jewish lobby’s payroll. Otherwise, how could they dare? Maybe Friedman should consider the possibility that the ovation was the result of America’s elected officials – in tune with the feelings of their constituents – seeing in Israel a plucky little country that shares their own basic values and is trying to survive in an awfully bad neighborhood.

Maybe Friedman should consider that the ovation was the result of politicians understanding that this conflict is not about one settlement, or one Jerusalem neighborhood, but rather over the Jewish people’s right to a homeland.

No, that can’t be. In fact, writes Friedman – always concerned about Israel’s soul – were Netanyahu to go to the University of Wisconsin, many students, including Jews, would stay away because they are confused by Israeli policies: the current spate of right-wing Knesset legislation, the segregation of women on buses, the settlements.

And then came the kicker. Friedman’s proof that Israel is merrily heading down the path toward the abyss is that radical left-wing Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy says so.

Dubbing Levy a “powerful liberal voice, writing in Haaretz,” Friedman quotes from a recent Levy column: “What we are witnessing is w-a-r. This fall a culture war, no less, broke out in Israel, and it is being waged on many more, and deeper, fronts than are apparent. It is not only the government, as important as that is, that hangs in the balance, but also the very character of the state.”

Friedman’s use of an extremist such as Levy to prove his point is akin to taking the writings of America-bashing left-wing linguist Noam Chomsky as proof that America is bad.

The problem with Friedman and those sharing his sentiments about Israel is that they take an exception and make it the rule.

This school of thought takes a sex-segregated bus in Mea She’arim and turns the whole country into Iran; takes rocks thrown by bad, misguided youth at an IDF base and turns Israel into a country on the brink of civil war; and takes the government’s refusal to bail out a failing commercial television station as putting Israel on the fast track to Soviet Russia.

What is needed is some proportion. The burning of mosques by Jewish hooligans is deplorable, but it is no more representative of the country – or the direction it is going – than Florida Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of a Koran in May was a reflection of America. Friedman should know this.

[Crafty_Dog]

Andre:

a) Concerning your , , , ahem , , , "leap of faith"  that the Iranian theocracy will not do what it says it will do to Israel:
   *in part because of the international community's reaction:  Lets face it; Europe is done.  You don't even f*ck enough (at least in the right orifices) to maintain your population.  The contraction (which also means the aging) of the Euro population means the fundamentals of the Euro socialist nanny state are inherently bankrupt.  The Euro is in the process of self-destructing.  NATO couldn't handle Libya without US backing, the UK no longer has a single aircraft carrier-- were Argentina to take the Falklands again there isn't a thing they could do.  Why on earth would you think that Israel should in any way think that Europe's upset at having to be downwind and breathe in the radioactive ashes of another six million jews would deter Iran's theocracy? (thanks GM for the article with the history of the waves of children to clear out mindfields)
  * Iran's theocracy has opening spoken of its survivability of an Israeli nuclear attack, whereas one or two bombs would instantly wipe out Israel.
  *  Via Hezbollah Iran well over 50,000 rockets on Israel's northern border.
  *  As GM and Rachel aptly point out, the settlements are a RESPONSE in search of security to decades of Arab efforts to literally push the Jews of Israel into the sea.  Giving up the settlements will not bring an end to such intentions-- witness the aftermath of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.  Even the greenhouses to grow food were destroyed because Hamas et al wanted nothing from the Jews.

[Crafty_Dog]

PS:
   Jumping back to our earlier conversation concerning the logical consistency vel non of Hitler's claims to Sudenland and the Jews claims to Israel:

   The very point of how national boundary lines were drawn up after WW1 by France and Great Britain was to break up the German people-- and look what that led to.  Contrast the aftermath of WW2 where Chomsky's "evil, wicked, mean, and nasty" (its a line from a Steppenwolk song of the late sixties  ) fascist America sought to lift its former enemies up-- including decades of forceful military support until the Russian evil empire collapsed and Germany was reunited.
   
 

[AndrewBole]

Tell you what. I will contact Noam myself. Try to get one of my contacts on MIT, to succesfully transfer the mail, refer him to this page, or at the very least try to get him to comment the smear you posted. Lets see what he has to say...deal ?


Lets make an experiment

http://911fraud.blogspot.com/

After years of ignoring such allegations, former CIA analyst and marine intel officer Robert Steele read Webster Tarpley's book and has joined the chorus of colleagues such as William Christionson, Robert Baer and Ray McGovern and concluded that in the very least, the neocons allowed 9/11 to occur and were at some level involved in the larger plot.

Marines, in on it. CIA in on it. Not so savvy as you thought eh ? Clandestine much

Such CIA affiliations have in fact been alleged by various sources. If you disregard the allegations merely on the basis of those making the claims and feel that former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic's death during his war crimes tribunal was in fact a product of his ailing health alone and not an assassination plot by such interests as he was alleging prior to his death, you may want to bookmark this section and refer back to it later after we demonstrate irrefutably that Western intelligence and their allies, not the "Axis of Evil" they so bizarrely referred to in the wake of 9/11, were involved in the 9/11 attacks and an increasing amount of smaller events since then.

Milošević and the Balkan mafia. Innocent, right ?

http://www.alb-net.com/aki/archive/top.milosevic.jpg

http://iona.ghandchi.com/binladen.jpg

Bin Laden in Sweden. Undercover operative. He even sports the hippie style. Innocent, right ?

Another case

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

Setllers came to america, killed, massacred or deliberately affected natives with smallpox to diminish the population. From the lowest estimate, 2.5 million (1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-3205-9. ) to the highest estimate, 35 million ((1992). American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195075816. )

Now America is morally above, critically acclaimed, the protector of the weak, the safehaven of the poor, and the unfree. Fraud.

America is Evil to the bone. And a sneaky one at that too. Kills you, takes your land, then tells others how to be moral. Chomsky was right after all. Nazis were at least honest about their intentions.


What is common to these above constructed allegations and my "comments" to them ? Besides the fact, that they use the same rhetoric and modus operandi as yours, they utilize constant logical phallacies and failed relevance.

You see GM in a serious conversation, where one has or wants to proove a rational point, the train of thought needs to follow a certain logical structure. Argumentative structure. Already the wise Socrates, saw it as a big problem, when people came about, spouting anything they heard, picked up, or read on some stone, as right. So much so, that he made up his own way of conversing with such folk, he called it elenchos. His successors, mostly Aristotle, had enough of the dimwits chasing ghosts and spouting others, he decided to make a complete system of logic and argumentative reasoning. It is called Organon.

Logic as the basis of a rational argument supereeds „fact“, tenure, fraud, smear...etc. Because it is what holds it firm in the first place. It is what makes the usage of „fact“ true, or not.

You can find a quick overlook here. Make sure you start referencing it as frequently as google.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

add to that a list of all the logical phallacies, starting with your favourite one

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

a logical phallacy means, that an argument is invalid as long as it uses this kind of logic.


Im all for critique. Truly, its what I like best. Hell I read Christopher Hitchen on several accounts. Foucuaults critique, fascinating, even the most hardcore Derridean deconstructionists, Dennet, Harris, Webber...etc. This is field of theory. There are views, not facts. This isnt science. People disagree.
HOWEVER, if any criticism is to be taken seriously, its form needs to follow certain guidelines. What you usually post, are attacks against the man, usually against him as a persona, to discredit him, presidential elections style, without ANY kind of factual proof, only circumstantial evidence.

The Taupe case, busted, the Rollins letters, busted, the alleged anti semite collaboration, busted. Its all there, if you read everything. In any case, lets hope the man himself will shed more light on it.

Take any single great mind in history, and you will see they were greatly controversial if not only outlawed for crimes against humanity, God, culture, or otherwise. Frauds eh. Descartes, father of the West, fraud. Galileo, fraud. Kopernik, fraud. Socrates, fraud. Spinoza, fraud. Leibnitz, fraud. Voltaire, fraud, Faraday, fraud. Reinhold, Jacobi, Kant, Hegel, Fichte, all frauds. Einstein, Hawking, proven wrong. Frauds.

Let me clear it up for you: Because a common tactic of the left is to claim the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party was somehow right wing in it's orientation, rather than one of the evil offspring of Marx's ideas.

Ah, shame. I was expecting excerpts from the nsdap political program, and its connetion to the contemporal left-wing doctrine, or at the very least Mein Kampf, that shows ties to the manifesto, or the Engels scriptures, or the Theses on Feuerbach. You know, something that I can actually connect into a thesis. But at least its a good one, to brainstorm with my colleagues over some juice in a saloon.

Come to think of it, from a pure epistemological standpoint, you are right man. Anything that you read, has an effect on you. This is the true Hegelian negative, which is actually a positive negative, that connects the thesis, with antithesis into a synthesis. Damn, you got me thinking now....

Nice one


@ Marc

Easy there. For someone claiming to be „as far right as they come“ you sure dare a lot.

Lets wait and see. I do not agree, with the notions on Europe. But this is for another topic, another day. Ever since it came into fruition, even in the times of the EGS, we were constantly getting the demography remarks, the „youre done“ arguments. But the sole fact remains, as long as Germany is at world peak economy, and at the moment it most definitely is, EU has a substantial leverage. When stuff goes awoll in Germany, that is a huge red flag. Then you have the Russians, which everyone and their mother throws stones at, and the Chinese of course. The communists will save us once again I hope.

If you wish, the only officially confirmed source by the Commision on raw matters EU, go here :

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

Concerning other things Israel, I agree here. Like I stated already, that the marginal forms of rebelion are doing more harm than good in alot of the cases of the „war effort“. I am not an expert on politics, so I will not play one. But if you go listen to any of the links above, from Chomsky or BtSelem, its stated black on white, which resolutions were vetoed by Israel, which by USA and when, which international human rights laws were violated, security council laws violated...etc. Neither side here has the ethically superior ground.

Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract.

Jumping back to our earlier conversation concerning the logical consistency vel non of Hitler's claims to Sudenland and the Jews claims to Israel:

You are not reading this correctly. Im not using the particularities of the treaties to show how and why the repercussions failed. I said that Hitlers claim to Sudetenland, lied on the same „historical“ necessity argument that the Jewish claim Israel, and Palestine. I used the example to see if you agree with Hitlers claim in that specific example, and why/why not.

Sadly I have to resign gentlemen, a day and a night of workload behind, I have to catch up. Marc, if you wish we may continue this via email, but my answers will be slow.

I will report back with any news from the Leftist anti semite.

Godspeed.

[Crafty_Dog]

Well I too must go, in this case to an award ceremony for my daughter making honor roll 

So I will close with this:

"Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract."

Ummm , , ,  When Egypt agreed to peace it got its land back.  Simple.  The Israelis ALREADY want to live in peace.  It is the Arabs who do not.   

GM:  You up to Chomsky coming to hang out with us?

[G M]

Well I too must go, in this case to an award ceremony for my daughter making honor roll 

So I will close with this:

"Like I said, plain and simple, the two will need to find common space, in the terms of a social contract."

Ummm , , ,  When Egypt agreed to peace it got its land back.  Simple.  The Israelis ALREADY want to live in peace.  It is the Arabs who do not.   

GM:  You up to Chomsky coming to hang out with us?

Hell, I'll do my best to have him stickfighting me at the next gathering! 

[G M]

Lets make an experiment

http://911fraud.blogspot.com/


Quote

After years of ignoring such allegations, former CIA analyst and marine intel officer Robert Steele read Webster Tarpley's book and has joined the chorus of colleagues such as William Christionson, Robert Baer and Ray McGovern and concluded that in the very least, the neocons allowed 9/11 to occur and were at some level involved in the larger plot.

Marines, in on it. CIA in on it. Not so savvy as you thought eh ? Clandestine much


Quote

Such CIA affiliations have in fact been alleged by various sources. If you disregard the allegations merely on the basis of those making the claims and feel that former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic's death during his war crimes tribunal was in fact a product of his ailing health alone and not an assassination plot by such interests as he was alleging prior to his death, you may want to bookmark this section and refer back to it later after we demonstrate irrefutably that Western intelligence and their allies, not the "Axis of Evil" they so bizarrely referred to in the wake of 9/11, were involved in the 9/11 attacks and an increasing amount of smaller events since then.

Milošević and the Balkan mafia. Innocent, right ?

http://www.alb-net.com/aki/archive/top.milosevic.jpg

http://iona.ghandchi.com/binladen.jpg

Bin Laden in Sweden. Undercover operative. He even sports the hippie style. Innocent, right ?

Another case
---------------------------------------------------------

So, let me understand you correctly. You are putting 9/11 conspiracy theories out there as potentially valid concept as an indictment of the US?

You know not even Chomsky wants to wade into that fever swamp, to the chagrin of the "troofers", who wanted his anti-american star factor on their crazy-train.

[G M]

"Now America is morally above, critically acclaimed, the protector of the weak, the safehaven of the poor, and the unfree. Fraud."

Well, as a baseline, please compare and contrast you nation's good acts and contributions to humanity and it's sins against that of America's and Israel's.

[Crafty_Dog]

GM. lets stay on track here.  Right now I want to be 100% clear:  Do you accept Andraz's challenge to see if he can bring Chomsky here, , , without him having to stickfight?

[G M]

Of course.

[Crafty_Dog]

I have so informed Andrew.

[ccp]

Well I am not sure what to make of his political views but certainly he is extraordinarily accomplished and I respect that.

In case he does come to this board I will try to "bone up" on his views since I really don't know much about him.

From his website an awful lot to digest:


                       




                     
 
 
·  Noam Chomsky. International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the present.
·  Noam Chomsky. The Columbia Encyclopedia.
·  Noam Chomsky. Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860-1960.
·  Noam Chomsky. Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology.
·  Noam Chomsky. Major Twentieth Century Writers.
·  Noam Chomsky. MIT Linguistics Program.
·  Noam Chomsky. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
·  Noam Chomsky. Wikipedia.
 

[ccp]

http://www.chomsky.info/

The wikipedia site alone with all its detailed information and links to other topics would take a day to study.

[DougMacG]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,805519,00.html

Inside Syria's Death Zone
Assad's Regime Hunts People in Homs
DER SPIEGEL

The regime in Damascus is using snipers to hunt down its own people. Rebels on the ground in besieged Homs, the site of some of the most extreme brutality, say the international community is hesitating to help Syrians out of fear that it will trigger a civil war. But the threat is merely propaganda from ruler Bashar Assad, they claim.

When the haze dissipates in the late afternoon light, and when the last unfortunate souls hurry across the open space, running in a zigzag pattern, hunting season begins on Cairo Street. There is random shooting all day long at this spot, but from this moment on the shooting becomes targeted. A few people make it to the other side on this day, but one does not. He screams and falls to the ground as he is hit. He was carrying a loaf of bread, something that was no longer available on his side of Cairo Street.

Pedestrians are rarely targeted in the morning. But beginning in the afternoon and continuing throughout the night, the wide, straight street that separates the Khalidiya and Bayada neighborhoods becomes a death zone. That's when they -- the snipers working for Syrian intelligence, who are nothing more than death squads, and the Shabiha killers, known as "the ghosts," mercenaries who are paid daily wages and often earn a little extra income by robbing their victims -- shoot at anything that moves.

The map of Homs is a topography of terror these days. Entire sections of Syria's third-largest city are besieged. Hundreds of thousands have become the hostages of a regime whose president, Bashar Assad, insisted with a chuckle in an interview with America's ABC News, that only a madman would order his forces to shoot at his own people.

What began nine months ago as a peaceful protest against the dictatorship of the Assad dynasty has since become a campaign against the people by the regime -- a regime that, for 41 years, was accustomed to using brutality to enforce submission. Since it realized that this brutality was no longer sufficient, it decided to use even more -- and then even more when the resistance continued to grow. There are no negotiations. In the heavily guarded downtown section of Homs, where the regime feigns an eerie mood of normality for foreign visitors, it has put up signs that read: "The continuation of dialogue guarantees stability."

[Crafty_Dog]

BEIT SHEMESH, Israel — The latest battleground in Israel’s struggle over religious extremism covers little more than a square mile of this Jewish city situated between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and it has the unexpected public face of a blond, bespectacled second-grade girl.
She is Naama Margolese, 8, the daughter of American immigrants who are observant modern Orthodox Jews. An Israeli weekend television program told the story of how Naama had become terrified of walking to her elementary school here after ultra-Orthodox men spit on her, insulted her and called her a prostitute because her modest dress did not adhere exactly to their more rigorous dress code.
The country was outraged. Naama’s picture has appeared on the front pages of all the major Israeli newspapers. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Sunday that “Israel is a democratic, Western, liberal state” and pledged that “the public sphere in Israel will be open and safe for all,” there have been days of confrontation at focal points of friction here.
Ultra-Orthodox men and boys from the most stringent sects have hurled rocks and eggs at the police and journalists, shouting “Nazis” at the security forces and assailing female reporters with epithets like “shikse,” a derogatory Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman or girl, and “whore.” Jews of varying degrees of orthodoxy and secularity headed to Beit Shemesh on Tuesday evening to join local residents in a protest numbering in the thousands against religious violence and fanaticism.
For many Israelis, this is not a fight over one little girl’s walk to school. It is a struggle that could shape the future character and soul of the country, against ultra-Orthodox zealots who have been increasingly encroaching on the public sphere with their strict interpretation of modesty rules, enforcing gender segregation and the exclusion of women.
The battle has broadened and grown increasingly visible in recent weeks and months. Orthodox male soldiers walked out of a ceremony where female soldiers were singing, adhering to what they consider to be a religious prohibition against hearing a woman’s voice; women have been challenging the seating arrangements on strictly “kosher” buses serving ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods and some inter-city routes, where female passengers are expected to sit at the back.
The virulent coercion in Beit Shemesh has been attributed mainly to a group of several hundred ultra-Orthodox extremists who came here from Jerusalem, known as the Sicarii, or daggermen, after a violent and stealthy faction of Jews who tried to expel the Romans in the decades before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Religious extremism is hardly new to Israel, but the Sicarii and their bullying ilk push with a bold vigor that has yet to be fully explained. Certainly, Israel’s coalition politics have allowed the ultra-Orthodox parties to wield disproportionate power beyond the roughly 10 percent of the population they currently represent.
The ultra-Orthodox community’s rapidly increasing numbers — thanks to extraordinarily high birthrates — may also have emboldened the hard core, as may have their insular neighborhoods. And their leadership appears to lack moderating brakes.
In any case, the extremists have provoked an outpouring of opposition from all those who are more flexible, be they ultra-Orthodox, modern Orthodox, mainstream or secular. In fact, it was an ultra-Orthodox-led group that claimed at least part of the credit for making Naama’s story public.
“We are working to save our city and to save our homes,” said Dov Lipman, 40, a local activist, rabbi and self-defined modern ultra-Orthodox, who moved to Beit Shemesh from Silver Spring, Md., seven years ago. Seizing on the public mood of rejecting ultra-Orthodox bullying, Mr. Lipman and a group of supporters have been lobbying the Israeli Parliament, organizing protests and recently hired a media consultant. He said that is how Naama’s story came out.
Built near the ruins of an ancient city of that name mentioned in the Bible, Beit Shemesh was established in 1950, first drawing mostly poor immigrants from North Africa, then immigrants from Russia, Ethiopia and English-speaking countries. With the construction of the new neighborhoods of Ramat Beit Shemesh A and B in the 1990s, the ultra-Orthodox population boomed. Residents say 20,000 more planned housing units are earmarked for the ultra-Orthodox.


In Ramat Beit Shemesh B, signs on the walls of buildings call for modesty, exhorting women and girls to dress in buttoned-up, long-sleeved blouses and long skirts. Outside a synagogue on Hazon Ish Street in the Kirya ha-Haredit quarter, a sign requested that females should cross to the opposite sidewalk and certainly not tarry outside the building.
Naama’s school, Orot, opened in September in an area with a large community of English-speaking observant Jews that borders on the strictest ultra-orthodox neighborhoods. She quickly found she had to run a miserable gantlet to get to school, even dressed in long sleeves and long skirts.
Riots broke out on Monday when the police accompanied media crews into Hazon Ish Street, the area where Naama’s tormentors are believed to have come from. Hundreds of black-garbed men and boys poured out of the synagogue and an adjacent seminary holding handwritten signs calling for the exclusion of women, illustrated with the male and female symbols used for public washrooms. One policeman was injured after being hit in the head with a rock and several arrests were made before the crowds dispersed at dusk.
Many of the ultra-Orthodox agitators blamed the news media for the unrest, saying they had come into the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods to sow hatred and to persecute the residents for their religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, some residents insisted that Beit Shemesh was a tolerant city, but defended at least some gender separation and modesty on religious grounds.
“I think women are very poorly treated in Western society,” said Cindy Feder, 57, a resident of Ramat Beit Shemesh A, who came to Israel from New York in 1970, and who defines herself as an “open haredi,” the Hebrew term for ultra-Orthodox. She said that the objectification of women on some billboards made her feel sick.
In the more austere Ramat Beit Shemesh B, a 32-year-old mother of four defended the gender separation on public transportation, saying that it was necessary to preserve women’s honor on crowded buses that squeezed people like “tomato puree.”
But the woman, who gave only her first name, Rivka, for fear of provoking the disapproval of her neighbors, also told a story that revealed the costs of separation: one night, the extremists came and removed all the public benches from the neighborhood, so that the women could no longer sit outside with their children in the street.

[Crafty_Dog]

By JOSHUA MITNICK
TEL AVIV—For years, Israeli women have been pressured into moving to the rear of public buses serving strictly religious Jews. Now, in confrontations reminiscent of the era of Rosa Parks, women are pushing back.

Doron Matalon, an 18-year-old soldier, says she was standing at the front of the No. 49a municipal bus after an overnight shift at her Jerusalem base on Wednesday morning last week when an ultra-Orthodox man ordered her to move back.

"I said that I have the right to sit here," she says. "Then a commotion ensued, and other people gathered around and started shouting….It was scary."

The conflict drew national media attention and highlighted the growing tensions in Israel as the population of once-insular ultra-Orthodox Jews has surged beyond the urban enclaves of Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv suburb of Bnei Brak, where they have lived for decades.

As the Orthodox seek jobs and housing in other areas, they are increasingly interacting with mainstream Israelis who see their strict code of religious practice to be coercive, and a threat to Israel's democracy.

"It's a slippery slope. What starts with women boarding the bus in the back because of modesty can end up with women not voting," says Mickey Gitzin, the director of Be Free Israel, a nonprofit that promotes religious pluralism. "It could turn Israeli society into a segregated society in which women don't have a place in public life."

In the past week, public outrage peaked following a TV report on the harassment of an 8-year-old girl by ultra-Orthodox men, in the Jerusalem suburb of Beit Shemesh. The men spat on the girl and called her a prostitute for dressing in a way they considered to be immodest.

That spurred thousands of people to demonstrate against the segregation of women on Tuesday, Dec. 27; a counterprotest two days later ignited clashes in Jerusalem and in Beit Shemesh.

Haredi rabbis of Beit Shemesh said the women of their community observe modesty rules voluntarily because they are for women's honor and Judaism orders the separation of men and women in the public sphere.

Many ultra-Orthodox object to segregation, but have gone on the defensive. "The problem is that they want to make a secular state in the Holy Land. That's what creates the friction," said Israel Eichler, a parliament member from the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party.

Mr. Eichler alleged that Israel's secular media is focusing on the ultra-Orthodox treatment of women as a way of indirectly attacking a political ally of the Haredis—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly denounced segregation. Last week he insisted that "women will sit in every place."

Haredi political parties wield outsized clout because they often function as kingmakers of Israeli coalitions by moving between right and left, though their outlook is more in keeping with right-wing coalitions.

For decades, Israel's Haredi sects kept at a distance from the mainstream, congregating in self-contained ghettos. Their religious ideology rejected the foundations of the secular Jewish state even as they participated in its politics.

Because they made up a relatively small percentage of the population, they were allowed to avoid army service and oversee schools that shed elements of state curriculum, and lobbied for public subsidies that enabled graduates to continue religious study rather than pursue jobs.

In the 14 years since the first public buses went into operation in Jerusalem, exclusion and segregation efforts have expanded to include men-only sidewalks in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, separated waiting rooms at some health clinics, and the gradual disappearance of women from billboard advertisements in Jerusalem.

With Haredi birthrates double the average Israeli family, ultra-Orthodox Jews are poised to surge from around 10% of the country's population. Economists say the status quo, where most Haredi men don't work, will eventually drag down the economy because the government won't be able to afford the rising cost of so many men staying out of the workplace.

The bus lines that initially served only ultra-Orthodox communities eventually spilled over into mixed areas. As the number of segregated bus lines grew into the dozens and complaints emerged, the liberal Israel Religious Action Center, an affiliate of the U.S. Reform Jewish movement, petitioned the Supreme Court to ban segregation on buses.

In a ruling in January 2011, the court said that while forced segregated buses were illegal in principle, it would be possible to allow them to operate for one year on a voluntary basis.

The ruling highlighted a dilemma for Israel's government in determining how to handle diverse religious and national groups that reject many of its basic principles.

"The deeper question is how does a democracy deal with separatist fundamentalist communities in its midst," said Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. "Israel's great domestic challenge is to figure out the balance between allowing cultural autonomy and reinforcing its sovereign authority."

With the one-year trial period about to end, the petitioners say they plan to press the Supreme Court again.

For Ms. Matalon, it might be too late. She says she fears riding the bus and hasn't returned for fear of harassment.

"It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last time," she says.

[Crafty_Dog]

The cognitive dissonance produced by this article is simply amazing. 

Palestinian Fatah looks ill-prepared for election
 
In this photo taken Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012, Kifah Iwaiwi, a district Fatah party leader speaks at his office in the West Bank City of Hebron. Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian national movement whose survival is key to hopes for a peace deal with Israel, appears ill-prepared for a promised electoral showdown with the Islamic militant Hamas. (AP Photo - Nasser Shiyoukhi)
KARIN LAUB
From Associated Press
January 20, 2012 2:24 AM EST
HEBRON, West Bank (AP) — Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian national movement whose survival is key to hopes for a peace deal with Israel, appears ill-prepared for a promised electoral showdown with the Islamic militant Hamas.

The movement's leaders, blaming Fatah's loss to Hamas in 2006 parliament elections on lack of organization, say this time they've come up with a detailed plan to mobilize supporters and field attractive candidates. But skeptics note the party, known for epic infighting, hasn't even begun looking for a presidential candidate to replace leader Mahmoud Abbas, 76, who says he is retiring.


Some say the movement that once cast itself as a band of swashbuckling revolutionaries needs "rebranding" — its star dimmed after two decades of corruption-tainted rule in the Palestinian autonomy zones and the failure of negotiations with Israel meant to produce an independent state.

In the West Bank's largest city of Hebron, district party leader Kifah Iwaiwi said he spent much of the past four years on the job apologizing for the past misbehavior of Fatah members. Relying largely on volunteers and donations in the campaign, Iwaiwi said one of Fatah's biggest assets, at least locally, is the ability to solve voters' personal problems because of its ties to the Palestinian Authority.

Fatah and Hamas — after several years of running rival governments in the West Bank and Gaza — agreed in principle to "reconcile" and hold presidential and parliamentary elections by May 2012. Since then, Islamists have emerged victorious in parliamentary elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, feeding a fear that the Palestinian territories — if elections indeed are held — could be next.

A political takeover of the West Bank as well by an unreformed, globally shunned Hamas would isolate the Palestinians, crushing any hopes for peace and a negotiated path to Palestinian independence. It could also mean the end to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of annual foreign aid from the West, which regards Hamas as a terror group.

"Everyone feels that if Fatah falls down again, it's the end," said Iwaiwi. Hebron overwhelmingly voted for the Islamists last time.

Fatah may be helped this time by some disillusionment with Hamas, which seized Gaza by force in 2007. Pollster Khalil Shikaki sees a drop in the Islamists' popularity, from 44 percent in 2006 to 29 percent today — but a fifth of respondents are undecided, and pollsters failed to predict the stunning 2006 upset by Hamas.

The election date is linked to progress in slow-moving reconciliation talks, and Abbas' initial election date of May 4 already seems out of reach.

Central Elections Commission director Hisham Kheil said he still awaits Hamas permission to update voter records in Gaza, a process of some six weeks. Elections would be held about three months after preparations are completed, with the date set in a presidential degree by Abbas.

The delay has raised questions about whether Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal are genuinely committed to elections. They announced again last month that they are ready to end the split, but the goodwill gestures promised at the time, such as releasing political detainees and lifting travel bans, have not been carried out. They plan to meet again in Cairo in early February.

Each faces some opposition in their movements, and power-sharing comes at a steep price, especially for Abbas who would lose international support by bringing Hamas into the fold.

Abbas has told Fatah's 22-member decision-making Central Committee repeatedly that he is serious about retiring and moving forward with elections, and that the party had better find a presidential candidate.

But polls show that only Abbas could defeat a Hamas candidate, and that his lieutenants — except senior Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, imprisoned by Israel — would win minimal voter support.

Meanwhile, the party is arguing over how to choose the candidates for parliament. Chaotic primaries in 2006 were blamed for Fatah's defeat: many of those who weren't picked in the primaries ran as independents and split the vote, helping Hamas candidates win certain districts.

The Central Committee wants to skip primaries this time and pick the candidates, said Mohammed Madani, head of Fatah's election campaign.

Such a decision, however, would antagonize those seeking a more democratic process, including party elders who advocate choosing the candidates for president and parliament in a convention, not in back rooms.

"Fatah lost the last election due to an accumulation of errors. I do not see that it has learned from its mistakes," said Nabil Amr, one of the party elders who have been sidelined.

Shikaki's latest poll puts Fatah ahead of Hamas by 43 to 29 percent, with 11 percent backing other factions and 17 percent undecided. In the presidential race Abbas tops Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas by 55 to 37 percent. Jailed Fatah icon Barghouti would defeat a Hamas candidate with 54 percent, while senior Abbas aide Saeb Erekat would lose with just 7 percent. The mid-December survey of 1,260 carried an error margin of 3 percentage points.


No one knows quite what to make of the polls.

Many believe Islamist support — as elsewhere throughout the Arab world — may be under-measured systematically in such surveys. In the West Bank specifically, Hamas backers may not always be honest about their political leanings because of the ongoing crackdown on the Islamists by Abbas' security forces.

With all the uncertainty, Abbas and Mashaal could also keep postponing the election.

Hamas is confident of victory, but fears that it would be a pointless one if, just as in 2006, its West Bank candidates are harassed and arrested by Israel. Abbas might come under growing pressure from Fatah to call off the vote, as he did in 2010 when he canceled local elections after it became apparent his party would lose.

[ccp]

Analysis: Media frenzy on Iran contradicts reality By YAAKOV KATZ 01/31/2012 02:58 Media preoccupation with Iran contradicts new reality forged by sanctions.  By REUTERS
Here is an example of just how tightly wound the media is when it comes to anything related to Iran these days.

On Sunday night, CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a piece on US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in which he said it would take about a year for Iran to build a nuclear bomb from the moment it makes the decision to do so.

Related: •'Iran renaming ships to circumvent sanctions'•Inspectors arrive in Iran on day of oil ban voteAll of the Israeli news sites – and several international ones as well – went wild. Some put up Panetta’s remarks as their top story leaving it there for a number of hours. What they didn’t realize though is that Panetta made the remarks in December when he was interviewed by anchorman Scott Pelley, and that the same comment on Iran was aired already back then and picked up widely by the same media.

On the other hand, one could ask what difference does it make if the media recycles the same exact story that it wrote a month ago especially now, when chances for an Israeli strike against Iran in the coming year are increasing as Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman predicted in his recent piece in The New York Times Magazine.

The truth is that the pace of the reports coming out of the American media in recent weeks about Iran is almost breathtaking.

First was Bergman’s piece, which opened with the dramatic description of Defense Minister Ehud Barak peering out the window of his luxury apartment in the Akirov Towers in Tel Aviv at the lights below while warning that Iran’s ultimate goal is to destroy the State of Israel.



Then came a report in the same paper that Israel cast doubt on the notion that a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic war. The message – it can be done and won’t be so bad.

Next, was The Washington Post report that the US was sending a floating commando base to the Persian Gulf just a week after sending an aircraft carrier through the volatile Strait of Hormuz.

Contrary to popular thinking though, Israel has yet to make an official decision on whether or not it will attack Iran, and there is already some talk within the defense establishment’s upper echelons of the possibility that due to the increased sanctions – particularly the European’s oil embargo – such a standoff might even be postponed, possibly sometime into next year.

In general, Israel’s strategy has been the same since it began the saber-rattling and beating of the war drums in late October ahead of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran: threaten to use military force in order to ultimately not to have to.

The strategy employed by Israel was disclosed by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan in a US diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks in late 2010 but still for the most part remains the same with the focus still on sanctions, diplomacy, covert measures and, of course, on the credible threat to use military force.

The current state of Iran’s nuclear program is such that Tehran has mastered the fuel cycle and uranium enrichment process and has developed all of the necessary components it would require to build a bomb. All it needs to do now is decide to built it.

The question is if they will.

The defense establishment hopes that the sanctions, covert acts and the credible threat of action by the US and Israel will succeed in delaying Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from having to make that decision in the near future. If it does, then the question that would appear on the Israeli government’s table – to attack or not to – will also be pushed off.

The objective of a military strike – whether launched by Israel or the US – would be similar to that of the sanctions and the covert measures taken by the West. According to most assessments, no matter who attacks, the damage will set the Iranians back just for a number of years, during which time the regime will likely be able to rebuild its capabilities and have more domestic legitimacy to do so.

While Israel is satisfied with the world’s continued crackdown on Iran, it is still not enough. Iran is continuing to enrich uranium and to install centrifuges in the new heavily- fortified Fordow facility near Qom.

The first way to escalate would be for the EU to enact the ban on Iranian oil immediately and not to wait until July. The second step would be for the US and the EU to impose direct sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, a move that would definitely cripple the Iranian economy.

While skeptical, Israel believes that only this combination would succeed in getting the Iranians to make the decision on their own to stop. The rationale is quite simple – the Iranians have been defying the West for years while they worked on the bomb. Now, they are so close that it will be difficult to get them to simply walk away.

This does not mean that if it comes down to it, Israel is not prepared to take military action. According to the slew of recent reports, the contrary is probably true. Either way, it will do everything it can to delay that day from arriving.

[Crafty_Dog]

How should the Obama Administration respond to the news that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signed a deal with Hamas to form a unity government? In 2009, Hillary Clinton was unequivocal. The U.S. "will not deal with, nor in any way fund, a Palestinian government that included Hamas," said the Secretary of State, unless Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel.

That stern finger isn't wagging now. "We are not going to give a grade to this thing until we have a chance to talk to Palestinian Authority leaders about the implications," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, along with the usual throat-clearing about U.S. red lines. She added that the deal was an "internal matter" for Palestinians.

Which is true. What's also true is that the U.S. has budgeted some $500 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) for the current fiscal year, plus another $232 million for the U.N. welfare agency that deals with the descendants of Palestinian refugees. U.S. law prohibits aid to any Palestinian government that includes Hamas. The question for the Administration is whether it will abide by the law—or search for a legal loophole.

That loophole might be a government of supposedly nonpartisan technocrats on whom both factions can agree. This week's agreement, reached under Qatari auspices, takes one step in that direction by naming Mr. Abbas to succeed Salam Fayyad as prime minister while retaining his post as president. After that, however, the details of the plan become vague. Question: Would the U.S. continue to fund and train a Palestinian security apparatus that merges with Hamas's paramilitary units? Let's hope not.

The Administration may want to put that question to the side and hope for the best—or else for this deal to fall apart, as other deals have in the past. But eventually the U.S. will have to make some determination about the utility of funding a Palestinian government that scorns negotiations with Israel and rarely bothers to pay even lip service to U.S. interests.

So it was last year with the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations (which failed thanks to the Administration) and later at Unesco (which succeeded despite it). We're assuming there's a limit to how often even the Obama Administration is prepared to be spurned.

It may not be too late for the U.S. to tell the Palestinians that they cannot bring a terrorist organization into government while continuing to expect American money and sympathy. But that would require sharp and public statements from Mrs. Clinton and President Obama of the kind they have used to rebuke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Administration likes to tout itself as the best friend Israel has ever had. Its attitude toward Palestinian "reconciliation" is a test of that boast.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/peaceful-protest-can-free-palestine.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

OVER the past 64 years, Palestinians have tried armed struggle; we have tried negotiations; and we have tried peace conferences. Yet all we have seen is more Israeli settlements, more loss of lives and resources, and the emergence of a horrifying system of segregation.

Khader Adnan, a Palestinian held in an Israeli prison, pursued a different path. Despite his alleged affiliation with the militant group Islamic Jihad, he waged a peaceful hunger strike to shake loose the consciences of people in Israel and around the world. Mr. Adnan chose to go unfed for more than nine weeks and came close to death. He endured for 66 days before ending his hunger strike on Tuesday in exchange for an Israeli agreement to release him as early as April 17.

Mr. Adnan has certainly achieved an individual victory. But it was also a broader triumph — unifying Palestinians and highlighting the power of nonviolent protest. Indeed, all Palestinians who seek an independent state and an end to the Israeli occupation would be wise to avoid violence and embrace the example of peaceful resistance.

Mr. Adnan was not alone in his plight. More than 300 Palestinians are currently held in “administrative detention.” No charges have been brought against them; they must contend with secret evidence; and they do not get their day in military court.

Britain’s practices in Northern Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s were not so different from Israel’s today — and they elicited a similarly rebellious spirit from the subjugated population. In 1981, Bobby Sands, an imprisoned member of the Irish Republican Army, died 66 days after beginning a hunger strike to protest Britain’s treatment of political prisoners. Mr. Sands was elected to Parliament during his strike; nine other hunger strikers died before the end of 1981; and their cases drew worldwide attention to the plight of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Just as Margaret Thatcher, then the British prime minister, unsympathetically dismissed Mr. Sands as a “convicted criminal,” Israeli officials have accused Mr. Adnan of being an active member of Islamic Jihad. But if this is the case, Israel should prove it in court.

Mr. Adnan’s actions over the past nine weeks demonstrated that he was willing to give his life — nonviolently and selflessly — to advance Palestinian freedom. Others must now show similar courage.

What is needed is a Palestinian version of the Arab revolutions that have swept the region: a mass movement demanding freedom, dignity, a just peace, real democracy and the right to self-determination. We must take the initiative, practice self-reliance and pursue a form of nonviolent struggle that we can sustain without depending on others to make decisions for us or in our place.

In the last several years, Palestinians have organized peaceful protests against the concrete and wire “separation barrier” that pens us into what are best described as bantustans. We have sought to mobilize popular resistance to this wall by following in the nonviolent traditions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas K. Gandhi — and we remain determined to sustain peaceful protest even when violently attacked.

Using these techniques, we have already succeeded in pressuring the Israeli government to reroute the wall in villages like Jayyous and Bilin and helped hundreds of Palestinians get their land back from settlers or the Israeli Army.

Our movement is not intended to delegitimize Israel, as the Israeli government claims. It is, instead, a movement to delegitimize the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which we believe is the last surviving apartheid system in the world. It is a movement that could free Palestinians from nearly 45 years of occupation and Israelis from being part of the last colonial-settler system of our time.

I remember the days when some political leaders of the largest Palestinian political parties, Al Fatah and Hamas, laughed at our nonviolent struggle, which they saw as soft and ineffective. But the turning point came in the summer of 2008, when we managed to break the Israeli naval siege of Gaza with small boats. Suddenly, I saw great respect in the eyes of the same leaders who had doubted the power of nonviolence but finally recognized its potential.

The power of nonviolence is that it gives Palestinians of all ages and walks of life the tools to challenge those subjugating us. And thousands of peace activists from around the world have joined our movement. In demonstrations in East Jerusalem, Silwan and Hebron we are also being joined by a new and younger Israeli peace movement that categorically rejects Israeli occupation.

Unfortunately, continuing Israeli settlement activity could soon lead us to the point of no return. Indeed, if we do not soon achieve a genuinely independent Palestinian state, we will be forced to press instead for a single democratic state with equal rights and responsibilities for both Palestinians and Israelis.

We are not sure how long it will take before our nonviolent struggle achieves its goal. But we are sure of one thing: it will succeed, and Palestinians will one day be free.

Mustafa Barghouthi, a doctor and member of the Palestinian Parliament, is secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party.

[ccp]

"What is needed is a Palestinian version of the Arab revolutions that have swept the region: a mass movement demanding freedom, dignity, a just peace, real democracy and the right to self-determination. We must take the initiative, practice self-reliance and pursue a form of nonviolent struggle that we can sustain without depending on others to make decisions for us or in our place."

 Well all you need do is recognize Israel "guarantee" a peaceful co-existence and you won't have to go on hunger strikes.

 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203960804577244932732348366.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

[JDN]

I can't read the link.  For those of us poor people who read your forum and don't subscribe and pay for the WSJ (I read it elsewhere); may I suggest you post the whole article rather than a link?
Otherwise, many of us, and many in the future will not be able to read it.  This is an issue that is becoming more and more relevant. 

[bigdog]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-plays-hawk-in-chief-on-iran-20120304?page=1

[Crafty_Dog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257191372525750.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
By DAN SENOR
'I try not to pat myself too much on the back," President Barack Obama immodestly told a group of Jewish donors last October, "but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration."

Mr. Obama struck a similar tone at the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in Washington Sunday, assuring the group that "I have Israel's back." And it's little wonder why. Monday he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid growing concern that a military strike will be necessary to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. He also knows that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote when he publicly pressured Israel to commence negotiations with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders with land swaps. With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.

It is true that there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense programs, the bulk of which comes from Mr. Obama maintaining a 10-year commitment made by President George W. Bush to Israel's government in 2007.

But a key element of Israel's security is deterrence. That deterrence rests on many parts, including the perception among its adversaries that Israel will defend itself, and that if Israel must take action America will stand by Israel. Now consider how Israel's adversaries must view this deterrence capability in recent months:

October 2011: Speaking to reporters traveling with him to Israel, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta raised provocative questions about Israel. "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?"

This characterization of self-created isolation surprised Israeli officials. After all, for almost three years President Obama had pressured Israel to make unilateral concessions in the peace process. And his administration had publicly confronted Israel's leaders, making unprecedented demands for a complete settlement freeze—which Israel met in 2010.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (left) with Barack Obama.
.The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity. Thus, having helped foment an image of Israeli obstinacy, the Obama administration was now using this image of isolation against Israel's government. Mr. Panetta's criticism was promptly endorsed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a harsh critic of Israel, who said Mr. Panetta was "correct in his assumptions." Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.

November 2011: In advance of meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mr. Panetta publicly previewed his message. He would warn Mr. Barak against a military strike on Iran's nuclear program: "There are going to be economic consequences . . . that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy." Even if the administration felt compelled to deliver this message privately, why undercut the perception of U.S.-Israel unity on the military option?

That same month, an open microphone caught part of a private conversation between Mr. Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. Sarkozy said of Israel's premier, "I can't stand Netanyahu. He's a liar." Rather than defend Israel's back, Mr. Obama piled on: "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day."

December 2011: Again undercutting the credibility of the Israeli military option, Mr. Panetta used a high-profile speech to challenge the idea that an Israeli strike could eliminate or substantially delay Iran's nuclear program, and he warned that "the United States would obviously be blamed."

Mr. Panetta also addressed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by lecturing Israel to "just get to the damn table." This, despite the fact that Israel had been actively pursuing direct negotiations with the Palestinians, only to watch the Palestinian president abandon talks and unilaterally pursue statehood at the U.N. The Obama team thought the problem was with Israel?

January 2012: In an interview, Mr. Obama referred to Prime Minister Erdogan as one of the five world leaders with whom he has developed "bonds of trust." According to Mr. Obama, these bonds have "allowed us to execute effective diplomacy." The Turkish government had earlier sanctioned a six-ship flotilla to penetrate Israel's naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Mr. Erdogan had said that Israel's defensive response was "cause for war."

February 2012: At a conference in Tunis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about Mr. Obama pandering to "Zionist lobbies." She acknowledged that it was "a fair question" and went on to explain that during an election season "there are comments made that certainly don't reflect our foreign policy."


In an interview last week with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama dismissed domestic critics of his Israel policy as "a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge . . . between Barack Obama and the Jewish American vote." But what's glaring is how many of these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.

Last December, New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez lambasted administration officials at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He had proposed sanctions on Iran's central bank and the administration was hurling a range of objections. "Published reports say we have about a year," said Mr. Menendez. "So I find it pretty outrageous that when the clock is ticking . . . you come here and say what you say."

Also last year, a number of leading Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer, felt compelled to speak out in response to Mr. Obama's proposal for Israel to return to its indefensible pre-1967 borders. Rep. Eliot Engel told CNN that "for the president to emphasize that . . . was a very big mistake."

In April 2010, 38 Democratic senators signed a critical letter to Secretary Clinton following the administration's public (and private) dressing down of the Israeli government.

Sen. Charles Schumer used even stronger language in 2010 when he responded to "something I have never heard before," from the Obama State Department, "which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is a dagger."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, said of Mr. Obama last year, "I think he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has encouraged Israel's enemies, and really unsettled the Israelis."

Election-year politics may bring some short-term improvements in the U.S. relationship with Israel. But there's concern that a re-elected President Obama, with no more votes or donors to court, would be even more aggressive in his one-sided approach toward Israel.

If Mr. Obama wants a pat on the back, he should make it clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that he will stand by Israel if it must act. He came one step closer to that stance on Sunday when he told Aipac, "Iran's leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs." Let's hope this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.

Mr. Senor, co-author with Saul Singer of "Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle" (Twelve, 2011), served as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003-04, and is currently an adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

[bigdog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/world/middleeast/anger-and-compassion-for-justice-who-stays-silent-during-zionist-hymn.html

Politics and the Israeli Supreme Court. 

[ccp]

From 2008 so not new:
(I haven't read most of it yet - no time right now)
http://chomsky.info/debates/20051129.htm

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/world/pro-israel-groups-differing-approaches-on-iran.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120319

WASHINGTON — Even before President Obama declared this month that “I have Israel’s back” in its escalating confrontation with Iran, pro-Israel figures like the evangelical Christian leader Gary L. Bauer and the conservative commentator William Kristol were pushing for more.

Gary Bauer, a conservative Christian leader who seeks strong action on Iran, says Mr. Obama’s “record on Israel is abysmal.”

In a slickly produced, 30-minute video, the group that the two men lead, the Emergency Committee for Israel, mocked Mr. Obama’s “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security” and attacked his record on Iran as weak. “I’ll be brutally honest: I don’t trust the president on Israel,” Mr. Bauer, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, said in an interview. “I think his record on Israel is abysmal.”

With Israeli leaders warning of an existential threat from Iran and openly discussing the possibility of attacking its nuclear facilities, pro-Israel groups on all sides have mobilized to make their views known to the Obama administration and to Congress. But it is the most hawkish voices, like the Emergency Committee’s, that have dominated the debate, and, in the view of some critics, pushed the United States closer to taking military action against Iran and another war in the Middle East.

“It’s not about Israel,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, the House majority leader and a key Congressional ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

“It’s about the U.S.,” Mr. Cantor said in an interview. “It’s about our interests in the region. There have been a lot of conflicting messages coming out of the White House.”

Among those advocating a more aggressive approach toward Iran are prominent Republicans in Congress, like Mr. Cantor and Senator John McCain of Arizona; the party’s presidential candidates; groups like the Emergency Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac; the so-called “neocons” from the George W. Bush administration who were strong proponents of the war in Iraq; pro-Israel evangelical Christians like Mr. Bauer, who is also active in the group Christians United for Israel; and many Democrats.

Urging diplomacy are liberal groups like J Street, which is helped by $500,000 a year in contributions from the liberal philanthropist George Soros, and Tikkun, a Jewish journal that has begun running newspaper advertisements here and abroad that urge, “NO War on Iran and NO First Strike!” Tikkun, based in Berkeley, Calif., is hoping to link its antiwar message with the Occupy protests.

“A lot of people talk about the ‘Israel lobby’ as if it’s a monolithic thing,” said Dylan Williams, head of government affairs for J Street. “It’s a myth. There is a deep division between those who support military action at this point and those who support diplomacy.”

Clear fissures have developed among pro-Israel groups — not only between hawks and doves over whether to use military force against Iran, but among hard-liners themselves over just how aggressively to confront it.

Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner who is a staunch supporter of Israel, was once a major donor to Aipac. But because of Aipac’s support for American aid to the Palestinian Authority, he has broken from the group. This year, Mr. Adelson has given at least $10 million, along with his wife, to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, Mr. Gingrich has pushed for stronger support of Israel and attacked Mr. Obama’s policies on the Iranian issue as weak. He also described the Palestinians as an “invented people.”

The disagreements over what to do about Iran reflect the divisions among Jews themselves. In a survey of American Jews last September by the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group, 56 percent of those polled said they would support American military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions failed, while 38 percent opposed it. Support was down slightly from a year earlier.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, a leader of Tikkun and an affiliated antiwar coalition of religious groups, said backers of diplomacy want to slow what they have seen as a “drumbeat to war” in recent weeks. Rabbi Lerner and other opponents of military action say the debate over Iran echoes the political climate in 2002 before the United States-led invasion in Iraq.

Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat (whom POTH fails to mention is Muslim) who opposes military action against Iran, said, “The rhetoric is overblown.”

Those advocating military intervention “whip up fear and whip up doomsday scenarios,” Mr. Ellison said in an interview. “It has an effect. If nothing else, they’re making Obama talk about military options with regard to Iran.”

But Mr. Ellison is in the minority on Capitol Hill, where the debate over Israel and Iran was largely settled long ago.



cont.