Untitled Document

The Israel Lobby Watch

Documenting the role of the pro-Israel and Jewish lobbies in manipulating Western foreign policy to suit their own interests. Seeing how the politicians and media are intimidated and manipulated to propogate a foreign policy antithetical to the real interests of Western citizens and which is being used to drive a wedge between Muslims and the Western nations.

Also see: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/israellobbywatch.shtml for more information on the pro-Israel lobby

AIPAC's Hold In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the "roll call" of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials.

As this event illustrates, it's impossible to talk about Congress's relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the American Jewish community's most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional reaction to Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why. On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8. AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."

AIPAC is the leading player in what is sometimes referred to as "The Israel Lobby"--a coalition that includes major Jewish groups, neoconservative intellectuals and Christian Zionists. With its impressive contacts among Hill staffers, influential grassroots supporters and deep connections to wealthy donors, AIPAC is the lobby's key emissary to Congress. But in many ways, AIPAC has become greater than just another lobby; its work has made unconditional support for Israel an accepted cost of doing business inside the halls of Congress. AIPAC's interest, Israel's interest and America's interest are today perceived by most elected leaders to be one and the same. Christian conservatives increasingly aligned with AIPAC demand unwavering support for Israel from their Republican leaders. (In mid-July, 3,000-plus evangelicals came to town for the first annual "Christian United for Israel" summit.) And Democrats are equally concerned about alienating Jewish voters and Jewish donors--long a cornerstone of their party. Some in Congress are deeply uncomfortable with AIPAC's militant worldview and heavyhanded tactics, but most dare not say so publicly....

"But the Congress, if anything, is urging the Administration on and criticizing them even at their most accommodating. When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics."

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (download 1.6 mb PDF version here) | "The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. Though often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” This paper describes the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."..."For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical."..."Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation."
"Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel. Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say: “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.’ Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as ‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.’ Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’. The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters."..."The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy. A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests. Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’ AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates. There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes’. The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’

The Cost of Israel to the American People | "By now many Americans are aware that Israel, with a population of only 5.8 million people, is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and that Israel’s aid plus U.S. aid to Egypt’s 65 million people for keeping the peace with Israel has, for many years, consumed more than half of the U.S. bi-lateral foreign aid budget world-wide. What few Americans understand however, is the steep price they pay in many other fields for the U.S.-Israeli relationship, which in turn is a product of the influence of Israel’s powerful U.S. lobby on American domestic politics and has nothing to do with U.S. strategic interests, U.S. national interests, or even with traditional American support for self-determination, human rights, and fair play overseas. Besides its financial cost, unwavering U.S. support for Israel, whether it’s right or wrong, exacts a huge price in American prestige and credibility overseas. Further, Israel’s powerful U.S. lobby has been a major factor in delaying campaign finance reform, and also in the removal from American political life of some of our most distinguished public servants, members of Congress and even presidents. Finally, the Israel-U.S. relationship has cost a significant number of American lives. The incidents in which hundreds of U.S. service personnel, diplomats, and civilians have been killed in the Middle East have been reported in the media. But the media seldom revisits these events, and scrupulously avoids analyzing why they occurred or compiling the cumulative toll of American deaths resulting from our Israel-centered Middle East policies."

Israel-Our Dangerous Parasite | "One major difference stands out: the German people funded Hitler's expansionism, whereas it has been the US taxpayers who, to a great extent, have paid for Israel's expansionism. Adolph Hitler never received complimentary press coverage in the US but our President Bush has stated more than once, that Sharon is " a man of peace." The fascist ideology of the Likud Party has kept the Mideast in an uproar for over half a century." In his memoirs of his years in the White House former President Jimmy Carter wrote that there could have been peace between the Arabs and the Israelis had it not been for the bigoted, Nazi-like racial views of Israeli's Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Begin, Carter recalled, believed the Jews were the Master Race, a holy people superior to Egyptians and Arabs. Begin also believed that God wanted the Jews to own the land, so there was absolutely no basis for peace. The Jews lusted after the land and intended to have it." "Holocaust activist, Elie Wiesel, who recently died, claimed the Jews are a superior race. "Everything about us is different ...Jews are ontologically exceptional." (Texe Maars 11-25-2003) (www.rense.com/general45/master.htm )"

The guilty plea of fabulously wealthy and highly corrupt lobbyist "Jack Abramoff raised the question of whether he would roll over on congressmen involved in illegal fundraising and other crimes with him. Some twenty Republicans on Capitol Hill are said to be in danger. Abramoff's dense network of illicit finances and phony charities might end some political careers in the United States. But the investigation into his activities by the FBI also shed light on the ways in which rightwing American Jews have often been involved in funding what are essentially terrorist activities by armed land thieves in Palestinian territory. Indeed, it was this terror funding of Israeli far right militiamen that tripped Abramoff up, since the FBI discovered that he had misled Indian tribes into giving money to the Jabotinskyites, and then began wondering if he had defrauded the tribes in other ways. (You betcha!) The Indian leaders were furious when they discovered they had been used to oppress another dispossessed indigenous people, the Palestinians, calling it "Outer Limits bizarre" and saying that they would never have willingly given money to such a cause. Newsweek's Mike Issikoff reported last May that Abramoff diverted $140,000 from a charity ostensibly to benefit inner-city youths to militant Israeli colonists who had usurped land in the Palestinian West Bank. Isikoff wrote: "Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as "security" equipment. The FBI, sources tell NEWSWEEK, is now examining these payments as part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients . . . Abramoff, a legendary lobbyist particularly close to DeLay, is also a fierce supporter of Israel—"a super-Zionist," one associate says. That may explain why Abramoff's paramilitary gear ended up in the town of Beitar Illit, a sprawling ultra-Orthodox outpost whose residents have occasionally tangled with their Palestinian neighbors. Yitzhak Pindrus, the settlement's mayor, says that several years ago the town was confronting mounting security problems. "They [the Palestinians] were throwing stones, they were throwing Molotov cocktails," Pindrus says. Abramoff's connection to the town was Schmuel Ben-Zvi, an American emigre who, the lobbyist told associates, was an old friend he knew from Los Angeles. Capital Athletic Foundation public tax records make no mention of Ben-Zvi. But they do show payments to "Kollel Ohel Tiferet" in Israel, a group for which there is no public listing and which the town's mayor said he never heard of...."Isikoff is careful to avoid trouble by depicting the weaponry sent by Abramoff as essentially for self-defense. But the colonists are often aggressive, and anyway would not need to defend themselves if they weren't squatting on other people's land. And, Israel does have an army. Private militias are always an ugly thing, and have been used by Israeli colonists ethnically to cleanse nearby Palestinian villages"...."Illegal outposts, i.e. establishing foreign colonies on stolen land, is a way of terrorizing the indigenous inhabitants, and it requires a local militia to defend the colonists, along with sniper lessons and night-vision binoculars. Now here's the thing. If a Palestinian-American had diverted $140,000 from a Muslim charity to "security equipment" and "sniper lessons" for Palestinians on the West Bank, that individual would be in Gitmo so fast that the sonic boom would rattle your windows. In fact, it seems to me that Sami al-Arian is the mirror image of Abramoff. But here's a prediction. None of the Jewish extremists, some of them violent, who are invading the West Bank and making the lives of the local Palestinians miserable will ever be branded "terrorists" by the US Government, and Abramoff's foray into providing sniper lessons will be quietly buried. Terror isn't terror and aggression is not aggression when it has lobbyists in Congress who can provide luxury vacations and illegal campaign funding.

Aid to Israel is Out of Hand | "American and Israeli diplomats have recently revived discussions over our potential financial support of Israel's August withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Last summer, Israel sought $2 billion, but suspended its request following the Katrina disaster. With popular and congressional attention to New Orleans now dissipating, Israel is again asking American taxpayers for help, although it has scaled back to $1.2 billion in light of popular sentiment and signals from Congress. This amount is supplemental to Israel's share of our regular foreign aid that has run $3 billion to $4 billion annually for decades. Our officials have not publicly responded to the Israel request. When they do, their answer should be a polite but firm "No". It is reason enough to deny Israel's request that its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are illegal. The U.N. Security Council has held so, as has the International Court of Justice. As part of its non-binding but authoritative judgment on Israel's wall, the International Court of Justice concluded last year that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories violate international law. While the dollars Israel now seeks would fund housing and infrastructure for new communities in Israel for the settlers, paying for these, in effect, compensates Israel for giving back its illegal settlements. Some 94 percent of Americans polled by CNN in July opposed the Israeli request, even before Katrina and heightened public awareness of our own acute domestic needs. Still, there are times when principle must surrender to pragmatism. $1.2 billion would be a bargain were it to yield momentum toward a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace. Every indication, unfortunately, is to the contrary. Since the decolonization of the Gaza Strip, Israel has only intensified its colonization of the West Bank, including Jerusalem. There, 430,000 Israeli settlers live in settlements built on land seized from Palestinians -- and they are expanding every day. A city holy to three great religions is being transformed into the exclusive capital of one group -- Jews. Meanwhile Palestinian Christian and Muslim families are slowly squeezed out of neighborhoods they have inhabited peacefully for decades if not centuries. A European Union study released last week determined that Israeli policies toward Jerusalem are not motivated by security, but by demographics, violating international law and Israel's obligations under the Roadmap to Peace. Israel touted the Gaza disengagement as a step forward. Yet in October 2004, Dov Weisglass, advisor and close confidant of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, admitted in an interview in Israel that withdrawal was a way to avoid peace negotiations with Palestinians, consolidate control over the West Bank, and foil the creation of a Palestinian state. No such pronouncements are necessary, however, to the Palestinians. They witness Israel's continuing relentless seizures of Palestinian lands, demolition of Palestinian homes, construction of the separation wall, and expansion of Jewish-only settlements. Palestinian Christians and Muslims are rendered homeless, stripped of their property, and deprived of any semblance at equal rights with their Jewish counterparts."

Might the Arabs Have a Point? | "And is Israel not our fair-haired boy? Though Sharon & Co. have stomped on as many UN resolutions as Saddam Hussein ever did, they have pocketed $100 billion in U.S. aid and are now asking for a $2 billion bonus this year, Katrina notwithstanding. Anyone doubt they will get it? Though per capita income in Israel is probably 20 times that of the Palestinians, Israel gets the lion’s share of economic aid. And though they have flipped off half a dozen presidents to plant half a million settlers in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, have we ever imposed a single sanction on Israel? Has Bush ever raised his voice to Ariel Sharon? And when you listen to the talking heads and read the columns of the neocon press, is it unfair to conclude that, yes, they would like to dump over every regime that defies Bush or Sharon?"

No US-Backed Israeli Government Has Offered Equal Rights to Palestinians | "This is because a prolonged conflict in Palestine will destabilize the Arab world and allow its leaders to continue ignoring urgent issues such as poverty and democracy. The unsolved Palestinian question means that that the age of colonialism is not over and that dealing with poverty or liberty can be described as a luxury. As long as the Palestinian refugees who were expelled by Jewish newcomers in 1948 cannot return home and as long as the military occupation of the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 persists, there will be no lasting solution. No peace proposal to date has offered a fair solution to either the Palestinian refugees or those continuing to live under a brutal military occupation. This perception of Israel as an aggressive relic of a colonialist past is widespread in the Muslim world. And it has ominous implications for the United States. Israel could not have uprooted close to a million Palestinians in 1948 and occupied another two million for the past 38 years without American support. Indeed, American taxpayers foot the bill for a $3 billion annual grant. This financial backing, combined with unremitting diplomatic support, has enabled Israel to sustain the longest occupation of another people in modern times. Here are the horrors inflicted on the Palestinians that are witnessed by people across the Arab and Muslim world: widespread home demolitions, the confiscation of private property for the construction of Jewish-only settlements and Jewish-only roads and the expulsion of Palestinian Christian and Muslim people. And their wrath is not always limited to protesting Israel, the occupier and expeller. They sometimes also challenge --with condemnable terror --the United States, whom they see as the superpower behind the oppressor. The US does not need to be embroiled in a tense relationship with a fifth of the world population."

High treason in Washington | "With several thousand well-connected members and a staff of close to 200, AIPAC is one of the US's most powerful lobbying groups and wields great influence on Capitol Hill. It has lobbied and raised billions of dollars in aid for Israel, while marshalling support to defeat legislative initiatives relating to Israel it does not like. Some of the most important officials in US government, including President Bush and House Speaker Tom Delay, have attended AIPAC's annual conference. AIPAC, moreover, has strong ties to the Christian Right, as well as to such prominent neo con figures as Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Micheal Ledeen, who promote an aggressive U.S. foreign policy and unflinching support for Israel."..."Despite the can of worms opened up in Iraq by a neo con strategy based on lies, distortions and deceptions, the cabal seemed determined to push on with their agenda for the Islamic world. The driving force behind the strategy is the protection of Israel at whatever cost to US interests."...The FBI is reportedly continuing its probe of whether U.S. officials with treason in their heart have passed on sensitive intelligence about Iran and its nuclear programme to Israel. Also significant, was the US Justice Department investigation of AIPAC that threatens to force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent. Getting AIPAC to register would be appropriate and timely. Something needs to be done to ensure the un-American organisation can't continue to undermine US foreign policy with impunity. Uncle Sam does not need to plunge ahead with another foolhardy adventure." Americans have to ask themselves, who benefits from the Iraq war? Why do Zionist-Jewish neo-cons feature so prominently in the cabal of neo-cons who were the architects of the Iraq war? Where do their loyalties lie, the US or Israel? The truth is that these Zionist parasites are using the US, it's wealth and military power in the interests of Israel and the Jewish people. They do not have loyalties to the USA, they are instead trying to create a dichotomy between Muslims and the West in order to benefit Israel. How will ordinary American patriots rid themselves of this problem?

EXPOSED: Witch Hunt As Journalists Harass Inayat's Family! | This is in reference to a media witch-hunt against mainstream Muslims being orchestrated currently in the UK by sections of the media who espouse Islamaphobic, as well as pro-Israel views. The lastest attack comes in the form of an atrocious smearing of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) attempting it to portray it as "extremist" organisation (read response in pdf format here). Following on from this, harrasment from well known xenophobic right-wing British newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph appear to center on an individual in that organisation, Inayat Bunglawala, who is being invited by the British government to help in a government initiative to help combat terrorism. These racist elements appear to want to deny mainstream Muslims the chance to integrate into UK society, by trying to discredit mainstream Muslims as "extremist", in an attempt to creat a dichotomy between Muslims and non-Muslims. We see such attempts in America where neo-cons and Jewish extremists such as Daniel Pipes are collaborating in an anti-Muslim agenda. "It just gets dirtier, and more sinister. A racist clique is targeting anyone be it a lone individual leader or personality who stands up for the Muslims. If people doubted the pro Israeli lobby hated us before 7/7 they must be deaf dumb and blind not to notice the constant attacks by their friends on Muslims since the attack. When a massive smear campaign by the Pro Israeli Panorama Team failed to destroy the credibility of the MCB, they focused their attack on an individual worker within it. A week long campaign demanded Inayat not be given the top job in the Government initiative to stop terrorism. Sections of the press decided they too would do Israel’s bidding and launch an all out attack against him. Newspaper after newspaper (note all of the papers attacking him have been pro Israeli) demanded he not be given the top job, the Government to their credit stood firm and have refused to buckle under this pressure. For once we applaud the Home Office. Late last night we learnt how dirty it was getting as the witch hunt against Muslim leaders took a new twist. Reporters claiming to be from the Mail on Sunday started knocking on doors up and down the country, asking friends and relatives of Inayat Bunglawala to dig up dirt on him. This type of harassment is shocking and a clear sign at the levels of intimidation Muslim leaders who stand up for Muslims are now facing. The family friends and relatives of Inayat, scared and shocked at reporters at the door so late at night refused to have any part in it. But why were they even there? Inside sources have alluded to us that The Jewish Board of Deputies were directly involved in asking the Government to refuse Inayat the postion. If this is true it would be a direct link between Jewish groups who are acting on behalf of a foreign power and harming Muslims interests in the UK."

Disengaging America From The Israel Lobby | "They are using American tax money to pay the IDF to force the non-Jewish Palestinian rightful owners to vacate the property, after which they bulldoze the olive trees and build suburban-style condos for American and European Jews with lumber supplied by Home Depot. This is done using full-scale military equipment supplied and paid for by the United States."..."It is vital for America to disentangle itself from Zionist arguments and loopholes. The argument that Jews should get to keep what they stole because they've been sitting on the stolen property for so many years is not a legal argument. America stands for equal rights, and that means property rights, residency rights and other legal norms. If we care about our rights, we must always and without compromise stress the property rights of all Palestinians. Not just the property stolen in '67 but also '48 has to be returned to its rightful owners, as Germany returned homes stolen from the Jews to their descendents."

Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement | Transcript of George Galloway's statement to the US Senate where he was falsely accused of taking bribes from Saddam Hussein during the OIl for Food program. Most of these false allegations originate from a nexus of neo-cons and pro-Israel politicians, journalists and intellectuals. A question which must be asked is, do these aforementioned groups have any loyalties to the American people and their welfare or do they have loyalties only to Israel? There is a nexus between neo-cons and pro-Israel idealogues to create conflicts and a dichotomy between Muslims and the West. The American and British people need to examine the loyalties of the politicians and organisations which tow the neo-con and pro-Israel line.

Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell | "May 13, 2005—At a time when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is being investigated for its role in an espionage case involving Larry Franklin, a Pentagon and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) official indicted for passing top secret classified information to two AIPAC officials and possibly the government of Israel, a senator who is bought and paid for by AIPAC—Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota—has decided to change the subject and point to newly elected Respect Party Member of Parliament George Galloway as receiving oil funds from Saddam Hussein."

Labour Friends of Israel in the House | "The Labour Friends of Israel has become a powerful lobbyist for Zionist and Israeli interests in the UK. This article is an introduction to the new Spinwatch Profile, telling a hidden story of power and influence." Article detailing the influence of pro-Israel Jewish lobbies in the UK. These lobbies display a remarkable level of support for Israel even when Israel is in violation of international law. The question naturally arises then, where do the loyalties of these lobbyists really lie? Their host country or Israel? What should concerned patriots do to counter this insidious influence? Why are US and UK resources used to fund a state in the Middle-East which is violating the rights of it's indigenous Palestinian people? Is terrorism directed at the West because of the insidious influence of these pro-Israel lobby groups which skew Western policy to be so one-sided in favour of Israel? Who is the real threat to the West? The article and the three below detail the influence of these insidious groups and their role in seeking to create a Muslim-Western dichotomoy.

What's 'American' About the American Israel Public Affairs Committee? | "According to the New York Times (May 5, 2005), supporters of the "influential circle in the Pentagon," whose members were leading advocates for war in Iraq and have long-standing ties to AIPAC, blame the FBI's investigation on "the continuing struggle inside the administration over intelligence," arguing that individuals who supported the Iraq war have been unjustly targeted. Although the two AIPAC employees had not been charged (as of early May 2005) and the lobbying group was informed that it was not under investigation, the Franklin case has brought some unwanted attention to AIPAC, as well as to the larger issue of U.S.-Israeli relations. Many observers have long suspected that key supporters for the Iraq war inside the administration – including Wolfowitz and Feith – were at least in part motivated by their views on Israeli security. These views were also in line with the stance of AIPAC and several other pro-Israel outfits. Of all the U.S. lobbies, few wield more influence than the pro-Israel interest groups. According to some estimates, there are about 500 national and local organizations that collectively make up the pro-Israel lobby. And of those, AIPAC arguably carries the most weight – "the most effective general interest group over the entire planet," Newt Gingrich once said of AIPAC. Extremely active in securing weapons deals for Israel, in lobbying for sanctions against the country's Middle East rivals, and in promoting the political agenda of whatever government happens to be in power in Israel, AIPAC has long played a highly public role in American policymaking in the Middle East. AIPAC has also been active in pushing U.S. intervention in the region. In fact, its efforts to persuade U.S. lawmakers to go after Iraq date back to the first Gulf War. In an interview shortly after the 1991 Gulf War began, Thomas Dine, then the president of AIPAC, told the Wall Street Journal that his organization had been busy behind the scenes building support for the war. "Yes, we were active," said Dine. "These are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice." According to press reports, in 1990 alone pro-Israel groups gave nearly $8 million in campaign contributions. Among those on the Democratic side of the aisle who received PAC cash and later supported the decision to go to war was Sen. Harry Reid, an influential Democrat who had received $150,000 from pro-Israel PACs during his Senate election bid (a dozen years later, in 2002, Reid would again support the use of force against Iraq). Other Democrats who voted for the 1991 Iraq war resolution and received lobby cash included Sen. Richard Bryan and Sen. Howell Heflin. According to the Wall Street Journal, the entire Alabama delegation in both the House and Senate voted for the resolution. Although at first glance "this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro-military character of the state," opined the Journal, it is clear that "pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats [in the state] in recent years.""

Dual Loyalties of AIPAC | "Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress, AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. On its Web site, AIPAC lists priorities including legislation to curb Iran's nuclear program; procuring nearly $3 billion in aid for Israel; and funding U.S.-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons. AIPAC does not have a political action committee and does not endorse candidates. But it is widely viewed by friends and foes as wielding significant political power. In 2002, two Democrats in Congress with records of voting against Israel's interests -- Reps. Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia -- faced primary opponents who received substantial support from Jewish donors. A majority of AIPAC board members gave to either McKinney's challenger or Hilliard's or both. Hilliard and McKinney lost. Bill Banks, McKinney's campaign manger, charged that AIPAC had made her the "No. 1 candidate to try to remove from office." AIPAC denied the accusation. Even some Israeli officials have said they are uncomfortable with AIPAC's influence in U.S. politics. "They have the threat of voting out [congressional] representatives," said Yossi Beilin, a Cabinet minister under former Labor Party prime minister Ehud Barak."" It appears that insidious groups like AIPAC are the main driving force behind US pro-Israel policy. Americans must become more aware of this enemy in their midst because the loyalties of such a group does not lie with America and the American people, it lies with Israel. See articles below for more infomation.

The Israel Lobby | "Aside from that brief reference, however, the Times made no mention of the role that money, or lobbying in general, may have played in the lopsided vote. More specifically, the Times made no mention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It's a remarkable oversight. AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It also maintains a network of wealthy and influential citizens around the country, whom it can regularly mobilize to support its main goal, which is making sure there is "no daylight" between the policies of Israel and of the United States. So, when Congress votes so decisively in support of Israel, it's no accident. Yet, surveying US newspaper coverage of the Middle East in recent months, I found next to nothing about AIPAC and its influence. The one account of any substance appeared in the Washington Post, in late April. Reporting on AIPAC's annual conference, correspondent Mike Allen noted that the attendees included half the Senate, ninety members of the House and thirteen senior Administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who drew a standing ovation when he declared in Hebrew, "The people of Israel live." Showing its "clout," Allen wrote, AIPAC held "a lively roll call of the hundreds of dignitaries, with individual cheers for each." Even this article, however, failed to probe beneath the surface and examine the lobbying and fundraising techniques AIPAC uses to lock up support in Congress."

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2004 Congressional Candidates | The extent of AIPAC's insidious influence can be gauged from the financial contributions to congressional candidates list linked here. It shows the extent to which pro-Israeli money is used to bribe politicians into supporting pro-Israel US policies. The unfortunate thing about this is, this insidious influence which produces such a lop-sided pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy reflects badly on the American people and leads to terrorism committed on America and Americans.

The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions | "Gerald Ford, angered that Israel had been reluctant to leave the Sinai following the 1973 war and backed by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, not only suspended aid for six months in 1975, but in March of that year made a speech calling for a "reassessment"of the US-Israel relationship. Within weeks, AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel's Washington lobby, secured a letter signed by 76 senators "confirming their support for Israel, and suggesting that the White House see fit to do the same. The language was tough, the tone almost bullying."Ford backed down."".."In 1991, the same year as Chomsky's talk, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked the first Bush administartion for $10 billion in loan guarantees in order, he said, to provide for the resettlement of Russian Jews. Bush Sr. had earlier balked at a request from Congress to appropriate an additional $650 million dollars to compensate Israel for sitting out the Gulf War, but gave in when he realized that his veto would be overridden. But now he told Shamir that Israel could only have the guarantees if it freezes settlement building and promised that no Russian Jews would be resettled in the West Bank. An angry Shamir refused and called on AIPAC to mobilize Congress and the organized American Jewish community in support of the loans guarantees. A letter, drafted by AIPAC was signed by more than 240 members of the House demanding that Bush approve them, and 77 senators signed on to supporting legislation. On September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me."It would prove to be his epitaph. Chomsky pointed to Bush's statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger. It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse,"he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth. The next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy."Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders, who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him; they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush's Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%. Bush's opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters,"he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel's friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill." Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then Bush was dead meat."

Israel's Fifth Column in Washington | Isn't it funny how the same people who jump at the chance to tar antiwar public figures as "anti-American" traitors and a "fifth column," as Andrew Sullivan infamously put it, have nothing to say about the AIPAC spy scandal? Those few neocons who have deigned to notice two raids in as many months on AIPAC headquarters have done nothing but apologize for and otherwise excuse and cover-up what is apparently a massive spy operation launched by Israel against the United States. The best our super- "patriotic" neocons can do is echo the complaints in the Israeli media that the whole thing is a "set-up" engineered by those notorious anti-Semites in the U.S. Justice Department.

The Axis of Treason | For over two years, the feds have put scarce law enforcement resources into this investigation, and it hasn't been for nothing: they've been watching and eavesdropping on Israel's American fifth column for at least that long, as Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball make clear enough in this Newsweek piece: "It was just a Washington lunch – one that the FBI happened to be monitoring. Nearly a year and a half ago, agents were monitoring a conversation between an Israeli Embassy official and a lobbyist for American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, as part of a probe into possible Israeli spying. Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, in the description of one intelligence official, another American 'walked in' to the lunch out of the blue. Agents at first didn't know who the man was. They were stunned to discover he was Larry Franklin, a desk officer with the Near East and South Asia office at the Pentagon." "… FBI counterintelligence agents began tracking him, and at one point watched him allegedly attempt to pass a classified U.S. Policy document on Iran to one of the surveillance targets, according to a U.S. Intelligence official. But his alleged confederate was 'too smart,' the official said, and refused to take it. Instead, he asked Franklin to brief him on its contents – and Franklin allegedly obliged. Franklin also passed information gleaned from more highly classified documents, the official said. If the government is correct, Franklin's motive appears to have been ideological rather than financial." Yes, but what ideology are we talking about here? Hosenball and Isikoff don't say. However, unconditional support to Israel has always been a central tenet of neoconservative foreign policy doctrine, and never more so than today. Feith was a co-author, along with several prominent neocons, of "A Clean Break," a 1996 policy paper written for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that proposed the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a primary goal: Baghdad was depicted as the gateway to Damascus, a byway on the road to Tehran.

White mans burden | The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

Homepage