Vanguard News Network

[Bit o’ BTL on this Salon report, by jew, on Mearsheimer & Walt study…]

Is the “Israel lobby” distorting America’s Mideast policies?

[Does a bear shit in the woods? Does the Pope employ a cumrag after Abie Foxman dumps a load on his withered kisser? More like ‘defining’ than distorting… Itz only the ‘middle’ east because jews are involved, and nobody upstages the hate hebrews. Before the advent of sick, vicious Israel, or Satan’s country, as God calls it, it was the ‘Near’ East.]

Two leading academics have tried to break the taboo against criticizing Israel’s powerful U.S. lobby. It’s a worthy aim, but their clumsy argument may backfire.

[Whenever someone criticizes jews, one of the predictable responses from jews is to act as though of course all those criticisms are out there and of course they’re 1/1000th valid, but to approach them in X way is 1) the wrong way to go, 2) endangers made progress, 3) will result in the opposite of what the author intended. The tacit conclusion: just don’t talk about Israel, we kikes don’t want any broken barriers here, status quo is just fine. Don’t whiten our Unpleasantville. This from the liberal jews as well as the neocons.]

By Michelle Goldberg

April 18, 2006 | The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, may be the most powerful lobby in the country. As its Web site says, “Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress — at home and in Washington — AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. From procuring nearly $3 billion in aid [tribute – protection money paid to conquerors] critical to Israel’s security [our parasite-overlords], to funding joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons [to defend Israel, and make it money when it turns around and sells high-tech to China], AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel.” [AIPAC is an unregistered foreign lobby, which is illegal.] At its conferences, a parade of politicians from both parties pay homage — this year, speakers included Vice President Dick Cheney, House Majority Leader John Boehner and former Sen. John Edwards. [These men are sellouts. They are American traitors who belong dangling from ropes, and whose names will be cursed when history is written by Aryans.]

All successful lobbies flaunt their power. But unlike, say, the Cuban lobby or the AARP, there’s a taboo against outsiders discussing the influence of AIPAC or the Israel lobby more generally, or criticizing the way it shapes American policy. To do so raises the specter of poisonous old narratives about mysterious cabals and duel loyalties, of hateful tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and “The International Jew.”

[The taboo is put in place by the king – Big Jew – who owns the media, most of the advertisers, a hell of a lot of the real estate, and a substantial portion of the politicians. There’s no percentage in his allowing the goy to tell the truth about what he’s up to. Does the goy, it becomes a ‘poisonous narrative.’ Over thousands of years, the jew has interacted with dozens of peoples. All report the same thing: the jew is a liar, a swindler, an undesirable, obnoxious force for evil. All of them say that. “They hate jews,” says the Jew, who will never, ever allow that his behavior is the source of the hostility he encounters. But that is the case.]

So a strange [nothing strange about it. Jews own the media. They suppress the real news, including actual jewish behavior, and print science fiction that furthers their agenda. Nothing complicated at all.], dim silence surrounds the Israel lobby, and the hushed atmosphere nurtures conspiracy theories about a power so great and so secret that you can’t even talk about it in public. [No mention of the dozens of people who have discussed jewish perfidy, only to be destroyed. From the jew-murdered JFK on back to jew-murdered Jesus, history speaks with one voice: the jews are a vile, slanderous, murderous people.] Those conspiracy theories make the issue even more fraught, because respectable people [‘respectability’ is defined by the people who own the press. There’s no objective criterion to determine that David Duke is less respectable Bob Dole or John Kerry. As always, jewish prejudice substitutes for objective fact in jewish media. When you own the papers and tv stations, your standard becomes the public standard. Anyone who disagrees can come on down and apply for cable access, slots open from 2-3am on sunday morning.] don’t want to provide fodder for the likes of former Klan leader David Duke, who writes on his Web site, “Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so Congress and the President are afflicted by the Israeli Lobby. ” [The assertions in this statement are objectively true. Jews never argue, in the formal sense, they repeat what their enemies say, and pretend their synthetic outrage is represents the general public. This only works if you control the entire opinion-forming complex – and they pretty much do.]

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, political science professors at Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, apparently hoped to break through the taboos with their baldly titled paper “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” [Baldness – how declasse. In the controlled media, euphemisms are de rigueur. Niggers become African Americans. Retards have special needs. Geriatric swindlers become ‘Holocaust’ ‘survivors.’] It was published last month in the London Review of Books and, in an expanded version, on the Web site of the Kennedy School of Government, where Walt is academic dean. The article argues that the United States’ close relationship with Israel is not in America’s national interest [2300+ dead soldiers and their relatives agree.] — that it is, indeed, counterproductive — and that it is sustained largely through the work of the Israel lobby (Walt and Mearsheimer refer to it, simply and ominously [you think ‘the lobby’ is ominous? how about the baldly accurate ‘mafia’?], as “the Lobby.”) Walt and Mearsheimer also argue that the lobby was a major force pushing for war in Iraq, a war they vocally opposed. [Well, since a few dozen insider kikes wrote a paper calling for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ as a pretext to reorder the mideast starting with Saddam, it’s kind of hard to see it any other way. Impossible, in fact.]

“In our piece, we argued that when people are critical of Israeli policy or the U.S.-Israeli relationship, the arguments are not taken on their merits,” Mearsheimer says when reached by phone. “What happens instead is that the great silencer — the charge of anti-Semitism — is leveled at the critics.” [Anyone insufficiently supporting the jew agenda is likely to be called an anti-semite, which is defined most accurately as non-jew.]

In this case, that’s just what has happened. Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel called the paper “the same old anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist drivel,” [yes, yes, ancient canards about grass being green, sky being blue, jews being ugly, vindictive, whining, swindling scum…] adding, “Given what happened in the Holocaust, it’s shameful that people would write reports like this.” [Shameless that kikes would use an invented atrocity to justify real ones.]

In a response to Walt and Mearsheimer published on the Kennedy School Web site last week, law professor Alan Dershowitz [plagiarist and liar] asked, “What would motivate two recognized academics to issue a compilation of previously made assertions [iuh, because they’re true and relevant? you know – grass is green, no matter that grass denounces the anti-grassites who claim it] that they must know will be used by overt anti-Semites to argue that Jews have too much influence, that will give an academic imprimatur to crass bigotry, and that will place all Jews in government and the media under suspicion of disloyalty to America?” [If the charges are sustained, as the paper shows they are, then the anti-semites are the good guys. And the jews are the anti-Americans. Jews have been measured and found whining. Hebes shall know the truth, and the truth shall make them scream, as Jesus said.]

Neoconservative John Hopkins professor Eliot A. Cohen penned a column about the paper in the Washington Post titled, “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic.” [What’s the word for jewish hatred of Whites? It didn’t exist until we resuscitated ‘loxism.’ No surprise that in the jew-owned and -operated media no acknowledgement of jewish hostility to non-jews is ever made. In the so-called mainstream media you will literally never see a jew described as a hater, murderer or terrorist. If you subtract the dual code and its double standards from judaism, there’s nothing left. Jews are best understood as a network of criminals with an extremely strong interest in the ‘straights’ not figuring out what they’re up to. If they did, the jews couldn’t play them for suckers. The Internet has made the gang’s job a little bit harder.]

On the surface, the whole imbroglio seemed like the latest version of a story that has replayed itself countless times in the last few years. A public figure strays outside the boundaries of acceptable opinion [who sets those boundaries? Jews love to act as though the power they exert oozes from the rocks and sky, the better to wow and woozle the goyim.] about Israel, or calls attention to the disproportionate influence wielded by supporters of Israel’s right-wing political factions, and is immediately attacked as a bigot or a paranoid. It happened to Howard Dean during the Democratic primary, when he said that the United States should be “evenhanded” in its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [In fact, shortly after he said that  an unseen hand manipulated the audio of his speech to make an ordinary yell sound crazy.] Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, admonished him; an Israeli newspaper suggested that his Jewish backing would dry up; and Nancy Pelosi wrote him an angry open letter. All this despite the fact that Dean’s campaign was being co-chaired by a former president of AIPAC, and there was little daylight between his position on Israel and that of President Bush. [The jews are the single biggest donors to both Democrats and Republicans, two wings of the same carrion bird eating the roadkill that is the American public.]

Not even such a famous friend of Israel as Steven Spielberg is immune to this kind of mau-mauing. When his movie “Munich,” about the Israeli response to the Palestinian massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics, was released last year, various commentators berated him for being insufficiently Manichean in his treatment of the conflict. As Leon Wieseltier wrote in the staunchly pro-Israel New Republic, “Palestinians murder, Israelis murder. Palestinians show evidence of a conscience, Israelis show evidence of a conscience … All these analogies begin to look ominously like the sin of equivalence, and so it is worth pointing out that the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective.” [A fiction that can only be maintained if you ignore true history, which the jews bulldoze like Rachel Corrie. Real historians are thrown in jail at jews’ behest, see David Irving. Ask any rabbi, he’ll confirm: Truth is an anti-Semite.]

At first glance, it seemed as if Walt and Mearsheimer were being run through a familiar wringer. Indeed, many of the charges against them have been grossly unfair. [Do you sense her destination? Seem to give, the better to take.] To their chagrin, David Duke has enthusiastically embraced the paper, calling it “a modern American declaration of independence.” [If a point is true, it doesn’t matter who speaks it. Of course, media jews have practiced guilt by association for so many decades no one recognizes their marxist tactic for what it is any longer. All you need to control public opinion in a democracy is control of the major media. Through these you propound a few simple labels, these for good, those for bad. Simply slap the good or bad on ideas or men opposed or favoring your agenda, and repeat until things go your way. Done long enough, men will fear to oppose you. Every incentive will favor their joining your side or keeping their mouth shut. This is tyranny, and this is America these days – AmeriKwa.] Some critics have used this to associate the authors with the former Klansman. “Walt, Mearsheimer, and Duke happen to have reached the same conclusions, and share the same interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests,” wrote Dershowitz. [How many jews have died in Iraq? How many billions has America wasted pursuing an objective that in no way benefits us, but spills our blood and wastes our treasure? Only Israel benefits from our criminal war on Iraq.] Stretching in a different direction, the Israeli historian Michael Oren, writing in the New Republic, blamed the affair on the malign influence of the late Edward Said and a postmodern coterie “infused with the nihilism of postmodern French philosophers.” This charge was especially odd, since Walt and Mearsheimer are known as two of the foremost exponents of political realism, a hardheaded school of thought that owes far more to Henry Kissinger than to Michel Foucault.

On one level, then, the attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer are examples of the very phenomenon the writers describe. Yet for anyone who hopes for a more open and critical discussion of the Israel lobby, their paper presents profound problems. This is not just a case of brave academics telling taboo truths. In taking on a sensitive, fraught subject, one might expect such eminent scholars to make their case airtight. Instead, they’ve blundered forth with an article that has several factual mistakes and baffling omissions, one that seems expressly designed to elicit exactly the reaction it has received. The power of the Israel lobby is something that deserves a full and fearless airing, but this paper could make such an airing less, not more likely. [Are there crocodile fears as well as tears? Any treatment, no matter how fine its footnotes or fancy its facade would be blasted like the Taliban the Buddhas.]

Walt and Mearsheimer’s paper began as an article commissioned by the Atlantic Monthly in 2002 on the subject of Israel and the U.S. National Interest. The magazine turned down the piece they submitted — editor Cullen Murphy wrote them a letter explaining why, though none of them will comment on what it said. According to Mearsheimer, he and Walt thought the piece was dead, but then a scholar who’d read it put them in touch with the editor of the London Review of Books, who agreed to publish a rewritten version. They posted the expanded essay on the Harvard Web site to coincide with the London publication.

The authors waste no time stating their case. “The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy,” they write on the first page. “For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.” [It is hard to separate foreign policy from domestic. At the same time jews send Americans, i.e. Whites, abroad to die for Israel, they open those same White Americans’ neighborhoods to the third world. Jews jeopardize America in a thousand ways. They’ve so changed it with their manipulations that it amounts to murder.]

Even one sympathetic to Walt and Mearsheimer’s criticism of the Israel lobby should be struck by this assertion. After all, there’s a very strong case to be made that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy for the past several decades has been oil. Walt and Mearsheimer barely address oil, or the American relationship with Saudi Arabia. Similarly, in their view, the Iraq war had little to do with oil and much to do with Zionism. [It is unarguable that tens of millions more people hate us worldwide than did before the jews operating in our name attacked Iraq and murdered hundreds of thousands for absolutely no reason. We had no enemies in the Middle East until the advent of Israel; now we have no friends.]

“There is virtually no evidence that oil was an important cause of the Iraq war,” Mearsheimer says. “It is an intuitively plausible argument, but when you look for evidence that the oil companies were pushing for war, or that Paul Wolfowitz was thinking in terms of oil as a geopolitical weapon, you cannot find it. Instead, you find lots of evidence that the neoconservatives and the leaders of the Lobby were pushing hard for war against Iraq.” [100% true. The jews simply don’t want to admit it, and shoot the messenger with their 1001 media canons.]

In fact, though, such evidence does exist — it has been compiled by Paul Roberts, author of “The End of Oil,” by analysts like James Paul of the Global Policy Forum, and by Kevin Phillips in “American Theocracy.” Phillips quotes James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, saying, “what they [the Bush administration] have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies. The American oil companies are going to be the main beneficiaries of this war.” [Secondary stuff. Even The Girl has said that Israel is the #1 reason. There’s also the fact of the pipeline now flowing from Iraq to, you guessed it, Israel, of which no mention is made here. The oil argument actually underscores the Israeli argument when the facts are brought to light.] In his memoir “The Right Man,” David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter and neocon par excellence, wrote that Bush’s campaign to bring freedom to the Middle East would also “bring new prosperity to us all, by securing the world’s largest pool of oil.” [Jews lie. It ain’t freedom, and the oil ain’t for us. The security and the oil are for Israel alone.] After the conservative public interest group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request, a court ordered the Commerce Department to turn over documents from Cheney’s Task Force; among them are Iraq oil maps and lists of foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts. And, of course, there’s the fact that, as Baghdad burned immediately after the 2003 invasion, the only government building the Americans saw fit to protect was the oil ministry. [Well, oil is rather important in the region. But oil is not why we went to war.]

This doesn’t prove that oil was the only factor in the war, and that Israel had nothing to do with it. But it does suggest that oil was at least a factor, casting some doubt on Walt and Mearsheimer’s assertion that “the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it.”

Perhaps they don’t find any of the available evidence about the role of oil compelling, but that’s not what they argue — they simply ignore it. A similar pattern repeats throughout “The Israel Lobby.” There is little nuance and few caveats; facts that run contrary to their thesis are simply left out or, in a few cases, twisted. [Just as she leaves out the PNAC paper specifically calling for reordering the Middle East to make ‘a clean break’ with old policy and secure the area for Israel.] In his response, Dershowitz finds several factual errors that make the authors seem strangely careless. Most relate to the moral case against Israel. [Dershowitz can’t even find the factual mistakes in his own books, let alone the ones not cited here.]

As realists, Walt and Mearsheimer generally oppose giving idealism an important role in foreign policy decision-making. But because they argue in “The Israel Lobby” that considerations of morality can’t account for America’s support for Israel, they have to engage in moral arguments. “Viewed objectively, Israel’s past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians,” they write. [Ya think? Since they were driven out of their homes by vicious murderers? Jewish journalists are the people with a 2,000-year memory who write as though history began in 1948.]

As Walt and Mearsheimer surely know, that’s a striking and hugely controversial claim. [Only to a bigoted jew, to be redundant! The jew drives a man out of his home, and it’s ‘hugely controversial’ to suggest that the driver and the driven are on the same moral basis. The same – not the Palestinian higher! Imagine how the jews would play the Israel ‘issue’ if Palestinians had established their state by driving jews out of their homes. Not to mention, the jews murder Americans like Rachel Corrie, and they hold others in prison. None of our elected representatives, pockets full of AIPAC shekels, want to talk about this, nor do our journalists, most of whom are jews or have jews for bosses. Ya think if Palestinians had used a giant American tractor to run over and murder an American girl en route to demolishing a jewish settlement we would have heard about it?]

So it’s odd that they weren’t more careful in trying to back it up. Much of their case is compelling, but it is undermined by their own errors. [Goldberg has cited not a single error.]

They are certainly correct when they write that, while Israel’s creation was largely a response to horrific crimes against the Jews, “[T]he creation of Israel involved additional crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians. [Except that the ‘horrific crimes’ against jews were media manufactures, while the horrific crimes committed by jews  in Eastern Europe in WWII and in Palestine today go unmentioned.]

“Israeli scholarship shows that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs,” they continue, citing the work of famed Israeli historian Benny Morris. “The Arab inhabitants did resist the Zionists’ encroachments, which is hardly surprising given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab lands. The Zionists responded vigorously, and neither side owns the moral high ground during this period. This same scholarship also reveals that the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved explicit acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews.” [Have you ever seen a single story on these massacres and rapes in your Washington Post, your Washington Times, your New York times/Post/Daily News? Of course you haven’t. It’s not in the interest of the jews owning and writing and producing these papers to tell you. You must dig up these stories on websites run by “vile” anti-semites. ‘Vile’ is a word used by jews to describe those who do not give in to jewish pressure, just as ‘discredited’ is used to describe any professional historian who does not cut the facts to fit their preferred narrative.]

All this has been documented, although it’s not the whole story. If Americans tend to believe that Israel has the moral upper hand over the Palestinians, it’s not because of the conditions of the country’s founding, it’s because of decades of Arab aggression and Palestinian terrorism. [It’s because of decades of Hollywood and daily newspaper suppression of the facts about jewish behavior and amplification of occasional acts of Muslim resistance. Americans don’t know anything about the Middle East except what they read in jew-produced newspapers and see on jew-produced television, or in jew-produced movies. In none of these is the jew ever the bad guy, or the Arab the good guy. Combine the daily lies with the misguidance provided by bought pols and preachers, and you have an America utterly blind to the reality of sick, vicious Israel and its poisonous fifth column in this and other White Western countries.] Amazingly, Walt and Mearsheimer don’t even mention Fatah or Black September, Munich or Entebbe. One might argue that Israel has killed more Palestinians than visa versa, but it doesn’t change the role of spectacular Palestinian terrorism in shaping American attitudes toward Israel. [It doesn’t change the role of jewish newspapers in refurbishing the facts to help Israel.]

Worse still is the way Walt and Mearsheimer sometimes subtly twist the historical record to make their case against Israel even more damning. Dershowitz catches them quoting David Ben-Gurion strikingly out of context: “Ben-Gurion is … quoted by Mearsheimer and Walt as saying that ‘it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion,’ making it seem as if Ben-Gurion was advocating a ‘brutal compulsion.’ But they omit what Ben-Gurion said after that: ‘but we should in no way make it part of our programme.’ By omitting Ben-Gurion’s critical conclusions, they falsely suggest that Ben-Gurion was proposing the opposite of what he said.” [There are plenty of other quotations that can be taken from the murderers and terrorists who have led Israel that make a single point: Israel is a jewish state, and everything up to and including genocide of the Palestinians is perfectly proper to keep it that way. This is a classic example of jews demanding their arguments be construed microscopically and legally, while they’re content to dismiss anyone against their agenda as anti-semite. The logical fallacy of the undistributed middle — well, let’s just say that jews might as well have their tongues cut out if they weren’t allowed to use it. Argument from motive is all jews need because their opponents have no way to answer back. Either you agree with them, or you’re an anti-semite, in which case all your points are by definition invalid, and so may be abandoned, unaddressed.]

They do something similar, though less serious, when they write that the Jewish newspaper the Forward once described Paul Wolfowitz as “the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the Administration.” As Forward editor J.J. Goldberg noted in an editorial, “A check of the endnotes shows that the words did appear in the Forward, but they were describing the conventional wisdom, not the Forward’s view. The article was about a pro-Israel rally where Wolfowitz was booed for defending Palestinian rights. The point was that the conventional wisdom was wrong.” [Big deal.]

Walt and Mearsheimer also confuse critical issues about Israeli citizenship, which they say is “based on the principal of blood kinship.” That’s simply not true — as Dershowitz writes, “In reality, a person of any ethnicity or religion can become an Israeli citizen. In fact, approximately a quarter of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish, a higher percentage of minority citizenry than in nearly any other country … The paper’s authors confuse Israel’s law of return — which was designed to grant asylum to those who were victims of anti-Semitism, including non-Jewish relatives of Jews — with its law of citizenship.” [Lots of fine distinctions attempting to evade the central fact: Israel is built on jews, and jews are defined by blood. There may be Palestinians in Israel, but only because Israel hasn’t gotten rid of them yet. In no way are they treated as equals. Segregation is ubiquitous in Israel – segregation of exactly the kind jews forbid Whites in the U.S.]

These errors, and others like them, don’t nullify the paper’s thesis, but they’re evidence of a weird haphazardness. This is an enormously sensitive subject, but Walt and Mearsheimer’s approach is too often clumsy and crude. That’s especially true in their discussion of the divided loyalties of some American Jews, and of the pro-war manipulations of the lobby. They conflate groups that are merely sympathetic to Israel with those that actively back the hard-line policies of the Likud. Though they try to draw distinctions between the lobby and American Jewry more generally, they occasionally use the two terms interchangeably, citing Jewish campaign donations, for example, as evidence of the lobby’s power. [The jewish war has failed, and failed hugely. That there is no significant anti-war movement shows you the power jewish media organs play in creating such. Big Jew supports the war, little jews do what Big Jews tell them. The war is “good for jews,” and good for Israel, so the war is supported rather than undercut as was the case in Vietnam.]

“The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch,” they write. “That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections. Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.'” [Waal, waal, how about that? Sixty percent!] This treatment of Jewish money as a monolithic force is both ugly and misleading [no, sweety, you can’t really be misleading about sixty percent]; the agenda of liberal donors like George Soros and Peter Lewis is quite different from that of a hardcore Israel supporter like Jack Rosen, head of the American Jewish Congress. [No it isn’t. Both support Israel, both support the jew machinations called ‘democracy’ in Eastern Europe and ‘the Middle East.’] Anyway, the fact that Jews are crucial funders of Democrats is not evidence of their power over an executive branch that has been Republican for most of the last 25 years. [No, for that you’d have to turn to their funding of the Republicans, which is at least 25%, and their control over the power more powerful than the executive – the media. Richard Nixon agreed with Billy Graham that the jews have a “stranglehold” on our media. And that unless that grip is broken, the country’s going down the drain. Oh boy, do I believe that, said Nixon, but you mustn’t ever say it! The president is afraid of the press – all of the presidents are. The press is the real ruling power, and the press, including tv, of course, is owned by jews, and run exclusively for their benefit.]

One could go on and on in this way, listing logical errors and over-generalizations. [You’ve provided nothing but a couple piddling examples.] And that’s unfortunate, because it clouds what is valuable in “The Israel Lobby.” Walt and Mearsheimer are correct, after all, in arguing that discussion about Israel is hugely circumscribed in mainstream American media and politics. Citing the liberal, pro-Israel journalist Eric Alterman, they write that the public debate among Middle East pundits “is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel. [Alterman] lists 61 columnists and commentators who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without qualification. Conversely, Alterman found just five pundits who consistently criticize Israeli behavior or endorse pro-Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favors the other side.” A person who got all their information from the American media would have little idea about the ways Jewish settlers continue to appropriate land in the West Bank, harassing local Palestinian farmers and uprooting their crops. Indeed, one can find far more critical coverage of the Israeli occupation in liberal Israeli newspapers like Haaretz than in any American daily. [Because Haaretz is read by jews, not Americans. Jews are quite open about their plans and hatred of non-jews in jewish-community publications. Everything the “vile” anti-semites say is confirmed in the noble jews’ own words – where do you think the anti-semites get their claims, after all? All you have to do to become an anti-semite is watch how jews behave, then read their own publications to get the ‘why,’ in case you can’t figure it out yourself. Jews think Iraq potentially threatens Israel, so they produce a war and get their American colony to destroy her. Jews feel unsafe in homogenous Aryan countries, so they get Congress to pass an immigration law opening our borders to the third world, guaranteeing diversity, which their media uniformly promote as, don’t laugh, “our greatest strength.”]

And this gets at the real problem. It’s not that the lobby supports Israel, it’s that it consistently supports right-wing, irredentist factions in Israel. In doing so, it is out of step with most American Jewish opinion as well as much Israeli opinion, and yet it manages to act as if it speaks for both groups. [Somehow jews cohere enough to form communities, nations, associations, federations, congresses, federations of associations of congresses, and associations of congresses of federations, and congresses of federations of associations. And they meet yearly to plan an agenda for the jewish community. Which other ethnic group does this? And then has the gall to demand it be taken one by one – while anyone even acknowledging jews’ group existence is yelped down as ‘anti-semite.’ Long, laborious, loving extenuations are for jews alone – and their criminal negro charges. Opponents get hater-racist-anti-semite and like it. This works and will continue to work as long as jews are allowed to own media in White countries. Their loxism renders them unfit.]

The result is American policies that tacitly accept Israel expansionism, despite the fact that most American Jews favor territorial concessions. There are structural explanations for why the Israel lobby has been able to amass such influence despite how unrepresentative it is. [Ah, I see. It’s the jews who have a lobby that doesn’t represent them, rather than the American people.] Walt and Mearsheimer, unfortunately, lack the subtlety to explore them. [Subtlety is the last thing required to analyze the jewish dictatorship lording it over America. We have open immigration, affirmative action, and billions in aid to Israel – all of which the American public opposes. This is tyranny; this is jews tyrannizing Aryans. No footnotes required to understand it, just the plain facts of Congress-buying and media ownership.]

A few others have, though — Michael Massing wrote a hugely informative article about the Israel lobby for the American Prospect in 2002. Those who are most adept at influencing government policy in the Middle East, Massing wrote, “do not necessarily represent the broad range of Jewish views on the subject. At a time when Palestinian terror bombings grow more horrific daily and Israel military action in the occupied territories grows steadily harsher, the bias in political representation has complicated negations and reduced the likelihood that the United States will be able to mediate the conflict successfully.” [Our very involvement in the problem is a sign of jewed government. There is no earthly reason America needs concern itself with who rules the eastern bank of the Mediterranean.]

As Massing explained, the two most important pro-Israel lobbying outfits are AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. [Jews may be divided on how best to obtain what’s “good for jews,” but that “good for jews” should drive every single American policy they’re of single mind.] Both are controlled by hard-liners and have been consistently biased toward the Likud, so much so that, as Massing writes, when the Labor Party’s Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister, he told AIPAC that it would no longer be Jerusalem’s representative in Washington. “[I]n contrast to the bullish statements AIPAC had issued on behalf of the Likud government, its board remained largely silent on Rabin’s peace initiative,” Massing wrote. [The average jew believes Arabs are animals. He believes the same of white men, too.]

Indeed, AIPAC went out of its way to sabotage Rabin. In 1995, wrote Massing, its board “took up an issue calculated to impede Rabin’s efforts: the location of the U.S. embassy in Israel.” Like most countries, the United States had its embassy in Tel Aviv because of Jerusalem’s contested status. Under Oslo, talks on the future of the city were set to begin in 1996. “Flexing its muscle in Congress, [AIPAC] got 93 or 100 senators [93 or 100! Still doubt we’re a colony of Israel?] to sign a letter urging the administration to move the embassy by 1999, regardless of what happened in the negations. Going further, it got Republican Sen. Bob Dole, who was preparing to run for president against Bill Clinton, to introduce a bill that would make the transfer mandatory by that year.” [Is there anything funnier than seeing one of these cow-county jamokes pretend to principled concern over matters like these?]

That bill was opposed by both Clinton and, importantly, the Israeli government. “Members of the Likud, by contrast, were jubilant,” Massing wrote. This episode goes to show that the Israel lobby is not, as Walt and Mearsheimer say, “a de facto agent for a foreign government.” It is, rather, part of a bi-national right-wing movement that encompasses Israeli conservatives and American hawks, Jewish and gentile. [Illogical. The test would come if the lobby were to oppose something the Israeli government supported. There may be splits between jew factions over specific issues, but on the big points agreement is uniform: keep a steady bloodflow from Washington into the parasite’s mouth parts in Tel Aviv.] The power of this movement is deeply troubling — it perverts American political discourse, promotes policies that inflame the Arab world, destroys many Palestinian lives and ultimately endangers Israel. But to conflate this movement with American Jewry is dangerous, and that is what Walt and Mearsheimer sometimes do, albeit inadvertently. [Well, you know, if the little jews don’t like what the big jews are doing, maybe they should do something about it. Jews can’t expect people to treat them any differently than they treat others, and they treat others as one big glob of antisemite, even if the globules give them billions and billions of dollars each year.]

They note the difference between the two, but then they ignore it, writing, for example, “There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to make U.S. foreign policy support Israel’s interests.” They argue as if there’s no need to point out the distinction between, say, Joe Lieberman, one of the Iraq war’s staunchest supporters, and Russ Feingold, one of its steadiest opponents. In their formulation, the fact that a congressman is Jewish creates suspicion of dual loyalties. [The idea that a jew would place America’s interests ahead of Israel is inconceivable and historically unexampled.]

This accounts for some of the [wholly synthetic] shock commentators have felt reading “The Israel Lobby.” While some of the outrage is part of the predictable hysteria that accompanies any serious criticism of Israel, there’s more to it than that. There is, after all, a reason for the taboo surrounding talk of Jewish power and treachery. Tales of Jewish groups using money and secret influence to twist politics for their own, unpatriotic ends are a hallmark of reaction, spouted by everyone from the Nazis to Father Charles Coughlin to David Duke. [Are the tales true? Since they’re associated with men you honest, noble, well intentioned jews spent decades smearing, they must not be. Since you’ve stated and clearly rebutted their arguments, they can only be driven by bad intentions. Your smears can only work if you control the media. Otherwise you’ll eventually have to produce the goods. The ability of jews to smear their opponents and get away with it is proof that jews control the media. For the power of the smear is theirs and theirs alone. All other parties must make their case – if the jews allow them. Jews dictate which terms and arguments are acceptable ‘mainstream’ discourse. What doesn’t fit their agenda is slapped with a hate label and dumped in the garbage. Anything outside the very narrow pale of ‘respectable discourse,’ they simply cue the ‘hate’ track.]

Walt and Mearsheimer are not anti-Semites, or aligned with anti-Semitic forces. They seem, however, somewhat oblivious as to why the issue they’ve taken on is so horribly sensitive, and they make little effort to address the causes of the taboo they’re trying to dislodge.

“They overlook the fact that the notion of this Jewish cabal with mystical powers has been an excuse for genocide for centuries,” says the Forward’s Goldberg, adding that you have to be careful “if you’re going to wander into that.” [Anti-semitism is the normal man’s response to the jew. Jews are the only group that controls the media – or needs to.]

Likewise, there is a history to countries, during crises of national morale, blaming their predicaments on Jewish manipulation. [Yes, and there is a history of jews manipulating countries and calling it democracy or some other cover term.] This is part of what frightens Goldberg. “America right now, I think people are going nuts,” he says. “You look at all the things going on, the Arctic is melting, the world hates us, we’ve bankrupted ourselves as a nation, you can name three or four things that are inconceivably bad. You don’t want to blame the American public — we elected this guy, twice. We can’t be that nuts. Somebody must have done this to us.” [Always keep a goyfront to fool the dolts. Switch facades if things go bad. Now Republican! Now Democrat! Now commie! Now capitalist! Now liberal! Now conservative. Now neoconservative! Now…! It never ends. All you need to know is they’re jews, and what’s good for jews is their sole and lonely agenda. And their agenda is bad for you, normal White man.]

For Goldberg, the paper is a worrying sign that a domestic version of the Dolchstosslegende — the conviction that Germany lost World War I because Jews “stabbed it in the back” — could somehow take root in America. “If Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer can buy into this stuff, I guess anybody can,” says Goldberg. “I actually didn’t believe it was possible. I’m one of those weirdoes who thought it wasn’t going to happen here. I found their document scary because it is so illogical and so passionate.” [Blaming jews for their behavior is nazism. Only a nazi would hold a jew accountable for what he says he’s going to do, and does, and then walks quicly away from, eyes furtive for egress, shrieking “anti-semitism!” when you grab his nose and lead him back to his mess.]

Goldberg grants that Walt and Mearsheimer are “right that the Jewish community and the pro-Israel lobby, separately and in different ways, make it hard to have a debate, partly on purpose and partly because there’s a level of emotion there.” [How? By owning the media and defaming any opponents of their agenda? But this is anti-semitism.] Before a rational discussion can proceed, some of that emotion has to be defused. Instead, it’s been stoked. [Before a rational discussion can proceed, a great number of papers and tv networks must be taken from jewish hands and placed in Aryan hands. Rational discussion is the last thing the jew wants, and after all, he’s the one group in position to guarantee it, if he sought it. Nothing forces him to defame those who describe his behavior accurately. He does it of his free will when he could do otherwise. By his vicious slandering and his careful murdering and his continual whining, he has forged the richest and most powerful ethnic group in the history of the world. He must be stopped. It is a good sign that intelligent men such as Walt & Mearsheimer are losing their fear of calling him by his name.]

Meanwhile, Walt and Mearsheimer will likely pay a professional price, one that exceeds whatever criticism they deserve for their maladroit arguments. Walt will soon be stepping down from his job as academic dean — something he says was in the works well before the paper’s publication — and it’s unlikely he’ll ever be put in such a position again. “It is too soon to tell what all of the repercussions will be, but we believed going into this that both of us would pay a significant price in our professional lives,” says Mearsheimer. “We think, for example, that it would be almost impossible for Steve to ever be a high-level administrator at Harvard or any other top university. It is also highly unlikely that either one of us would ever get appointed to an important government position after this article. Plus there will be conferences and meetings that we won’t be invited to because of the piece.” [No mention of the agency behind the demotions and the disinvitations… Jews never ever work behind the scenes to get people fired or blackballed, that’s an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Who cares if it fits the facts…perfectly.]

Other ambitious academicians may take notice and leave this subject alone, even if they could shed more light on it than Walt and Mearsheimer did. It would be a strange irony indeed if as a result of their attempt to break the taboo, it ended up stronger than ever. [God forbid real Americans ever break the demonic stranglehold of jews over America. God help them if they don’t. The Internet is lighting fires in men’s minds all over the world, and bringing about a true democratic revolution that’s the absolute antithesis of the jewish dictatorship the Christian-Zionist nitwits spread at gunpoint in Iraq. Yes, the Internet lets the people know the jew, and that liberating knowledge, its widespread availability, is probably what emboldened Mearsheimer and Walt to publish their report in the first place. The jig may not quite be up yet, but, dare we say…ITZ COMING.]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/