You guys want to know why we continue to support Israel?
1. The Jewish-dominated U.S. media
2. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
3. Neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians
A lot of Americans are misled by the media, the media portrays Muslims as "militant," "freedom-hating people," and "suicidal." It's not a surprise that Americans tend to favor the Israeli Jews over the Arab Muslims. I'm waiting for someone to say, "No one can criticize Israel or the Jews. Anyone that does is anti-Semitic." Judging by the fact that all of our major networks and media conglomerates are owned by American-Jews-- except for two (one of which, Gerald Levin-- a Jewish American-- just retired 2 years ago from AOL Time Warner).
FOX News and Time Warner are the only media comglomerates that are owned by Gentiles. It's not surprising that we would never see any news that is anti-Israeli covered on the front page. And America will continue to be biased in favor of Israel in the Middle East due to the neocons and Evangelical Christians for quite some time.
Source: http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf
And there's also the infamous "Jewish lobby" that influences American foreign policy in favor of the Israelis at the detriment of the Arabs. AIPAC-- American Israel Public Affairs Committee-- the 2nd strongest lobbying group in America, only after the NRA.
AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions
http://www.washington-report.o.../Oct_2004/0410019.html
U.S. Aid to Israel 1948-Present
www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
In the 2000 elections, according to the Mother Jones web site, eight of the top donors to both political parties were Jewish, as were 13 of the top 20 and approximately 120 of the top 250. While the majority of the contributions went to the Democrats, a significant amount went to Republicans heading key Senate and House committees, such as Appropriations, Armed Services, and the Middle East. How committed each and every one of the Jewish donors is to Israel is irrelevant, since members of Congress make no distinctions, viewing all of their contributions as supporting whatever Israeli party is in power.
The White House is also Israeli Occupied Territory. The situation has become so obvious at this point in time that even such a pro-Israel advocate as nationally syndicated New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is bothered by its implications. In his Feb. 5 column, he wrote:
?(Ariel) Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he?s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who?s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates ??
To be sure, former New York Mayor Ed Koch has already denounced Friedman?s comment as being anti-Semitic in a Feb. 12 article in the Jewish World Review. Writes Koch, ?Tom Friedman, who is full of himself, believes he can resort to the anti-Semitic slur of secret Jewish control, and avoid criticism because he is a Jew.?
Source: http://www.sfbayview.com/02180...rsattacked021804.shtml
The reason Osama Bin LAden and his Muslim groupies hate us so much is cause of messed-up policy in the Middle East. Favoring the Israeli Jews over many Muslims. If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078
General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'
But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?
?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?
For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.
Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234
1. The Jewish-dominated U.S. media
2. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
3. Neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians
A lot of Americans are misled by the media, the media portrays Muslims as "militant," "freedom-hating people," and "suicidal." It's not a surprise that Americans tend to favor the Israeli Jews over the Arab Muslims. I'm waiting for someone to say, "No one can criticize Israel or the Jews. Anyone that does is anti-Semitic." Judging by the fact that all of our major networks and media conglomerates are owned by American-Jews-- except for two (one of which, Gerald Levin-- a Jewish American-- just retired 2 years ago from AOL Time Warner).
FOX News and Time Warner are the only media comglomerates that are owned by Gentiles. It's not surprising that we would never see any news that is anti-Israeli covered on the front page. And America will continue to be biased in favor of Israel in the Middle East due to the neocons and Evangelical Christians for quite some time.
Source: http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf
And there's also the infamous "Jewish lobby" that influences American foreign policy in favor of the Israelis at the detriment of the Arabs. AIPAC-- American Israel Public Affairs Committee-- the 2nd strongest lobbying group in America, only after the NRA.
AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions
http://www.washington-report.o.../Oct_2004/0410019.html
U.S. Aid to Israel 1948-Present
www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
In the 2000 elections, according to the Mother Jones web site, eight of the top donors to both political parties were Jewish, as were 13 of the top 20 and approximately 120 of the top 250. While the majority of the contributions went to the Democrats, a significant amount went to Republicans heading key Senate and House committees, such as Appropriations, Armed Services, and the Middle East. How committed each and every one of the Jewish donors is to Israel is irrelevant, since members of Congress make no distinctions, viewing all of their contributions as supporting whatever Israeli party is in power.
The White House is also Israeli Occupied Territory. The situation has become so obvious at this point in time that even such a pro-Israel advocate as nationally syndicated New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is bothered by its implications. In his Feb. 5 column, he wrote:
?(Ariel) Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he?s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who?s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates ??
To be sure, former New York Mayor Ed Koch has already denounced Friedman?s comment as being anti-Semitic in a Feb. 12 article in the Jewish World Review. Writes Koch, ?Tom Friedman, who is full of himself, believes he can resort to the anti-Semitic slur of secret Jewish control, and avoid criticism because he is a Jew.?
Source: http://www.sfbayview.com/02180...rsattacked021804.shtml
The reason Osama Bin LAden and his Muslim groupies hate us so much is cause of messed-up policy in the Middle East. Favoring the Israeli Jews over many Muslims. If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078
General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'
But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?
?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?
For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.
Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234
