Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLand of the Free?
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
It's one thing for pro-Israel groups to protest, as they did when Columbia University extended a speaking invitation to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or when Barnard College approved tenure for a supposedly anti-Israel professor, Nadia Abu el-Haj. At least there was an actual protest that came in the midst of, or after, the supposedly controversial activity.
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Last year, the successful London show My Name is Rachel Corrie was to transfer to the US in a New York Theater Workshop production. Then inexplicably, theatre management told the producers they needed a delay. They felt the New York audience needed "preparation" and "context" in order to appreciate the issues involved in the drama. Without further educational work, they didn't feel the community was prepared to give the play the reception it deserved. The English producers saw this as a cop-out and withdrew the rights from NYTW and transferred them to others who mounted a New York run. When asked why he chose not to put on the play according to his contract, the NYTW director said he'd approached a Jewish board member and "colleagues of colleagues" who had expressed reservations about the play; but that he hadn't contacted anyone in the organised Jewish community or anyone with any expertise on the issues. Another example of pre-emptive censorship.
In San Diego, the local al-Awda chapter planned to host a Marcel Khalife concert this month at the Joan Kroc Theater. The theatre was established by a $27-million gift to the Salvation Army from Joan Kroc, the widow of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc. Theatre personnel assured the al-Awda representatives for months that their rental of the hall was guaranteed but then two days before the contract signing the Salvation Army cancelled the concert without any explanation.
During subsequent discussions, the Salvation Army said it cancelled because it viewed al-Awda, a pro-Palestinian group which advocates full implementation of the right of return for Palestinian refugees within Israel, as "divisive" and "unbalanced". Captain John Van Cleef also volunteered, according to the Al Awda representatives I spoke with (though denied by Van Cleef himself), that he might approve the concert if Khalife were to perform with an Israeli musician. The captain also told the group that he feared a hostile reaction by the local Jewish community.
I wondered whether the local Jewish community had actually communicated with the Salvation Army staff about this, but it appears that they had did not. So here we have a case in which the Salvation Army is so frightened by an anticipated reaction - which they have no way of knowing will actually happen - that they cancel an event to avoid even the possibility of fractiousness. The Khalife concert moved to a different local venue and was sold out.
This reminds me of the Pavlovian response - when you ring a bell and feed an animal long enough if you ring the bell but do not feed it, it will salivate despite the absence of food. Similary, the Israel lobby has so conditioned American organisations to its wrath that the latter won't even touch certain speakers for fear of stirring it once again.
The University of St Thomas in Minneapolis invited Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu to speak on campus. Campus administrators for some reason decided they needed to vet the speaker with the local Jewish Community Relations Council (the public affairs arm of the Jewish community). The JCRC told the university that Tutu was anti-Israel and that he had made comments "hurtful" to Jews.
David Goldberg has already discussed the details of this case in an article for Comment is free, but it's worth pointing out that the JCRC denies it asking the university to cancel the speech. Apparently, university administrators did so pre-emptively to avoid any possible conflict if the speech went ahead. Which brings us back to the phenomenon of pre-emptive censorship.
After the cancellation, organisers of Tutu's local visit arranged for him to speak at St Paul's Metropolitan State University.
Earleir this year, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs scheduled Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer to speak about their then upcoming new book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Mearsheimer, who teaches at the University of Chicago, had spoken previously many times for the council. But this time, after the event had been scheduled, director Marshall Bouton called him last July and told him that he was cancelling it because it was too controversial. They could only speak if joined by their most virulent critic, Abe Foxman (who was unavailable on the date of the scheduled event).
Mearsheimer told me he isn't aware of any other previous talk that has ever been cancelled by the council for this reason. I asked him, when we spoke, whether he thought the local Jewish community exerted any influence on the decision. He did not know the answer, but noted that the council's board includes powerful members of the local Chicago Jewish community - among them Lester Crown, its chair, Michael Moscow, a Federal Reserve Bank governor, and Leah Zell Wagner, daughter of Sam Zell, owner of one of the largest real estate empires in the US. A Chicago Tribune story paraphrases Bouton as claiming "neither council board members who are Jewish nor pro-Israeli groups influenced his decision or pressured him.".
Here is how Mearsheimer characterised the incident:
A council scheduler told him that the council was "feeling heat" over the authors' anticipated appearance before Bouton called to cancel. Bouton confirmed that the council was facing criticism, Mearsheimer said.
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
Even if Lester Crown or the other Jewish board members didn't say a word to Marshall Bouton, the latter isn't stupid and knows how controversial the Walt-Mearsheimer book has been among wealthy pro-Israel donors to groups like Aipac and the Anti-Defamation League. Either Bouton pre-emptively cancelled the speech because he knew his patrons would be angry, or his patrons made their views known and Bouton acted on them. Either way, the decision is a noxious violation of the norms of open discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The council has said it still wishes to do a programme with Walt and Mearsheimer - though they have declined to appear with Foxman because he has called them "anti-semites". They note that many previous controversial council speakers have not been forced to share a programme with their most vehement critic.
Another scheduled Walt/Mearsheimer programme in New York was also cancelled when Jewish Forward editor, JJ Goldberg declined an invitation to moderate a programme with them saying he disagreed too much with the book to do so.
Meanwhile, The Israel Lobby has ranked as high as 12 on the New York Times bestseller list and 10 in the Amazon list, and the authors plan a European tour to promote the book.
When Israel lobby defenders respond to the censorship issue they point out that the victims of lobby pressure often benefit from controversy stirred up. But that misses the point. In a fair, reasonable and tolerant world none of these victims would have to expend the enormous energy needed to combat the campaigns against them.
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
Richard Silverstein runs Tikun Olam, a peace blog dedicated to a negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. He also created Israel Palestine Blogs, an aggregator of 50 peace blogs written by Israelis, Palestinians, American Jews, Arab Americans and Lebanese.
© 2007 The Guardian
58 Comments so far
Show AllDaniel Shays
Why don't we try to find out why one poster or another has been banned? Would you entertain the idea that it might not be what was said, but how it was said? (I do not assert this, as I am realtively new here, but I am putting it forward as one possibility.)
I can disagree with someone's ideas and argue vigorously with his/her posts - but if I repeatedly resorted to personal attacks, swearing, and the like, (or just plain old trolling or flaming), I would expect to be banned.
So, perhaps you could put together a list of banned posters, and we could all demand to know the reasons for their being banned. (I would expect the reasons might vary.)
By the way, I'm curious: How do you know someone's been banned, as opposed to his/her simply leaving? Is it announced? Is it told by that person to another poster via some off-site communication? Does he/she re-register with a different online name (and email address?) and announce that the previous name was banned?
What I dislike is the ready resorting to calling people Nazis. (In my case, my father was in Europe fighting the Nazis, while our current Zionist president's grandfather was in business with them.)
There's another point to keep in mind: a lot of Christian 'Zionists' are only hoping for Armageddon, at which time 'good' Jews will see the error of their religion and convert, while the rest will be damned with all the other 'unsaved.' So, really, who's anti-Jewish? Some Zionists, it would seem.
PJD, Weiss shares your fears:
Surge Protectors
The mixed motives behind the Freedom's Watch ad campaign
by Philip Weiss
Late this summer, just as American political armies were squaring off over the next, and likely last, act of President Bush's Iraq War policy, a new pro-war group called Freedom's Watch announced a $15-million ad buy over several months in key states. The first ads featured soldiers who had been maimed in Iraq but stood by the cause of a global war on terror. Political observers said they were targeted at the districts of Republican congressmen who were going wobbly on the war.
The rollout was not auspicious. Ari Fleischer, a board member of Freedom's Watch and the former White House spokesman, stumbled on MSNBC's "Hardball" when Mike Barnicle screened one of the ads and asked, "What's that soldier's name?" "I don't have that soldier's name in front of me," Fleischer said. (His name is John Kriesel, and he lost both legs in Fallujah last year). The fact that Fleischer and another member of the group's board had worked in the Bush White House seemed to support the view that that the group was an administration front. Says Moira Mack of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (which has its own smaller ad campaign): "This is a desperate attempt to counter the strong and growing movement to end the war. We have the public backing of millions of members. They have money and ads, but they don't have public support."
The Jewish press offered a different take. "Pro-Surge Group Is Almost All Jewish," reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the lead wire service for Jewish news. Four out of five members of the Freedom's Watch board are Jews, and half of its donors are Jewish. The JTA quoted one of its directors, Matthew Brooks, saying this was strictly a "coincidence."
As a progressive Jew, I don't think it is that simple. Right-wing Jewish support has always been a crucial prop for the Iraq War. The neoconservatives, who pushed for the war for years and then got their way after 9/11, originated as a largely Jewish movement that formed in the 1970s in good part out of concern for Israel's security. Many of the neocons cited Saddam's attacks on Israel as a reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and similar pro-war arguments spread to liberal Jews. The New York Times's Thomas Friedman pointed at Saddam's payments to suicide bombers in Tel Aviv as justification for the invasion, and I remember being shocked when my own brother said he didn't know what to think about the Iraq War. He had demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but his Jewish newspaper said this one would be "good for Israel."
full article
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/article1.html
good point PJD
One more clarification. I am fully aware of the need to separate Judaism from Zionism and particularly the policies of the state of Israel.
I deeply admire many Jews - the US left is practically defined by it's Jewish thinkers, from Emma Goldman to Zinn, Chomsky, Z Magazine's Michael Albert, Norman Finkelstein - too many great minds to enumerate. The most active anti-Zionists even here in Pittsburgh - those who have stood alonside the Palestinians against the Zionist dozers and their apartheid wall are all Jews.
But, from the pro-Israel banners that periodically hang over the entrances on a majority of synagogues in my town, I can only conclude that a overwhelming majority of US Jews at not like the tiny manority on the left. They very much wish to equate Judaism with Zionism with the reactionary policies of the state of Israel. So, obligingly, I comply with their wishes, and show that once they do this, they have ceased to become only a religion and ethnic group, and have become a reactionary political faction as well. And, angry critical reaction to a political faction is not racism - but can become as ugly nonetheless.
So, US Jews should be careful of what they wish for....
will some one clear up for me this question?
What exactly is a Jew?
Over 60% of Israeli Jews claim they are atheists or agnostic.
So being Jewish isn't really about being a religion (at least in Israel)
You can only be a Jew if your mother is Jewish.
So I take it a Jew is a member of a blood-connected tribe.
This may be another urban myth but Jewish parents go so far as to sit shiva for rebellious children who marry outside the tribe.
Jews use words such as gentiles to describe people who are not members of their clan, other words I've heard are goy, goyim, shicksa, plus some very offensive terms for
people of arabic lineage.
This article about precensorship is disturbing. I've also followed the trail of the Rachel Corrie play and the trial by Rachel's family against Caterpillar.
The comments attached to these articles in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz are scandalously ugly.
A common comment about Rachel Corrie's death by Ha'aretz readers is that she deserved it, that she was a traitor to Israel and they wish they could have been there to applaud the caterkiller driver.
Then there was another article in Ha'aretz a few months ago concerning another attack on International Solidarity members who walk Palestinian children to school in the hope that it will keep them safe from beatings and stonings by "religious Israeli
'settlers'"
One ISM member had her jaw shattered by being struck with a heavy glass bottle and the settlers (with soldiers and ambulance
drivers standing around just watching and refusing to help)
The settlers sang: "We killed Christ and we'll kill you too."
I read that story in more than one publication, I believe it was in URUK.net, Counterpunch, But I guess International Solidarity would have a record of it in their publication.
Ah, this one will get me labeled as an anti-semite for sure.
First let me say that most of the Jews that I know personally I admire. Of all their traits I find admirable, I admire the way they bring up their children most of all.
However their radical leadership is reprehensible. They have found themselves granted stewardship of one of the most religiously coveted places on earth, a place they gave up long ago. Since it was, for whatever reason, abandoned by them some 2,000 years ago, it has changed hands many times, the last occupants being, of course, the Palestinians. After world war II it was decided by the winning team that the Jews should have their own land, and maybe future atrocities against them could be averted. Guess what? The Palestinians weren't thrilled. Have the Jews tried to get along? It seems they're not well liked in their new neighborhood, but did they offer a hand of friendship? Hardly. Of course, by their telling they were persecuted at every turn.
If this is how the Jewish nation has acted in the past, perhaps it's no wonder they have been constantly persecuted through history. An eye for an eye, you know. We see how well it works.
They've also convinced most Christians that their beliefs are rooted not in the teachings of Christ, but of the old testament. Likely the eye-for-an-eye thing will work as well for us.
Vince,
Moderation has it's merits, yes.
Just went back to Scott Ritter's piece from yesterday and realized that some of the above posters might be alluding to me for dropping out of that discussion. As someone else above mentioned, there are many reasons for leaving a discussion and in my case it is usually for very simple reasons. I sit down here when I can, and get up and away when I must - chores, family responsibilites, rather spend time with my wife than converse here, etc.
But I do clam up sometimes when I realize I've said something stupid or un-informed, or just plain rash. Or as often happens, contrary opinions do make me re-think and realize my error. If I were completely cemented to unwavering beliefs and opinions, I certainly would not come here.
As to the Israel debate and a certain perception that I may be a hard-line Jewish sympathizer, nothing could be further from the truth. I have no dog in this fight, other than the one that John Donne identified: any man's death diminishes me.
"Jewish people everyhere… have lived daily in the remembrance of that event when 6 million Jews died in the death camps of Germany. But so did millions of other people: Gypsies, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and Russians died in the same way, in the same places. We do not hear these laments from the Russians or the Poles or the Gypsies, from the people of Romania, or any of the Eastern European countries." Benjamin Creme
Apparently the holocaust is used to feed their self-pity, and to get pity from others.
All this goes to show that Hitler was right about one thing - divide and conquer. A lesson he claimed to have learned by watching the churches in Germany.
Look at what is happening here. So much vitriol and hatred directed against each other. Are we only progressive when it is convenient?
A few observations:
armybrat anyone is free to comment here, until
CD decides to censure you, I know
becasue they did it to me, for
almost a month, and why
I don't know.
Oy.
This debate seems to be needlessly perpetuated by people who, though clearly ideologically opposed, depend on one another to control and limit what could be a rational examination of the implications of our foriegn policy for both countries/peoples.
If opposition to the thoughtless, unilateral support given to the state of Israel makes me an anti-semite, fine, I don't give a damn. I say this because those who throw about such labels apparently do so without the aid of a dictionary. The American-Heritage Dictionary defines a "semite" as thus:
A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
So, if Arabic peoples (read: Palestinians) are indeed, also semitic, then please allow me to move forward.
Criticism of the Israeli state, and by extention the U.S. support for it, does not automatically qualify as racist sentiment. The unity inherently displayed in the annuls of the Jewish faith is a testament to faith itself. For a people to be persecuted throughout history, and still retain their culture is amazing to me. I find that it is in light of that fact that the sadness I feel when viewing the current state of affairs becomes amplified. The Palestinian Apartheid speaks not to the failings of the Jewish faith, or necessarily the fault of the state of Israel, but the failings of general humanity. That he who was once persecuted can in turn do the same speaks volumes about who we intrinsicaly are. But, as we previously sought an end to injustice, such an end we must now seek.
There is a vacuum in honest, intellectual discourse regarding why the US stands so fervently behind the Israeli state. One cannot view the situation without acknowledging the Dispensationalist Evangelical Christian theology and their need for the state of Israel. This is the belief that "Israel" is the biblical term for God's chosen people and that the material state itself must be in place to assure the chain of events that precede the second coming of Christ. The fact that seems to be omitted in this discussion is that, when the second coming and the battle of Armageddon take place, all of the Jews that refuse to convert to Christianity will be among those who are eternally dammned. It is in this abuse of faith that I take personal offense to the unconditional support given to Israel, as I find it to be intellectually dishonest and most unpalatable.
Until we ALL can recognize that the current situation is a catalyst for increased insecurity, not only for the people of Palestine, but for the Israelis themselves, the ideological extremists will continue to bastardize the discourse. It is disconcerting that anyone with an inherent interest in peace and justice would allow the issue to be commandeered by fringe elements, to the detriment of all involved.
as we fight the proxy war for canaan - as americans die - the israelis sit back and - during the shock therapy moment - they steal more land and more water, they send their soldiers in to gaza and the west bank and kill the palestinians, knock their houses down, ruin their communities in many ways including running "access" roads through them, checkpoints, beatings, apartheid, lack of medicine, political kidnappings and assassinations, deceit at the bargaining tables.
and all of that facilitated by their little pooch georgie, licking the shit off their bagels and shekels.
poor form usa.
the israeli regime is racist and cruel. this country has no human rights - it has jewish rights. so the very same courtesies they seek while they live in other countries they refuse to extend at home.
this is called hypocrisy.
the jewish presence in the united states has gotten out of hand and has become ugly. they now seek to treat the american public like the palestinians, putzes to be slapped around, and softened up with goon tactics.
dershowitz laboring away to prove oj innocent.
jfk wanted to de-emphasize the relationship with israel and look how he ended up.
Daniel Shays,
Perhaps the reason that the zionists "disappear" is because they are unwilling to engage in dialog or have humiliated themselves to the point where their continued presence is dificult.
I was going to post something but I censored myself due to the possibility of adverse reactions.
PJD:
Is Judaism a "religion" or a racist, reactionary, anti-democratic ideology that demonizes saints like Tutu? Someone needs to convince me it is not the latter. It is not racist or "anti-semitic" to vigorously oppose an ideology, ok?
Pac: PJD, very suscintly put. I admire your talent for framing the question so articulately. I say it's the later.
If Judaism were a religion, and I was not a jew, could I really join? Would I be accepted the same way as say a stranger at a Christian church does? Anyone can become a Christian as long as they put money in the offering plate, and submit to the influence of the Decons of the church [big smile]
Right?
Except in the deep south (like Louisiana.) You must be of the correct race to be permitted in certain christian churches or if you keep showing up, the old KKK will throw you a housewarming party at midnight out on your lawn (if the kids don't hang your kids first in a tree at school.)
Such nice Christians those Bible Belt Evangelicals are! Collecting money for the good missionaries/israeli pilgrims/holy wars over there.
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod......
Do you ever wonder how holy wars get started?
They actually used to sing this crap every Sunday. I haven't set foot inside a church for thirty years, do they still glorify war this way?
pac "agnostic" plyer
...and, -mea culpa! ;) I can't resist adding the next paragraph or two from this fine (Jewish) man's article:
"In 1970, the respected American "Fellowship of Reconciliation" invited me for a lecture tour of 30 universities, under the auspices of the Hillel rabbis. When I arrived in New York, I was informed that 29 of the lectures had been cancelled. The sole rabbi who did not cancel, Balfour Brickner, showed me a secret communication of the "Anti-Defamation League" that proscribed my lectures. It said: "While Knesset Member Avnery can in no way be considered a traitor, his appearance at this time would be deeply divisive…" In the end, all the lectures took place under the auspices of Christian chaplains.
"I especially remember a depressing experience in Baltimore. A good Jew, who had volunteered to host me, was angered by the cancellation of my lecture in this city and obstinately insisted on putting it on. We combed the streets of the Jewish quarters - mile upon mile of signs with Jewish names - and did not find a single hall whose manager would agree to let the lecture by a member of the Israeli Knesset take place. In the end, we did hold the lecture in the basement of the building of my host's apartment - and functionaries of the Jewish community came to protest.
"That year, during Black September, I held a press conference in Washington DC, under the auspices of the Quakers. It seemed to be a huge success. The journalists came straight from a press conference with Prime Minister Golda Meir, and showered me with questions. Almost all the important media were represented - TV networks, radio, the major newspapers. After the planned hour was up, they would not let me go and kept me talking for another hour and a half. But the next day, not a single word appeared in any of the media. Thirty-one years later, in October 2001 I held a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, and exactly the same thing happened: many of the media were there, they held me for another hour - and not a word, not a single word, was published."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The land of the flea'!
- Flea speech for all!"
BTW:
That link to Uri Avnery's site (above) has an article by him which is WHOLLY pertinent to comments in the main article above, -regards the incommensurate Israeli influence on American governance. It includes such words as:
"...It may well turn out that the book by the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", is just such a book.
It is a dry scientific research report, 355 pages long, backed by 106 further pages containing some thousand references to sources.
"It is not a bellicose book. On the contrary, its style is restrained and factual. The authors take great care not to utter a single negative comment on the legitimacy of the Lobby, and indeed bend over backwards to stress their support for the existence and security of Israel. They let the facts speak for themselves. With the skill of experienced masons, they systematically lay brick upon brick, row upon row, leaving no gap in their argumentation.
"This wall cannot be torn down by reasoned argument. Nobody has tried, and nobody is going to. Instead, the authors are being smeared and accused of sinister motives. If the book could be ignored altogether, this would have been done - as has happened to other books which have been buried alive.
"(Some years ago, there appeared in Russia a large tome by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the world-renowned laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, about Russia and its Jews. This book, called "200 Years Together", has been completely ignored. As far as I know, it has not been translated into any language, certainly not into Hebrew. I asked several of Israel's leading intellectuals, and none of them had even heard of the book. Neither does it appear on the list of Amazon.com, which includes all the author's other works.)
"THE TWO professors take the bull by the horns. They deal with a subject which is absolutely taboo in the United States, a subject nobody in his right mind would even mention: the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy.
In a remorselessly systematical way, the book analyzes the Lobby, takes it apart, describes its modus operandi, discloses its financial sources and lays bare its relations with the White House, the two houses of Congress, the leaders of the two major parties and leading media people.
The authors do not call into question the Lobby's legitimacy. On the contrary, they show that hundreds of lobbies of this kind play an essential role in the American democratic system. The gun and the medical lobbies, for example, are also very powerful political forces. But the pro-Israel lobby has grown out of all proportion. It has unparalleled political power. It can silence all criticism of Israel in Congress and the media, bring about the political demise of anyone who dares to break the taboo, prevent any action that does not conform to the will of the Israeli government.
"In its second part, the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to for peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.
"Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.
"MOST OF these disclosures are nothing new for those in Israel who deal with these matters.
I myself could add to the book a whole chapter from personal experience.
In the late 50s, I visited the US for the first time. A major New York radio station invited me for an interview. Later they cautioned me: "You can criticize the President (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and the Secretary of State (John Foster Dulles) to your heart's content, but please don't criticize Israeli leaders!" At the last moment the interview was cancelled altogether, and the Iraqi ambassador was invited instead. Criticism was apparently tolerable when it came from an Arab, but absolutely not coming from an Israeli...."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's the link if you'd like to read more:
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
x
In this present life I'm not Jewish :) -but have been on enough anti-racism marches and protests in my time to affirm I don't like racism by anyone, -of anyone, at any time.
And... I happen to know for a fact that some of the people who regularly post here at C-D *are themselves* from a Jewish background.
However... these C-D folk are intelligent and caring enough to be able to discern *wrong* from *right*, and so don't have a knee-jerk reaction each time the bullying Israeli leaders or clandestine rightwing Jewish groups commit 'sins' against others.
Personally, if I need a *sane + compassionate* 'Jewish perspective' on things I tend to turn to Uri Avnery, - that brave veteran (Jewish) campaigner, and supporter of human / Palestinian rights, et al.
Uri, like most of us here, frequently condemns his county's leaders for such GROSS acts of theft and violence, such as in this article seen today --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2187261,00.html
-which tells of: "Israeli army orders confiscation of Palestinian land in West Bank"
Such actions as these only ever inflame the separation between human tribes, -so it's no surprise when Israel and her narrow-minded, over-zealous supporters get criticized. She is the more powerful nation there, and yet seems to ruthlessly, repeatedly, abuse that power.
~ Small wonder then, that she evokes such righteous indignation from CARING people, both within and without her borders.
For those who'd like to learn more, here's a link to that valiant soul, Uri Avnery:
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
--I wish there were lots more like him on him planet.
Indubitably, -- the world would be a more peaceful place were that the case!
xx
The biggest problem is in letting the issues be expressed as "Jewish" instead of "Israeli". Most Americans, logically, are supportive of Jewish people and their culture, especially in light of the persecution of Jews under the Third Reich.
This isn't about "Jews", it's about neo-fascism and blind support for Israel that is unsound and dangerous foreign policy. Allowing the neo-cons to pull the Race Card on Israel not only silences gentiles, it silences progressive Jews on the correct side of the issue.
Ariel Sharon, "Americans do what we tell them to do."
The Povlovian example was very pertinent: Dogs do what dog owners tell them to do.
And, balakirev "Unfortunately, the lobbyists for Israel (right or wrong), tend to work hand-in-hand with the militarist, right-wing section of the US oligarchy."
I don't doubt that this is true, ascott.
Unfortunately, the lobbyists for Israel (right or wrong), tend to work hand-in-hand with the militarist, right-wing section of the US oligarchy.
Armybrat.
Hey, I'm a former Air Force brat. However, I am a proud Leftist.
When I was a kid, military bases were part of the Pentagon's command economy. In fact, after the SU devolved, the Pentagon is now the world's largest command economy.
Talk about ironies.
Last, folklorist John Henry put it beautifully when he likened US politics to a chicken with two right wings. All it does is fly in circles.
I have very rarely seen anti semitism, but I have often seen someone who is jewish giving special consideration to another Jew. That may be a natural thing but it does occur.
Jews have positive stereotypes working for them too. Such as: smart, well educated, hard working, good at business and support the arts and culture and support organizations that protect human rights. Those are hardly negative views.
The groups in my opinion who have the most negative discrimination against them are blacks and women. By comparison Jews are well respected.
"The love of EVIL is the root of all MONEY." - American Proverb
Mr. Silverstein, with all due respect, we really must get past the illusion we still live in a free country. This joke is beyond stale!
The rule of law - in a system of checks and balances - as explicitly outlined in our Constitution... has been bastardized beyond recognition. Members of Congress, Presidents, whatever... have largely been bought-and-paid-for... since before any of us were born. And Jewish financial elitists have been at the forefront... of those who wish to control us completely... since before this nation was founded.
Bushco was brought into power illegally - right under our noses - without so much as a whimper.
The money system has been corrupted for years; and the currency we use is counterfeit. Its owners are the puppet masters.
The media - print, entertainment, publishing, public relations (propaganda), electronic - you name it, has all been corrupted. On TV, we call these talking heads sock puppets... or meat puppets.
The list of critical American industries dominated by citizens of Jewish heritage is astonishing beyond belief.
Everybody else - so it seems - dances at the end of a string for this vocal group of people... demanding to be heard.
How is it that any of us can pretend we're really not racists in the face of it all? Islamists, Zionists, gang members of every color, cutthroats... and terrorists... all - who are we to decide... just who are our enemies anymore?
And government - at all levels, in all its branches - has so thoroughly been violated... by insidious and overt cabals... of supposed do-gooders, psychopaths, and greed merchants... that it'll be miraculous if we ever reverse the tide...
... Since our once-proud American Republic... has simply become awash... in corruption.
Though I voted for Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, I saw that my vote did not count. You see, I used to believe government had a right to play favorites... and legislate virtue... according to popular whim. And I'm astounded that so many of my fellow citizens are so misguided as to believe we really live in a democratic country.
Our founders wisely never mentioned the word "democracy" - not once - when drafting the American Constitution.
So do you think they were cognizant that mob rule does not equal liberty?
I think so.
Do you think they were fearful of entangling alliances?
I do.
What about the idea of monarchs, religionists, and money changers mixing it up in polite company?
I tend to think not.
Nor can we claim that Jews are inherently evil - any more than we can claim other collectives of people are evil.
For in a free society we obtain our rights... and our freedoms... only as individuals. Who we are, and what we are... is as unique in nature...as anything found under the sun.
And the sole purpose of government is to protect and enforce our freedoms... as our rights, duties and responsibilities... under its principles of governance... are not intended to enslave us!
But we're teetering on the edge of losing our Constitutional Republic... and our very liberties... forever... as the "fascisti" strive to consolidate all power in the FedGov executive... in order to subordinate all other authoritarian power structures unto themselves.
They have little regard... even for our sovereignty as one nation - and it appears international Zionists, whose sympathies are so passionately aligned with the state of Israel, are prominent among those elitists leading the charge.
Now we're at an historic crossroads. Bushco has become indistinguishable from Ghouliani or Hillbillery - and their interests are identical to a new bunch of cabalists on the scene, called globalists - the new internationalists intent on exercising their monopolistic impulses at our expense.
What a match made in heaven! Just a hop, skip and a jump... before we're completely ensnared... all of us... in an evil one-world system...
... Called government of the collective... or international totalitarianism!
Yes, it's nothing short of revolutionary. In all manner and scope... it's harsh in its consequences. And it's coming soon... to a neighborhood near you.
It respects NOT if you're of the Left or the Right, my friend. It cares NOT about your heritage or your beliefs.
No, this type of BIG GOVERNMENT claims to care a whole lot about you... yet claims everything - including YOU AND YOURS - belongs to IT.
You get to feel grateful... and do what you're told.
Unless... and until... the American people stand up... our puppet masters will not stand down.
Great power is addictive; and these globalists (the international financial elitists most of us never meet) and their agents (the police, the military, the schools, the banks and the courts, the bureaucratic administrators and their public or private "aparatchiks"... in all jurisdictions) will not yield to OUR AUTHORITY (Remember we, the people?) without a fight.
"I take my marching orders from the Constitution!" - Ron Paul
Daniel Shays
As my (Jewish) uncle would have said, "Nazi schmazi."
Posters disappear for a number of reasons. Some people submit a post and move on - perhaps for a while, perhaps for good. Some may have been called away by occurrences in their real lives. Some retreat when their arguments are thoroughly rebutted.
To suggest censorship is to make a scurrilous accusation. Can you back it up?
If non-Jews/Gentiles who criticize the policies of the state of Israel are anti-Semites, what do you call the growing number of (liberal) Jews who do the same?
The losers in power in this country can't stand facts or morality. This includes academic as well as political leaders.
If they were worthy of leadership positions they would welcome those who disagree and show them the errors of their ways. If the words of others represent bad ideas and false promises they would collapse under their own weight. That is why Bu$h the inferior and the right wing nuts attack the people and censor their speech.
The anti-Jewish sentiment expressed in many articles and comments here is rampant. Don't bother trying to defend it. It's blatant, it's obvious and it's rampant.
I would never tell another what s/he can or cannot say, as I will defend your right to say literally anything.
What bothers me is the number of posters who mysteriously disappear when they disagree with the predominant nazi-ish view or point it out. I know this is a progressive site and it is a privately owned site, and so has the right to mute or ban if it wishes. But what are you saying? Is this what progressives are..Nazi sympathizers in communist clothing? And is diversity of opinion of no importance to anyone any more?
mdsaftler,
You write:
"many people including the majority of those who cared to add their comments to this blog display anti Jewish opinions. That is RACISM and should not be tolerated in any form"
It seems that you wish to silence those who denounce the supremicism inherent in the zionist project. You lie by claiming that rejection of zionism is anti-Jewish. You have fascist tendencies reflected in your suggestion that the opinions that conflict with yours should not be tolerated.
By the way, if zionism only asks for a "tiny territory" why does it keep growing and why can't they define the extent to which it will grow? How many countries refuse to define their borders?
Effective censorship is always self-censorship. Sensitivity to what is passable and what will get you into trouble is what censorship is all about. The image of a Censor sitting behind a desk with a pair of scissors or a black marker is a false one.
I have had the pleasure of living in a Communist totalitarian censorship climate, am sensitive to its subtleties and methods, and I am alarmed to see it emerge here in the NPR's and BBC's of the "Free World".
mdsaftler,
You seem to be paranoid, deluded, intolerant, AND ignorant.
THE FALLACY OF NPR
Most free minded people, and liberal thinkers resort to National Public Radio (NPR) for their news and we often take their reports for truly fair and balanced, showing both sides of the issues. However, a closer inspection would reveal how the news is always biased towards one side and often omits critical information, perhaps not as blatantly as other news sources, but still, far from the real accurate news. Consider the atrocities committed by the occupation forces in Iraq at the Abu-Ghraib prison. Shortly after the news came out, the Bush administration labeled them as "prisoner abuse" and that was the only term that NPR used to refer to them thereafter. Now, let's see what constitutes "prisoner abuse" in the English language? Prisoner abuse would be something of the likes of shoving them around, kicking them on the rump--, that kind of treatment. To have a prisoner, shackled and treating him/her this way would be wrong and we would be right to label it an "abuse of prisoners". Placing electrodes to someone's genitalia and giving him electric shocks is torture and it cannot be labeled anything else. If you label those kinds of atrocities as "prisoner abuse", it really condones the action and allows the perpetrators to soften the atrocity and underplay what really happened. Among the hundreds of times (or perhaps thousands) that the reporters from NPR have referred to these atrocities in the Iraqi prison, we would be hard pressed to find a dozen times in which the reporter from NPR press called it torture. If we continue our analysis we see that NPR is consistently guilty of similar biases around other issues. For instance, it is not difficult to find reports about the Iranian president, the leader of Hezbollah or any other Persian or Arab officials. Notice how religiously NPR ends the report reporting with the statement that such person "does not recognize the right of Israel to exist". If the reader is a NPR listener, I am sure s/he can recall hearing this statement countless times; quite often towards the end of the report as a "take home message". Now, can we recall any broadcast in which the reporter mentions that Israeli officials do not recognize the right of Palestine to exist? This is quite an omissions, not only for the frequency with which it happens but also because Israel's attitude towards Palestine is at the core of all the problems of the Middle East (Carter 2006), yet NPR's "fair and balanced" reporting hardly ever (if any time) points out that Israel's government commits the same fault as the Muslims leaders with regard to recognizing the other party's right to exist.
The reader probably thinks that even though NPR may not be perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than other news media. While it is true, it does not change the fact that NPR is presenting us with biased information. It is also true that by being less biased we are less likely to doubt what we hear and less likely to seek better sources of information, thus creating a distraction that serves the agenda of the main stream media. The other part that many people do not know is the darker side of NPR, that lobbies in order to stunt the growth of other community radio operations that may be their competition for local audiences. While I was involved with Knoxville First Amendment Radio (KFAR) we knew that our main obstacle in getting a license to broadcast with higher power was the local NPR station preventing us from getting the permits. Understandably, if there were a high power community Radio they would compete for audience (and donations) with WUOT. So, not only is NPR not doing their job of giving the people fair and balanced news, but also by their sole presence (and active lobbying), they are preventing the people from getting more complete news...
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_25333.shtml
To me, one of the reasons our society does not prosper is as either individuals or corporations there is no practice of ayni. (Eye-knee: Sacred Resiprosity "I will work for you today, you work for me tomorrow) Ayni is central to the spirituality and life of people in the Andes of South America, especially Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Equador and the parts of Brazil that were part of the Inca Empire. Anyi requires honesty and integrity for the system to work.
Presently, back in the real world it is clear to me that we live generally with the intent on getting the most while giving the least. There is also very little integrity with our agreements, from our President down to the individual.
Perhaps, if the practice of Ayni became the prime rule of our society (enforced from within each individual, not as a written law with penalties) we will not need to worry so much about the Christians, Muslims or Jews, they will have become redundant.
Veteran 66'68
Islam is Imperialistic not Zionism. Zionism only asks for a tiny country to call its own. Isalmist calling Zionism imperialist is like Hitler accusing Denmark of wanting to take over the world.
Jews are discriminated against all over the world including in the U S of A every day. Jews don't live in and can't live in many countries of the world. Th U.N. is biased against Israel in a huge way and many people including the majority of those who cared to add their comments to this blog display anti Jewish opinions. That is RACISM and should not be tolerated in any form. NPR is Zionist? (does this person even listen to NPR?) If an earthquake sunk the State of Israel under 20 feet of water tomorrow, would it inconvenience the United States in the least? And you wonder why Jewish people are sensitive and defensive?
I really need to say something here! We are all being taken! I'm not Jewish, I'm a PR vegan Pagan. and I had a few Jewish friends. One of my friends and I used to get projectiles thrown at us by WASP boys. OK they would grab our books and trash our papers...Why? I looked Chinese to them and Stephenie's mother was divorced! That made us outcasts and bad and a target. My other friend was raped her mother over reacted and took her to Mexico and got her Fixed.....We are all victims of our own generalizations. .Now what is this in connection to the high sounding politics we are being fed?
It is that we are being used....all of us....this is not about Religions this is about stupid people being set on one an other like dogs in a pit. Being set up to fear one and other and to kill and maim for the OH HOLY BUCK !
The Jewish community is being set up to go down by what calls itself it's own people. Lots of Christians are going to bleed and die and lots of Muslims and the Fat and Sassy in the box seats are going to place bets in the world market to win on all sides. They follow a different god...it's called Profit! It's sacraments are, credit, debt and interest. We are who gets sacrificed on their alter.
These three religions come form one bible. What a F'n joke! Like watching a dragon with three heads trying to eat its own faces!
The Jews are Semites and so are the Palestinians so who's anti semitic? Same race different perspective on their bible.
So understand what is being done make your dollar your vote. Don't pay for anything that supports things you don't want to support. Christians, Jews and Muslims are being SET UP and the money doesn't care who wins.
I'm just the messenger. I suppose in a way I watch and see the pity and the waste. "Do what thy will and harm none" If one thinks about it harming nothing is a tough rule, and the only rule that can cure the world. It means not harming the world and it's creatures. So go for it blame each other snarl and point fingers on who is worse and who lies more and who stole what form whom and in the end ....the Meek will inherit the earth....I challenge you! Make your masters obey or feed them your blood and the flesh of your children forever.
for the good of all Cat
In the name of God, the All Merciful, the Mercy-giving
PJD: Yup, I was going to ask the same thing. What IS the Jewish Cause. And how the heck can it be compared to the African American cause.
The Jewish Cause is Zionism, which is a form of Imperialism. This idea that Jewish people are threatened as a group and need defending is based on the very effective propoganda of very wealthy Zionist (imperial) groups, some of which have been listed above.
For proof, just look at the article. People's right to expression, to learning, to debate are all being quashed by very powerful, influential political groups (lobbies) in this country.
It isn't about upholding jews or protecting them--they are not an oppressed community, period. It's about maintaining power and getting more.
As a religious person myself, I wouldn't say it is a problem of Judaism, but rather Zionism (which is not a part of Judaism, no matter what other people try to say about it).
salaam
In protesting the publication/performance of anything that might be construed as anti-semitic,the Jewish lobby is simply drawing attention to its own shortcomings.
An open debate on any topic will allow truth to emerge and any obstruction by any group about any subject just creates the thought that they have something to hide.Most of the labeling of anything critical of Israel as anti-semitic is wearing a bit thin,and,if anything,will only increase real anti-semitism.
A 180 for the Tommies with Tutu. Free speech is alive in the Twin Cities.
Type this into your browser (Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2006 Congressional Candidates). This is their list of ownership of cetain congressmen !
And lets keep in mind the fact that NPR is just as corporate and zionist dominated as PBS.
I am a conservative, but as my daddy said, we need the Lefties to keep us honest. Right now, there are no real Lefties in the US media - I doubt if there ever have been, at least in my lifetime. PBS was/is funded by corporations (and also conservatives, like me and my friends)so it never was a Leftie outfit anyway. Now it does not consider anyone from the far left, no matter how much their views on particular issues agree with a majority of Americans. We get only right-wing and extreme-right-wing perspectives, so the only possible outcome is a badly skewed perspective that doesn't hold water with the majority of Americans (who in turn, might feel that they are out of step with the rest of the country, based on what they hear from the supposedly neutral PBS.)
Although PBS/Newshour recently had both Gravel and Ron Paul (I believe) on their program as candidates, that was the first I've heard of common-sense opinions with which many Americans would agree, regardless of which side of the aisle they may prefer.
This imbalance has driven US policy by eliminating the one side that could keep us honest - the Left. Without balance from the socialists (the military is socialist, by the way) we cannot make 'informed' decisions because we only have half of the argument.
PBS now proudly boasts of corporate sponsors - this cannot honestly reflect American values since corporate ideology precludes fairness and balance - the bottom line is their only criteria, not the needs and desires of the general public - 'We the people' have no voice. Neither do we have a fair and balanced representation of all views and opinions since the Left is left out. That's why we've teetered dangerously to the Extreme Far Right - at our peril.
In case you haven't noticed, AIPAC et al are Far Right-Wing Extremists and have been since the get-go. They also have no counter-balance, even though the media in Israel is free to comment openly, unlike the situation in the US. After all, money talks and the Far Right Wing gets all the money - from the US, of course - and controls the agenda of both countries, regardless of what the people want. With no restraints, both nations will plunge ever farther to the right until they implode - and take us all with them, just as did Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (where this all started.)
I feel I have a legitimate right to comment on this since my own family lived under Nazi occupation and members died in the death camps. Nobody can call me 'anti-Semite' or any other slur without damning themselves - especially those who never had a dog in this fight. Copying the losers is a really stupid strategy - and that's what I see being done.
$$$$$$$$ - The so-called israeli lobby can redirect large sums of money to convey its interest. It can also publish unfavorable articles about anyone anywhere in the world. This is very hard to ignore if you are a university president or if you run a business in Jew-York...$$$$$$$$
Some of my best friends are Jewish and they understand the mechanics of this lobby and they do not like it.
Solution: Total tax payer funding for 1 national media outlet (Not the PBS model) and total tax payer funding for education...so that lobby money now has NO effect.
Not so sure I would characterize The News Hour's co-appearance of Foxman with Meirsheimer yesterday as an act of courage. Actually it seemed quite a lot like what the author was talking about in this editorial. The News Hour has for some time now shown a tendancy to not quite self-censure, but to be very careful not to seem to align itself with the 70+% of Americans that are opposed to U.S. policy.
Not being harsh on them and I guess they feel they have no choice or will find themselves sitting in an unplugged studio with no funding.
"Jews face no job discrimination, no housing discrimination, no police harssment,"
Say what?
If an earthquake sunk the State of Israel under 20 feet of water tomorrow, would it inconvenience the United States in the least? Not much of a vital national interest, then, is it?
I think most people are sympathetic to the Jewish cause, and similarly to the African-American cause..."
"What exactly is the "Jewish cause"? Jews face no job discrimination, no housing discrimination, no police harssment, and in most cities have above average incomes and are more than proportionately represented in many professional occupations. They usually live in the nicest neighborhoods in town as well.
So, what exactly is their "cause"? It seems to be strinkingly similar to the cause of the rich WASP's like the Bushes or Clintons.
and wasn't there a high school play in some Connecticut district that was cancelled by the local authorities because it questioned the US's involvement in Iraq (if my memory serves correctly)?
KANE JEEVES: Excellent point.
Let's not forget the entire MEDIA closes off voices it considers unpopular... where is Nader, Chomsky, Kucinich, etc. MARGINALIZING dissent through the covert politics of excluded alternatives is not a strategy only practiced by Zionists.
when does the u.s. get free of this liability called Israel?
Israel is a failed welfare state that receives such a disproportionate amount of U.S. foreign aid that the average Israeli citizen receives more of our tax dollars than an average American citizen. Part of this huge slush fund is then funneled back via AIPAC to bribe and threaten U.S. members of Congress. Until such time as this money supply is shut down, Israel will continue to influence our foreign policy in ways that are actually against our interests.
PJD,
Your comment is true in that supremacism within the tenets of Judaism should be open to criticism. However, one may want to balance it with critique of the other monotheistic religions. All three should provide plenty of material of interest, though I would suspect Islam may fairly be categorised as the most tolerant and Judaism the most supremacist.
I think most people are sympathetic to the Jewish cause, and similarly to the African-American cause. Unfortunately groups like AIPAC, ADL, and Rainbow Coalition don't seem to realize that by always and instantly having the knee-jerk reaction to label the slightest criticism as "anti-semite" or racist, they do their cause a huge disservice. Fence-sitters who are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt end up thinking "Hmmm, maybe all those bad things I've heard are true, and these groups are just trying to cover them up".
I was delighted to see John Mearsheimer and Abe Foxman on the Jim Lehrer news show yesterday. What an act of political courage on the part of PBS and wish they had not run out of time so quickly!!! Mearsheimer easily won every argument and Foxman used the same old tactic - any criticism of Israel is synonimous with an attack on American Jews and blatantly anti-semitic. It is time to grab the bull by the horn and allow the truth to be spoken, but the subjects of Israel/Palestine continue to be quasi taboos in this country. Daniel Levy made a wonderful objective review of the Mearsheimer/Walt book in yesterday's HAARETZ - only possible because HAARETZ is published in a country beyond Abe Foxman's reach - Israel. No wonder Mearsheimer and Walt will have to go to Europe, perhaps even Israel, to find an open-minded audience. No wonder their first paper on this subject could not be published in America and they had to go to Europe for that. I feel sorry for America, once the world's beacon for freedom, and I question how this could happen.
Is Judaism a "religion" or a racist, reactionary, anti-democratic ideology that demonizes saints like Tutu? Someone needs to convince me it is not the latter.
It is not racist or "anti-semitic" to vigorously oppose an ideology, ok?
Dueling Books Reignite Debate Over Israeli Lobby in United States
MARGARET WARNER: A year ago, two American political scientists raised a storm with an article asserting that Israel and its supporters in the United States have far too much influence over American policy. The fight is still going on now in the pages of two books.
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is the work of John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Steven Walt, a professor at Harvard. They argue that Israel enjoys an extraordinary level of U.S. support that is now proving a, quote, "strategic liability," closed quote, to U.S. interests in the world. And this outside support, they say, is, quote, "due largely to the political power of the Israel lobby, led by groups like the American-Israel political action committee, or AIPAC.
"The Deadliest Lies" is the title of a rebuttal book by Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League. He calls the Mearsheimer-Walt book "explosive and inflammatory" and says it is based on, quote, "half-truths, distortions and falsehoods."
We bring the two together now, Professor Mearsheimer joining me here, and Mr. Foxman in New York. And welcome to you both.
John Mearsheimer, first, before we really get into this, define your term. What do you mean by "Israel lobby"?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER, University of Chicago: The Israel lobby, Margaret, is a loose coalition of individuals and groups who worked actively to push American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. It's an American interest group along the lines of the National Rifle Association or the American Association for Retired People.
MARGARET WARNER: So what's your evidence that it is distorting American foreign policy in a way that is jeopardizing U.S. security and that it has the degree of influence that it can do so?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, probably the best example would be U.S. policy on the settlements in the occupied territories. Every American president since Lyndon Johnson in 1967 has opposed, at least officially opposed, the building of settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Nevertheless, no American president has been able to put any serious pressure on the Israelis to stop that settlement-building. even though there's lots of evidence that that has been one of the principal reasons that the United States is deeply disliked around the world, and it is one of the causes -- not the only cause -- but one of the causes of our terrorism problem.
And the reason, of course, that no president can put any meaningful pressure on the Israelis is because of the Israel lobby...
When do we get to the book burning of the Diary of Anne Frank?