Start A Petition

US Hegemony, Not "the Lobby," Behind Complicity With Israel

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: corruption, crime, ethics, dishonesty, congress, capitalism, US empire, terrorism, obama, lies, propaganda, republicans, government, freedoms, war, Israel, middle east, genocide, crimes against humanityabuse )

- 3354 days ago -
Many of Israel's critics blame an "Israel lobby" for the near-total complicity of the US in Israeli annexation, colonization and cleansing programs in the occupied West Bank. This complicity continues to the present, despite the "row" that erupted after..


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Pete m (67)
Saturday May 8, 2010, 4:02 pm
Many of Israel's critics blame an "Israel lobby" for the near-total complicity of the US in Israeli annexation, colonization and cleansing programs in the occupied West Bank. This complicity continues to the present, despite the "row" that erupted after the Israeli government humiliated US Vice President Joe Biden by announcing the construction of 1,600 settlement units in occupied East Jerusalem while he was visiting the country. Indeed, despite the apparent outrage expressed by top White House officials, the administration has made clear that its criticism of Israel will remain purely symbolic. However, as we shall see, the lobby thesis does little to explain US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Years after Noam Chomsky, Stephen Zunes, Walter Russell Mead and many others published their critiques of the Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer "Israel lobby" thesis, many of the sharpest critics of Israel continue to attribute US foreign policy in the Middle East to the influence of the lobby. Given the prevalence of the Israel lobby argument, and the latest diplomatic confrontation between the US and Israel, it is important to revisit the flaws in the thesis, and properly attribute US behavior to the large concentrations of domestic political and economic power that truly drive US policy.

US foreign policy in the Middle East is similar to that which is carried out elsewhere in the world, in regions free of "the lobby's" proclaimed corrupting effects. The inflated level of support that the US lends Israel is a rational response to the particular strategic importance of the Middle East, the chief energy-producing region of the world. By building Israel into what Noam Chomsky refers to as an "offshore US military base," it is able to protect its dominance over much of the world's remaining energy resources, a major lever of global power. As we shall see, those blaming the lobby for US policy once again misunderstand US's strategic interests in the Middle East, and Israel's central role in advancing them.

Geopolitics and the US-Israeli relationship

A central claim of the "Israel lobby" thesis is that the "lobby," however defined, overwhelmingly shapes US policy towards the Middle East. Thus, if the argument were true, its proponents would have to demonstrate that there is something qualitatively unique about US policy towards the Middle East compared with that in other regions of the world. Yet upon careful analysis, we find little difference between the purported distortions caused by the lobby and what is frequently referred to as the "national interest," governed by the same concentrations of domestic power that drive US foreign policy elsewhere.

There are states all around the world that perform similar services to Washington as Israel, projecting US power in their respective regions, whose crimes in advancing Washington's goals are overtly supported and shielded from international condemnation. Take for instance the 30 years of US support for the horrors of the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor. In addition to the use of rape and starvation as weapons, and a gruesome torture regime, Indonesian president Suharto slaughtered 150,000 persons out of a population of 650,000. These atrocities were fully supported by the US, including supplying the napalm and chemical weapons indiscriminately used by the Indonesian army, which was fully armed and trained by the US. As Bill Clinton said, Suharto was "our kind of guy."

Daniel Patrick Moynahan, US ambassador to the UN at the time of the Indonesian invasion, later wrote that "the Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook" to end the butchering of the East Timorese, a goal he carried out with "no inconsiderable success." Yet this support was not due to the influence of an "Indonesia lobby." Rather, planners had identified Indonesia as one of the three most strategically important regions in the world in 1958, as a result of its oil wealth and important role as a link between the Indian and Pacific oceans.

In some regions, as in Latin America where US clients like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and terrorist armies like the Nicaraguan contras spent years murdering defenseless peasants demanding basic human rights, the threat is mostly one of "successful defiance;" that is, a country defying US orders and getting away with it. Should the US tolerate one such case, the logic goes, it will embolden resistance to its dictates elsewhere. The danger underlying such defiance -- referred to as "the threat of a good example" by Oxfam -- is that a country will implement a successful model for independent development, refusing US dictates and seeking to direct much-needed resources to serve the needs of the domestic population instead of wealthy foreign investors.

Such thinking is deeply institutionalized and exhibited by US policy worldwide, going back to the very beginnings of the modern imperial era after World War II. It was clear from early in the war that the US would emerge as the dominant world power in its aftermath, and so the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations began planning to create a post-war international order in which the US would "hold unquestioned power." One way it planned to do so was gaining control of global energy resources, primarily those of Saudi Arabia, which were referred to at the time as "the greatest material prize in history" by the US State Department.

As Franklin Roosevelt's "oil czar" Harold Ickes advised, control of oil was the "key to postwar political arrangements" since a large supply of cheap energy is essential to fuel the world's industrial capitalist economies. This meant that with control of Middle Eastern oil, particularly the vast Saudi reserves, the US could keep its hand on the spigot that would fuel the economies of Europe, Japan and much of the rest of the world. As US planner George Kennan put it, this would give the United States "veto power" over the actions of others. Zbigniew Brzezinski has also more recently discussed the "critical leverage" the US enjoys as a result of its stranglehold on energy supplies.

Thus in the Middle East it is not simply "successful defiance" that the US fears, nor merely independent development. These worries are present as well, but there is an added dimension: should opposition threaten US control of oil resources, a major source of US global power is placed at risk. Under the Nixon Administration, with the US military tied down in Vietnam and direct intervention in the Middle East to defend vital strategic interests unlikely, military aid to pre-revolution Iran (acting as an American regional enforcer) skyrocketed. Amnesty International's conclusion in 1976 that "no country has a worse human rights record than Iran" was ignored, and US support increased, not because of an "Iran lobby" in the US, but rather because such support was advancing US interests.

Strategic concerns also led the US to support other oppressive, reactionary regimes, including Saddam Hussein's worst atrocities. During the Anfal genocide against the Kurds, Iraqi forces used chemical weapons provided by the US against Kurdish civilians, killed perhaps 100,000 persons, and destroyed roughly 80 percent of the villages in Iraqi Kurdistan, while the US moved to block international condemnation of these atrocities. Again, supporting crimes that serve the "national interest" set by large corporations and ruling elites, and shielding them from international criticism is the rule, not the exception.

It is no coincidence that the US-Israel relationship crystallized after Israel destroyed the independent nationalist regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser in a preemptive attack in 1967, permanently ending the role of Egypt as a center of opposition to US imperialism. Since before World War II, Saudi Arabia had happily served as an "Arab facade," veiling the hand of the true ruling power on the Arabian peninsula, to borrow British colonial terminology. With Nasser's Arab nationalist rhetoric "turning the whole region against the House of Saud," the threat he posed to US power was serious. In response, the State Department concluded that the "logical corollary" to US opposition to Arab nationalism was "support for Israel" as the only reliable pro-US force in the region. Israel's destruction and humiliation of Nasser's regime was thus a major boon for the US, and proved to Washington the value of a strong alliance with a powerful Israel.

This unique regional importance is one reason for the tremendous level of aid Israel receives, including more advanced weaponry than that provided to other US clients. Providing Israel with the ability to use overwhelming force against any adversary to the established order has been a pivotal aspect of US regional strategy. Importantly, Israel is also a reliable ally -- there is little chance that the Israeli government will be overthrown, and the weapons end up in the hands of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists or independent nationalists as happened in Iran in 1979.

Today, with the increased independence of Europe, and the hungry economies of India and China growing at breakneck speed along with their demand for dwindling energy resources, control over what is left is more crucial than ever. In the September 2009 issue of the Asia-Africa Review, China's former Special Envoy to the Middle East Sun Bigan wrote that "the US has always sought to control the faucet of global oil supplies," and suggested that since Washington would doubtless work to ensure that Iraqi oil remained under its control, China should look elsewhere in the region for an independent energy source. "Iran has bountiful energy resources," Bigan wrote, "and its oil gas reserves are the second biggest in the world, and all are basically under its own control" (emphasis added).

It is partially as a result of this independence that Israel's strategic importance to the US has increased significantly in recent times, particularly since the Shah's cruel, US-supported dictatorship in Iran was overthrown in 1979. With the Shah gone, Israel alone had to terrorize the region into complying with US orders, and ensure that Saudi Arabia's vast oil resources remain under US control. The increased importance of Israel to US policy was illustrated clearly as its regional strategy shifted to "dual containment" during the Clinton years, with Israel countering both Iraq and Iran.

With Iran developing technology that could eventually allow it to produce what are referred to in the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review as "anti-access weapons," or weapons of mass destruction that prevent the US from being able to freely use force in any region of the world, this is a crucial moment in Washington's struggle to seize control of Iran. This confrontation, stemming from the desire of the US to control its oil and destroy a base of independent nationalism, makes US support for Israel strategically crucial.

Pete m (67)
Saturday May 8, 2010, 4:03 pm
The "Israel lobby" and US Pressure

If we adopt "the lobby" hypothesis, we would predict that the US would bend to Israel's will when the interests of the two states diverge, acting against its "national interest." Yet if US policies in the Middle East were damaging its "national interest," as proponents of the lobby argument claim, that must mean that such policies have been a failure. This leads one to ask: a failure for whom? Not for US elites, who have secured control of the major global energy resources while successfully crushing opposition movements, nor for the defense establishment, and most certainly not for the energy corporations. In fact, not only is US policy towards the Middle East similar to that towards other regions of the world, but it has been a profitable, strategic success.

Indeed, the US's policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is not to achieve an end to the occupation, nor to bring about respect for Palestinian rights -- in fact, it is the actor primarily responsible for preventing these outcomes. To the US, Israel's "Operation Defensive Shield" in 2002 had sufficiently punished the Palestinians and their compliant US-backed leadership for their intransigence at Camp David. While the Palestinian Authority was already acting as Israel's "subcontractor" and "collaborator" in suppressing resistance to Israeli occupation, in the paraphrased words of former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's deliberate destruction of Palestinian institutions provided the opportunity to rebuild them, and ensure an even greater degree of US control.

The settlement and annexation programs help guarantee Israeli control over the most valuable Palestinian land and water resources, ensuring Israel will remain a dominant society not easily pressured by its neighbors. To help achieve these goals, the US shields Israeli expansion behind a "peace process" in hopes that given enough time the Palestinians will concede more and more of what was once theirs. The primary concern is to present the appearance that the US and Israel are ardently crusading for peace, battling against those who oppose this noble objective. Though it is true that people across the region are appalled and outraged by Israeli crimes, such anger is a small consideration next to the strategic gain of maintaining a strong, dependent ally in the heart of the Middle East.

The reconstitution of an even more tightly-controlled Palestinian Authority, with General Keith Dayton directly supervising the Palestinian security forces, enabled the US to meet these goals while more effectively suppressing resistance to the occupation. Likewise, redeploying Israeli soldiers outside of Gaza allowed Sharon a free hand to continue the annexation of the West Bank while being heralded internationally as a "great man of peace."

The treatment of Israel by the mainstream US media is also standard for all US allies. Coverage in the corporate press is predictably skewed in favor of official US allies and against official enemies, a well-documented phenomenon. Thus, proponents of the lobby thesis are missing the forest for the trees. What they see as the special treatment of Israel by the mainstream press is actually just the normal functioning of the US media and intellectual establishment, apologizing for and defending crimes of official allies while demonizing official enemies.

Of course, this is not to argue that there are not organizations in the US, like the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC, that seek to marginalize dissent from Israeli policy in every forum possible. Rather, I am pointing out that the power of these groups pales in comparison to other, far more powerful, interests and concerns. While the AJC or ADL may mobilize for the firing of a professor critical of Israel, for example, that argument is amplified by the elite-owned and controlled press because doing so serves their interests. Likewise, AIPAC can urge unwavering support for Israel on the part of the US government, but without the assent of other far more powerful interests, like the energy corporations and defense establishment, AIPAC's efforts would amount to little. US policy, like that of other states, is rationally planned to serve the interests of the ruling class.

Israel could not sustain its aggressive, expansionist policies without US military aid and diplomatic support. If the Obama Administration wanted to, it could pressure Israel to comply with international law and resolutions, join the international consensus, and enact a two-state solution. While the "Israel lobby" thesis conveniently explains his failure to do so and absolves US policy-makers of responsibility for their ongoing support of Israeli apartheid, violence and annexation, it simply does not stand up under closer scrutiny.

Stephen Maher is an MA candidate at American University School of International Service who has lived in the West Bank, and is currently writing his masters' thesis, "The New Nakba: Oslo and the End of Palestine," on the Israel-Palestine conflict. His work has appeared in Extra!, The Electronic Intifada, ZNet and other publications. His blog is

Tim Redfern (581)
Saturday May 8, 2010, 6:34 pm
I will bow to my better judgement,
and not make a direct comment on this story.
I issued a "cease-and-desist" order on myself
for awhile on Israel-Palestine stories.
It's become somewhat tiring for me to be constantly referred
to as a "Jew-hater" and an "anti-Semite".
So, in the immortal words of Oliver Hardy,
"I have nothing to say."

Thanks, Pete.

Dave C (867)
Saturday May 8, 2010, 10:41 pm
Paster Tim,
Accusing someone of being anti-semitic is a tactic to deflect and divert attention from the real problem, while stifling FREE SPEECH when others criticize Israel's criminal human rights abuses. It is also used to inflame passions and mislead public opinion by invoking a word - anti-Semitism - that we have been well-conditioned to condemn above all other forms of racism or prejudice.

Being called an anti-Semite by supporters of Zionism is just their pathetic way of silencing criticism and exposure of 'Israel' - treat it and them with utter contempt. Don't let them succeed in silencing you my friend - let this 'anti-Semite' nonsense wash over you like water off a duck's back

Dave C (867)
Saturday May 8, 2010, 10:56 pm
Oh, and remember this:
"An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated BY Jews." - - - Joseph Sobran

Elainna Crowell (174)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 2:22 am
I am inclined to agree with this thesis. After all, the US has long depended on maintaining its military/industrial complex in order to protect its Plutocracy. Israel is part of that military/industrial complex.

Past Member (0)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 7:30 am
Pastor Tim,

Remember Bishop Desmund Tutu's words:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor..”

Since when is a strategic interest justifies colonization and occupation? A Helluva way to spread democracy, isn't it?


Past Member (0)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 7:53 am
Urgh.. excuse the errors!!!!

Zahra Pilavdzic (274)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 11:54 am
It is usually the dissident Jews that like to bring up this argument. We must not underestimate the power of the lobby in influencing American politics! It's much easier to confront and try to restrict the power of AIPAC then to confront Western Imperialism. Whilst I agree that Western Imperialism is a major issue on the planet today and it plays an issue in the various wars around the world. When it comes to Palestine and Palestinians the issue is with Zionists and their lobby in the United States. It helps to be more specific then to make it out to be some global monster or hidden conspiracy.

Frank G (211)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 1:52 pm
This article is pro-Israel propaganda. The United States' support of Israel harms and does not help our access to oil, which depends primarily on stability in the Middle East and friendly relations with Arab governments. Israel's expansion in Palestine and illegal occupation represent major obstacles to these aims. The U.S. does not need nor has it used Israel as an advance base, having several Arab allies willing to fulfill this role, and Israel is hardly useful as an active military ally, since its involvement with the U.S. in any Middle East conflict would likely lead to a vastly expanded war and hence to a disaster for our oil supply. This fact was illustrated plainly in the invasions of Iraq, in which Israel played a minimal role, despite being bombed. The U.S. support of Israel has on the other hand been a constant strain on our international relations as well as our military budget. The Israel partisans were the leading force in the Bush administration and in the media pushing for the conquest of Iraq.

We have supported Israeli's actions in the Middle East largely due to the influence of the Israel Lobby and pro-Israel media. Politicians who defied the Israel lobby have found find themselves smeared as "anti-Semites", with their opponent's campaign coffers overflowing. Hence, defying the lobby has become virtually taboo in American politics, and many politicians fall over themselves to win its favor.

I'll post two responses to this article, the first by an Arab partisan and postgraduate student at the University of Stratclyde, Muhammad Idrees Ahmad; and the second by an American diplomat and author, Chas Freeman.

Frank G (211)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 1:54 pm
Electronic Intifada and the mudkicker

The Electronic Intifada has on its front page a ludicrous, factually challenged and logically flawed attack on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s work — work that has been pivotal in shifting the debate on US Middle East policy. It is not clear to me what EI was hoping to achieve with this self-defeating move. But I don’t blame the author of the article — the fellow is clueless, he has cobbled together his screed from arguments and quotes randomly lifted from Noam Chomsky’s writings — I blame EI’s political and editorial judgment. At a time when Israeli colonization is intensifying, with the land in the grip of a neo-Fascist government, one’s priorities must be seriously upside down to spend precious time impugning the invaluable work of allies. It appears for some supporters of Palestine the need to feel self-righteous takes precedence over the imperative to be effective. Now, it is pointless to respond to someone who freely purloins others’ work, misuses sources, and constructs a slipshod argument. But I’ll give two illustrative examples of the kind of deliberate distortions that keep resurfacing in these ideological assaults on M & W (in both cases the specific claims have been ‘borrowed’ from Chomsky):

Chomsky has long maintained that the war in Iraq was for oil. He always adduces the same evidence to support his case. A state department document from 1945, a quotes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and another from George Kennan. Chomsky argues that Middle East oil is ‘a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history’ (State Department), and anyone who controls Iraq’s vast oil reserves gains ‘critical leverage’ (Brzezinski), indeed ‘veto power’ (Kennan), over competitors. All of this is indisputable: the United States would no doubt like to control Iraqi oil; it recognizes the ‘critical leverage’ the control affords it; and the critical leverage no doubt would grant it ‘veto power’. Now here is the problem: The State department document Chomsky cites is about Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. And it recommends that, precisely because Saudi oil is so important, US must always maintain friendly relations with the kingdom. Also, it does not follow that regime change is the only means to achieve these goals. Indeed, all of these claims have been just as true the past half century, but they did not necessitate war. The US has long preferred shoring up authoritarian regimes which could ensure its dominance and maintain a stable flow of oil.

Secondly, The Iraqi government was not withholding its oil; it was the US-led sanctions that were preventing it from reaching the markets. There is no evidence that Iraq was unwilling to cede control of its oil to the United States. Indeed, in the months leading up to war Saddam Hussein’s government made several attempts to stave off war by offering the United States exclusive concessions to its oil reserves. If oil was indeed the motivation, then one would expect plentiful evidence of oil interests influencing policy, or at least in selling the war. Chomsky offers none. Nor does he inform readers that Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man whose words he cites as evidence of Iraq as a resource war, was one of its most vocal opponents. Bzrezinski has called the war ‘a historic, strategic, and moral calamity…driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris’.

In his peculiar reading of Brzezinski, Chomsky ascribes him a view that is an inversion of what he actually says. Brzezinski, who saw the invasion as an unnecessary war by the pro-Israel neonconservatives, avers:

"American and Israeli interests in the region are not entirely congruent. America has major strategic and economic interests in the Middle East that are dictated by the region’s vast energy supplies. Not only does America benefit economically from the relatively low costs of Middle Eastern oil, but America’s security role in the region gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region. Hence good relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates…is in the U.S. national interest. From Israel’s standpoint, however, the resulting American-Arab ties are disadvantageous: they not only limit the degree to which the United States is prepared to back Israel’s territorial aspirations, they also stimulate American sensitivity to Arab grievances against Israel."

Since the EI scrivener reproduces Chomsky’s exact interpretation of the ‘critical leverage’ quote along with Kennan’s on ‘veto power’, it is clear that he has never consulted the actual source. The same is true of his other comment about Israel serving as an offshore base for the US (which he mistakenly attributes to Chomsky, who is in fact quoting Alexander Haig). What this fellow doesn’t know is that the comment was uttered in a certain context: i.e., Haig’s bureaucratic struggle against Reagan (whom he saw as an intellectual inferior) in which he was keen to enlist Israel lobby support. (For more on this, see Patrick Tyler’s excellent A World of Trouble or my review of it). So long as the decontextualized quotes fit preconceived notions, who cares what was actually said or done?

The French sociologist Emile Durkheim called this the ‘ideological method’: the use of ‘notions to govern the collation of facts, rather than deriving notions from them’. In the a-historical writings of these analysts-on-the-cheap, one frequently finds that two and two add up to yield twenty-two. If US support for Israel and its interests in the region’s oil have remained constant over the years, it must mean the two are complementary. They aren’t. As I explained elsewhere,

"United States Middle East policy has been defined since World War II by the tension between two competing concerns: the strategic interests which require good relations with Arab-Muslim states, and domestic political imperatives which demand unquestioning allegiance to Israel. That the US interest in the region’s energy resources has remained consistent, as well as its support for Israel, leads some to conclude that somehow the two are complementary. They aren’t. US President Harry S. Truman recognized the state of Israel the day of its founding over the strenuous objections of his State Department in order to court the Jewish vote and, more significantly, Jewish money for his re-election campaign. Every president since — with the exception of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, who saw no cause to feign balance — has sought to address this tension with attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. All these efforts have so far foundered. A study of US policy in the region over the decades, then, is inevitably a study of the causes of these failures [among which the Israel lobby looms largest]."

It is not clear to me why The Electronic Intifada would undermine years of valuable work by giving platform to this discreditable piece of charlatanry. It has certainly made me reconsider any future association with the publication. We are at a juncture that calls for political maturity, to make the most of the openings recently created. This type of reactionary posturing and myopic absolutism merely serves as an alibi for inaction.

Electronic Intifada and the mudkicker by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

Frank G (211)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 1:56 pm
Freeman: Israel is useless to US power projection

Maher's account is far from novel on any score but he is describing Japan's, the UK's, or Qatar's role in US strategy, not Israel's. A few facts to ponder when considering his assertion that Israel is a huge and essential asset for US global and regional strategy:

-- the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF).

-- Israeli bases are not available for US use.

-- none of Israel's neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.

-- Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.

-- US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.

-- Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international community.

-- Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.

Japan provides multiple bases and pays "host nation support" for the US presence (though that presence as well as the fact that Japan is paying for a good deal of it are growing political issues in Japan). The air base in Qatar from which the US directs air operations throughout the region (including in both Iraq and Afghanistan) was built and is maintained at host nation expense. So too the ground force and naval facilities we use elsewhere in the Gulf. The US is paid for the weapons and military services it provides to its European and Asian allies as well as its Arab strategic partners. Washington has never had to exercise a veto or pay a similar political price to protect any of them from condemnation or sanctions by the international community. Japan and various Arab countries, as well as European nations, have often paid for US foreign assistance and military programs in third countries or designed their own programs specifically to supplement US activities.

Washington has made Israel our largest recipient of foreign aid, encouraged private transfers to it through unique tax breaks, transferred huge quantities of weapons and munitions to it gratis, directly and indirectly subsidized the Israeli defense industry, allocated military R&D to Israeli rather than US institutions, offered Israeli armaments manufacturers the same status as US manufacturers for purposes of US defense procurement, etc.. Almost all US vetoes at the United Nations and decisions to boycott international conferences and meetings have been on behalf of Israel. Israel treats its ability to command support from Washington as a major tool of diplomatic influence in third countries; it does not exercise its very limited influence abroad in support of US as opposed to its own objectives.

As others have said with greater indirection than I have here, one must look elsewhere than Israel's strategic utility to the United States for the explanation of its privileged status in US foreign policy, iniquitous as Maher considers that policy to be.

Freeman: Israel is useless to US power projection, by Chas Freeman

Eleanor B (909)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 5:47 pm
Without the support of the US financially, Israel could not survive as a power in the Middle East. Without the billions of US dollars how could they sustain their military as they do? Without the support of the US (and the tacit agreement of the rest of the world) how could they get away with their bombings and their ethnic cleansing - otherwise put - their slaughter of the people of Palestine? Their day will come, however. They will be overthrown one day and the people of Palestine will again live in peace with peoples of all religions or none - as they did before. Insha-Allah.

Pete m (67)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 6:12 pm
Thanks for your comments- I had a feeling that this article would create a bit of a stir!

Having read up on the subjects of I/P and US foreign Policy pretty widely, (including W & Ms 'The Israel Lobby' & the excellent 'Killing Hope' by W. Blum among many others) I'm of the opinion that the US doesn't really need the zionist lobby to support Israels murderous regime.

Tho that is not to say that the lobby doesn't exist or has NO influence , it's more as George Galloway said recently on 'the Real Deal' ; (and I'm paraphrasing!) ''most members of congress are zionists anyway, so they don't really need the lobby to FORCE them into supporting Israel'' (and the interests of the associated arms and big oil companies, I might add.)

Who benefits from destabilising the ME region with massive US taxpayer-funded arms shipments to Israel, & the subsequent frequent oil price hikes that result from Israels frequent acts of aggression against her neighbours?

The same people/corporations/elites who benefited from all of the hundreds of other crimes against humanity/acts of corporate-sponsored genocide perpetrated by the US against (mainly) defenceless peasants since WW2 (and before). Some of which are mentioned in the above article ie E Timor & Guatamala. et al.

Genocide & conflict are highly profitable to these oil & war corporations, and I believe that on past evidence, if the lobby disappeared tomorrow, the support for Israel would continue .
If Congress actually passed a resolution denying Israel US military aid, then the aid would get there via some other US client , in much the same way that Israel supplied arms & training to the S American death squads after congress blocked US military aid due to the appalling human rights record of Reagans Contras etc.

US support of Israels genocidal treatment of the Palestinians is just 'business as usual' for the capitalist elites.

Tim Redfern (581)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 7:34 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Dave because you have done so within the last week.

Dave C (867)
Sunday May 9, 2010, 11:08 pm
Israeli Apartheid and The Nakba

Pete m (67)
Monday May 10, 2010, 3:11 am
ps; Hi Dave , Eleanor & Zahra!!

And Tim, never let the barking b******ds silence your voice with their pathetic attempts at smearing you with the tired 'anti-semite' label .
I - and I know I am far from alone- greatly appreciate your insightful comments on my news items my friend!

Pete m (67)
Monday May 10, 2010, 4:34 am
Further to my earlier comments, here's an excerpt from ''The Second American Revolution : Israel and the Religious Right'' from an excellent blog that I discovered yesterday while searching for relevant info on the above article-

''Now that Israel is on some weird rampage through the Middle East, and since it is not possible to have a successful revolution without first completely destroying religion and its moralizing twaddle which hides the truth about what is really going on in the world, I thought it might be good to say a few words about that married couple who have so much in common, Israel and the Religious Right.

Before I begin I think it good to point out to people that when Israel is off on a weird rampage in the Middle East stoking the fires of regional war fare in the Middle East this clearly means that it is actually Washington that is off on weird rampage through the Middle East, since Israel would not be starting a large regional war in the Middle East, sucking in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran without first getting permission to start something like that from that writer of pay cheques to Israel, Washington, D.C. ''

Pete m (67)
Monday May 10, 2010, 4:40 am
I've submitted the excellent series of articles ''The Genocidal Mentality '' from the same author on C2NN , please read & note!

Bonnie A (76)
Monday May 10, 2010, 5:51 am
SEMITE: 1a. a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b. the descendant of these peoples.
2. A member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language (aka Arabian and Hebrew).
The Israelis are being antii-Semitic. They are assaulting all their Arab neighbors as well as those who are not Arab. Iran is Persian and Kurdish. We are afraid of being called anti-Semitic, but if we don't help the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the Syrians we are being anti-Semitic.

Tim Redfern (581)
Monday May 10, 2010, 6:57 am
I believe it was Dante Alighieri (I could be wrong) who said,
"The hottest places in Hell will be reserved for those who
maintain their neutrality in a time of crisis."
That's good enough for me.

When Israel was founded in 1948, Harry Truman got into
a shouting argument with his Sec'y. of State, General George
C. Marshall, who begged Truman to NOT recognize Israel as
a nation. Marshall said that if the U.S. recognised Israel,
"The Palestinian problem will never go away".
The man was a prophet.

Too many people at the time thought Israel's founding was some kind of Biblical prophecy
fulfillment (which it was not) and that loyalty to the Israeli state was loyalty to God (which it
was not). They thought the present-day Israelis were/are the true Jews (they are not).
That was the beginning of American support for Israel in the 1940's, but over time it
grew to be far more of a military/hegemonic support. Since 9/11, Israel has become the
only supporter in the region for the War on Terrorism (Islam).
The U.S. & Israel have a mutually parasitic relationship which will eventually bring both
counries down, and may God speed that Eleanor said, Inshallah.
Pete and Dave, thanks for talking me into breaking my silence!
Huge kudos to the both of you gentlemen!


Zahra Pilavdzic (274)
Monday May 10, 2010, 9:18 am
Thanks Frank for your analysis on Chomsky. Why some continue to hail him as hero when he doesn't even support BDS is unbeknownst to me. George Galloway is self-serving and against Arab empowerment.Steve Biko once said that if whites interested in justices wanted to help blacks in their struggle against apartheid then the best they can do is empower them in their struggle. The best we can do as solidarity workers is empower the Palestinian narrative. Their civil society is calling for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, which goes hand and hand in tackling AIPAC. How can we address the foreign aid to Israel and Zionist influence in American government without addressing the lobby? There is a fondness for western philosophies and those who seek to use charity as a platform for their own success. Shifting the focus away from Zionism and it's lobby ultimately serves the state of Israel. It's nothing but a subtle form of hasbara.


Pete m (67)
Monday May 10, 2010, 5:12 pm
Thanks Zahra, I was unaware that Chomsky doesn't support BDS, which should be supported by all who wish to see an end to Israels atrocities .

More on the subject , from ''Does the Israeli Tail Wag the American Dog?''

Defining the National Interest

''The truly important part of the debate over the lobby’s power swirls around the issue of national interests—what constitutes national interests, who determines them, and whether real national interests are harmed by the lobby.

A group of commentators and analysts on the left who are highly critical of Israel’s policies have nonetheless been dismissive of the notion that the lobby has particular influence over policy. Their arguments center on the issue of what actually constitutes the US national interest. Noam Chomsky has frequently indicated that Middle East policy is determined largely by what he calls the “tight state-corporate linkage” where domestic power is concentrated—in other words, the military-industrial complex working in cooperation with the government, whose special interests, Chomsky believes, ultimately define US national interests. The Israel lobby has some impact on determining policy in Chomsky’s estimation, but to a far lesser extent and generally only insofar as the lobby’s interests conform to corporate-government interests.

Chomsky and the other left critics of the lobby study essentially believe that US policy has always been directed at the advancement of US imperial and corporate interests, and that Israel, far from leading the US into harmful policies and foreign adventures, has always done the US bidding. The US would pursue its imperial objectives even without Israel, and it has pursued these in areas outside the Middle East, such as Chile, Indonesia, Central America, and elsewhere, without benefit of any lobby. The Israel lobby, in this view, functions as merely a handy adjunct to US policy, not an agent with any control or particular influence.

One thing this argument ignores, however, is that the lobby and its close ties to US arms makers strengthen the ability of the military-industrial complex to control what are defined as US national interests. The Israel lobby holds unquestionable sway over many individual congressmen and executive branch officials, including in the White House, making it difficult for anyone to influence the alleged national interests of the US in ways that the lobby might feel weakened Israel’s uniquely special relationship with the US. Any debate involving this taboo subject, even indirectly, would almost certainly be quashed before it started, buried under paeans for Israel from both Republicans and Democrats.

Afif Safieh, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission in Washington, makes another point. He calls the approach of Chomsky and others on the left a “mechanistic” view that does not allow for the fact that each situation has its own specificity, the specificity in this case being that the junior partner can often “hijack” and “monopolize” decisionmaking on Middle East issues. The left’s argument comes from a kind of determinism that assumes US policy has rarely if ever deviated from a clearly laid-out imperial strategy designed to promote corporate interests.

But simply because the US overthrew a government deemed inimical to American business interests in Chile or supported a dictator in Indonesia where the oil industry had interests does not prove that whenever Israel has attacked Arab countries, as with Egypt in 1967 and Lebanon in 1982, it was acting to serve the United States or was, as Chomsky has alleged, performing a “huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism.” Israel in no way serves to ensure US access to or control over the Middle East’s oil resources, nor does it work in conjunction with the oil industry.

There is no denying the intricate interweaving of the US military-industrial-financial complex with Israel’s military, industrial, and financial interests, as Chomsky and others on the left contend, but rather than a relationship in which Israel does the bidding of the US corporate-government conglomeration, in reality the entanglement is much more one between two independent players. And the lobby essentially functions to sustain and manipulate the entanglement. Blankfort maintains that the influence of the lobby “is actually underestimated. Not only does it keep Congress in thrall to its demands on issues pertaining to Israel and the Middle East in general, it also serves, less conspicuously, as a powerful lobbying force for maintaining America’s high levels of military spending and for integrating the Israeli arms industry with that of the US.” This integration, Blankfort says, “goes a long way to explain why there has been no significant opposition to the annual military budget from any sector of Congress.”

Israel and its lobby work hand in glove with the US arms industry to advance their combined, usually compatible interests. The relatively few powerful, wealthy families that dominate the Israeli arms industry are just as interested in pressing for aggressively militaristic US and Israeli foreign policies as are the CEOs of US arms corporations. As globalization has progressed, so have the ties of joint ownership and close financial and technological cooperation among the arms corporations of the two nations grown ever closer. The relationship is symbiotic, and the lobby cooperates intimately to keep it alive; lobbyists can go to many in Congress and tell them credibly that if aid to Israel is cut off, thousands of arms-industry jobs in their districts will be lost. The lobby does not simply passively support the desires of the military-industrial complex. It actively twists arms in Congress and the administration to perpetuate acceptance of certain “national interests” that many Americans believe is wrong.''

''...The tragedy of the present situation is that it has become impossible to separate Israeli from alleged US interests—that is, not what should be real US national interests, but the selfish and self-defined “national interests” of the political-corporate-military complex that, in conjunction with the lobby, dominates the Bush administration, Congress, and both major political parties. The specific groups that now dominate the government are the globalized arms, energy, and financial industries, and the entire military establishments, of the US and of Israel—groups that have quite literally hijacked the government and stripped it of most vestiges of democracy. The “aggressive monster with two ugly heads” that Michel Warschawski speaks of is a reality.

This convergence of manipulated “interests” has a profound effect on US policy choices in the Middle East. If the United States is unable to distinguish the world’s or its own real needs from those of another state and that state’s lobby, then it simply cannot say that it always acts in its own best interests. In the face of the massive human rights violations being committed against Palestinians today, the failure to recognize this reality is where those who belittle the lobby’s power and accept US Middle East policy as simply an unchangeable part of a longstanding strategy are particularly dangerous.''

Pete m (67)
Monday May 10, 2010, 5:51 pm
You're V welcome Tim, glad to have you back on form!

Past Member (0)
Monday May 10, 2010, 8:52 pm
hundreds of people, probably thousands read these articles and comments every single day. to help the intifada your goal should be to reach them. to touch them. to pique their curiosities, to leave them wanting more. throwing hundreds of words at them and making them feel inferior in intelligence to you guys will chase them away. did is not about showing them or the enablers of the child killers how much more you know than they do. it's about the battle, the war, the intifada. guide them towards google and youtube. let them see for themselves. put fresh images and thoughts into their heads. every little bit helps. this lake is going to be filled drop by drop.

Pete m (67)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 1:52 am
Hi Ambrose, I was just thinking last night how informative & civil a discussion we were having on this thread, and you come along and diss it! ;-)

If you take the time to read thru the comments I'm sure you'll learn a lot about the Lobby and other interests that shape US policy towards the Palestinians.

If we don't fully understand the reasons for these policies, how is it possible for us to change them? And unfortunately to understand an issue usually takes a lot of reading (in my case anyway cos I'm stuck on dial up and unable to 'youtube !)

I welcome anyone who posts articles/vids on my news items that further the cause of Palestinian rights, so please post some links to any vids you think may help!

(and don't feed the tr**l )

Matloob ul Hasan (81)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 6:28 am
Noted, thanks.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 7:08 am
look at the kind of insects you attract, look at pete c's comment. forget about convincing the enablers. we don't want them. they are cowards that are soaked in the blood of innocent women and children. seeing children die, their schools and hospitals destroyed, give the scum of society a bum rush. they are not needed. aim your teachings at the newbie dropping by trying to get some butterfly credits. those are the ones where the battle with the enablers of the child killers should be fought over. i'm just saying man.

Dave C (867)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 7:42 am
This is the Problem.

Did you know Israel is about to start WW3?

See below- Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, questioned Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, following a press conference a day after indirect talks between Israel and Palestine resumed.

Tadros: What guarantees or gestures did you offer the Palestinians - via the Americans - to get them to change their minds and agree to proximity talks?

Netanyahu: What a narrow view you have.

Tadros : Were there any gestures?

Netanyahu: There is a built-in assumption in your question and that's for the next news conference. It's the axiom in the question that's wrong.

Sherine: Were there any guarantees?

Netanyahu: Thank you

Edward M (8)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 7:45 am
You should really look at an editions of Time magazine, printed during the Presidential elections, and you will notice the queue of potential candidates, from all parties, addressing a meeting of the A.I.P.A.C.: says it all, really!
A suggestion to American sceptics: to get to the truth, read THEY DARED TO SPEAK OUT, a book by former congressman Paul Findley, to get an idea of how this group can have such a malign influence on American politics.

Marianna Molnar (9)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 11:37 am

Pete m (67)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 2:30 pm
Thanks Edward, I'll post that up in Book Club if it hasn't been already!

Hey Zahra, please go easy on Galloway, he's one of the few here in the UK who will stand up & be counted for Palestinians! ;-)

Ambrose; If we don't attract insects then we aren't doing it properly... ;-)

Luisa Fox (144)
Tuesday May 11, 2010, 3:11 pm
Thank you Edward. I plan to read the book.


Abo r (107)
Wednesday May 12, 2010, 11:03 pm
Noted thanks.

Abo r (107)
Wednesday May 12, 2010, 11:07 pm
Those who violate human rights and thier supporters must be judged for civilian crimes.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 1:48 am
Dave, Eleanor, Zahra, Tim et al - can anyone join your Mutual Admiration Society? Have to admire the way you all think alike - how Christian of you all - support Palestinian Rights! Of course they should have rights but what the rights of Israel to exist is mighty to me. You are likened to a pack of ravenous wolves and what concerns me is I suspect you would all approve the "Israel into the Sea" mooted by Ahmadinajad and his cronies....and Eleanor if you seriously, seriously think there would be peace in the Middle East without Israel - YOU HAVEN'T READ YOUR HISTORY BOOKS PROPERLY - THE LEOPARD DOES NOT CHANGE IT'S SPOTS. SHALOM.

Pete m (67)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 5:40 am
Hi Patricia, yes anyone who supports Universal Human Rights and opposes racism as practiced by the Zionist state of Israel can join our mutual appreciation society.

And I think you mean 'disappear from the map of history' if you referring to mr Ahmadinajads speech that is frequently misinterpreted by the global zionist propaganda horsemanure machine, and that you obviously swallow with great enthusiasm...

Now please go away and bark at someone else.

ps, I'm not a christian fyi.


Past Member (0)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 12:06 pm
another insect squirmed his way in. you most definitely are doing it right.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 4:41 pm

Tim Redfern (581)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 9:09 pm
Patricia and/or Edw.Jones,
how very Christian of you to judge our hearts and minds.
Have you ever read any of the Gospels?.......or Paul's epistles?
There are some interesting things said there about us mere mortals
judging one another.

How dare you assume that I'm on Ahmadinijead's side.
How dare you assume that I want to see Israel "swept into the sea".
If Israel and the Palestinians could come to an agreement on a two-state
solution, and live in peace and harmony with one another, nothing could
please me more.
Peace is the destination AND the journey.
The problem is, though, Zionists can't seem to wrap
their minds around that concept.

Tim Redfern (581)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 9:12 pm
Oh, and by the way, Jones, et al?
Please kindly do not type in all capitals.
It's the online equivalent of screaming at the top of your lungs,
and some of us really, really don't appreciate it.

Pete m (67)
Thursday May 13, 2010, 11:59 pm
Zionism = Racism; Is it TRUE?
Due to the existence of the non Jewish indiginous population of Palestine, whose rights must be ignored/ trampled on in order to maintain the Jewish status of Israel, most definitely YES.

Is it NECESSARY? if you're a racist supremacist colonialist type like a zionist who believes they have some god-given superior right to commit genocide against their semitic brothers & sisters,then I suppose it is necessary.

Is it KIND? Well, due to the well documented atrocities of the Palestinians since the start of the Zionist colonisation , including the 'necessary' Ethnic Cleansing of close to a million non jews in 1948 and many acts of aggression against Israels neighbours (Lebanon 1982 (20,000 dead mainly civilians), Sabra & Chatila genocide & 2006 (1500 dead, mainly civilians) , Dec 2008s Operation 'Vast Dead' in Gaza (1500 dead, mainly civilians), & the well documented habit of the (''most moral'') IDF of sniping young Palestinian children when they're (IDF) not smearing sh*t and defecating in the schools & homes of said children, to name but a few examples, I think you'd have to agree that Zionism certainly isn't KIND...

If you do support the above, then I guess if you don't like being called racist, the best thing to do would be to keep SILENT.

If you want to find out where I get my information from, then feel free to check out my previous C2NN submissions . I'm certainly not dumb enough to get my info from 'Honest ' Reporting, Media Matters, MEMRI, JP et al.

HR groups like Amnesty, BTselem, HRW, and peace groups like Jewish Peace News, Jewish Voice for Peace and blogs like Lawrence of Cyberia are v informative ,( if you wish to be informed that is...)

patrica and edw jones (190)
Friday May 14, 2010, 1:43 am
Well Tim - I really got your attention didn't I? No haven't read the Scriptures lately - they may contain certain wisdoms but after all they were written by MEN. Have read a lot of Edgar Cayce and Neale Donald Walsh - they speak in laymens terms and I concur with what they write. However do not castigate me for speaking my mind and haviing an opinion - if I am judgemental then WHAT ARE YOU? In the short time I have been involved in this news lobby - have never, never heard you express any compassion in any way for the Israelis - and if you don'tlike what I say - then don't read it.....please please - ignore it. Have a jolly good day.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Friday May 14, 2010, 1:46 am
Oh by the way Redfern et al - ADDENDUM - you know that when you ASSUME - you make an Ass out of U and Me!

Dave C (867)
Friday May 14, 2010, 4:24 am
Nothing at all to do with the price of fish but very droll all the same. Oh, and, "Have a jolly good day" yourself!

Pete m (67)
Friday May 14, 2010, 4:59 am
Patricia/Ed; This discussion is meant to be about whether it's US hegemony or the corrosive influence of the racist zionist lobby that drives US policy in the Middle East ( Palestine in particular) .

What, as someone who expresses that 'of course they (Palestinians) should have rights' do you have to say on the matter?
Or are you just another of the deluded/demented GIYUS/Hasbara nutcases/trolls who like to come along & disrupt discussions on C2NN?

BTW, There's only one ASS on this thread that I can see...


Pete m (67)
Friday May 14, 2010, 8:06 am
Some further reading re Mr Ahmadinajad and ''drive Israel into the sea''.

(Mebbe it was actually Ahmadinajad himself who first uttered these words way back in 1961, seeing as nobody can figure out where it actually originated.) ;-)

Apparently it was just another zionist fabrication , a bit like 'a land with no people for a people with no land' or 'the zionists made the desert bloom' in order to justify the genocide of their semitic brothers & sisters.

Everything You Know About Iran Is A Myth

Who is Pushing Whom into the Sea?

''On 11 October 1961 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion declared in the Israeli Knesset:

'The Arabs' exit from Palestine...began immediately after the UN resolution, from the areas earmarked for the Jewish state. And we have explicit documents testifying that they left Palestine following instructions by the Arab leaders, with the Mufti at their head, under the assumption that the invasion of the Arab armies at the expiration of the Mandate will destroy the Jewish state and push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive'.

Thus, Mr Ben Gurion is asserting that it is his perception that 1) there were directions from the neighboring Arab states and the Mufti in Jerusalem for the indigenous Arabs of Palestine to evacuate their homes and lands on the promise that the Arab armies would destroy the nascent Jewish state, and, further, 2) that those armies intended to "push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive". The phrase "push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

It is a highly emotive phrase invoking images of the Holocaust, though adapted to a Mediterranean setting.

Mr Ben Gurion gives no attribution for this phrase, nor does he claim that it is a quote from an Arab source. It is expressed here as if it is his personal surmise as to the Arab army's intentions.

The phrase has been variously attributed by Zionist supporters to Yasser Arafat, Gamel Abdul Nasser, or any other of Israel's enemies, but none whom I have challenged, including U S Congressman Henry Waxman who made the claim in a letter to me, attributing the phrase to Nasser, have been able to provide any documentation of support for their claim. This 1961 speech certainly predates Arafat's 1968 ascension to the head of the PLO. The phrase is very much entrenched in the thinking of Israel supporters and is taken as a factual basis for an Arab intent of Genocide and of their own potential for peril.

The speech by Mr. Ben Gurion appears to be the origin of the phrase. A search of the speeches of Gamel Abdul Nasser fails to reveal it, nor does it reveal any other than a pragmatics approach to his dealing with Israel. This phrase is sufficiently dramatic and threatening so that if it was in fact uttered by a significant Arab leader, it would be prominent and easily found in any competent historical treatment, which it is not. The phrase, thus, has a Jewish origin and not an Arab origin. Mr Ben Gurion is the originator of the phrase, in all likelihood.

Mr. Ben Gurion's first claim that the Arab exodus from Palestine was provoked by directives from the leaders of the surrounding Arab states has been shown by overwhelming historical research to be false. ''

patrica and edw jones (190)
Friday May 14, 2010, 3:52 pm
The way I see it Pete - is that whatever my opinion is or whatever I say - you miss the spiritual essence of the matter at hand and you are obviously so puffed up about your own opinion that, of course, your only comeback is to trounce out more rhetoric and it seems youcanot accept graciously that someone else might feel differently to you. Having read about the Jews and theirHistory down through the ages and their fight for survival, I am well and truly on their side. Personally I feel I am wasting my time making this comment to you - you know it all!

Dave C (867)
Friday May 14, 2010, 4:09 pm
Nah. . . Pete just gets a kick out of bashing his head up against a brick wall. (Oh yeah, have a jolly nice day.)

Eleanor B (909)
Friday May 14, 2010, 4:57 pm
Pete, I am not a Christian either and it doesn't mean I do not have a sense of right and wrong. What Zionists have done is wrong and I hope that one day this wrong will in some way be put right by returning Palestine to the Palestinians - a country in which people of all religions or none could live in harmony! The guilt of European countries in refusing to help the Jews in Germany paved the way for the abandonment of Palestine to the Zionists. The Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust. Europeans were. I would like to see how Americans would react to their country now being taken over by another people who had the power to remove them, bulldoze their homes etc etc because another larger power provided them with the means while the rest of the world stood back. How about giving America back to the people who lived there for thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans?

Pete m (67)
Friday May 14, 2010, 6:23 pm
Patricia/Edward; You come into our discussion to disrupt with personal attacks & insults & spouting the usual untruths that we've all heard many a time before, without stating anything much about the subject (US Hegemony & Zionist lobby in case you'd forgotten ) other than you are 'well and truly on their side', and then complain about my lack of graciousness, even after I kindly took the time to find and post excerpts from a cupla articles for your perusal regarding your previous statements, in the interests of expanding your knowledge.

I guess some people simply choose to be fungi - fed on horse manure & kept in the dark.;-)

Please forgive me for any perceived lack of graciousness , and do have a jolly nice day....


Pete m (67)
Saturday May 15, 2010, 2:03 am
''There remains only one viable solution for that mess we see in the Middle East.

Like every other country being preyed upon by rotten egg sucking weasels, Israel requires a revolution in order to drive a stake through the heart of that blood sucking vampire bat, before that bat makes things even worse. For the end of a wicked fool is ruinous destruction. Idiotic folly is the characteristic hall mark of the behavior of the wicked.
The wicked boast and their minds are puffed up.

They think, ‘No one can see me. I will never be shaken, and I will continue rule the world for all generations.' But the wicked are found to be placed on a slippery slope, their feet slip, and they begin their relentless slide down that cliff, over a slope and into the bottomless pit.

The end of a wicked fool is the destruction of the people of Israel who will be found riding that idiotic turd as it swirls down a toilet bowl, as though a turd like that one was something you would ride as though it were a pony.

Since the United Nations committed an act of gross injustice when it voted for the creation of the State of Israel, and so they should pay a big fat fine, the money being used to repair the ruinous wreckage and the damage caused by that brain dead decision.

For you see, during the British mandate the census reveals that Palestinians numbered millions and there were only tens of thousands of Jewish people in that area at the time, which means that hundreds of thousands of people were robbed by some armed bandits at the United Nations who were conspiring with those horse thieves, those Zionists, as they worked to supposedly fulfill the prophecy of that egg sucking weasel invented by the Priest and the King of Israel so long ago.

Restitution is the best form of justice when a robbery has occurred.

This is a point worth keeping in mind if one of those brain dead oppressive so called ‘prophets' shows up with a can of white wash and tries to cover that big crack in the wall with white wash by making that ridiculous claim, endlessly repeated, that the country of Israel was like an empty desert before the Jewish people returned to their vacant and empty land.

Apparently such morons consider Hitler's big lie technique to be a form of doing prophecy, thus explaining why they are constantly found to be white washing cracks, since it does not matter to such cruel weirdos whether or not a thing is true, only that you be brainwashed by thinking a lie is the truth.

Such detestable cretins pass for prophets in some church circles, and this is a clear indication that some rotten egg sucking has been going on in those places, for only when you have poisoned yourself by sucking on a rotten egg would you ever be willing to put up with demented oppressors acting like Hitler and passing themselves off as prophets.''

I have often heard it said that both Israel and the Palestinians have the right to live in peace, but while I hear platitudes I never hear anything that resembles a real solution, but that could be because those who only mutter platitudes don't have an agenda, because they understand nothing and therefore don't know what they are doing.

A know nothing is not someone to propose a real agenda, and even if they did propose an agenda it would be something worthless, because they understand nothing.

They are blind and they cannot see.''


patrica and edw jones (190)
Saturday May 15, 2010, 11:59 pm
Pete M - you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the.......You are a remarkably crass person who thinks that whatever they spout about should be venerated by all and sundry. Your utter lack of wisdom and continual castigating of the Israeli question and abuse of such as we, for daring to oppose your venial diatribe is probably only to be expected from one without caring or compassion except for yourself. And as for calling people cretins - well that really exposes you for what you are an 'expert' - i.e X= unknown factor and 'Spurt'(excuse the license) A DRIP UNDER PRESSURE.

Pete m (67)
Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:07 am
Why thank you Patrica/Edward. Being attacked by fungi such as you means I'm doing something right.

You are a shining example of why I like (and frequently invite) Israels apologists to comment on my threads, & rarely flag their personal attacks so that they remain for all to see.

So (again) just what is your opinion on whether it is US hegemony or the zionist lobby that's the driving force behind the massive US support for the racist Apartheid Israeli regime?

And also ,( as i've asked many a zionist before without reply) , where can I find this elusive 'truth' that you lot keep referring to? "Honest(?) Reporting'? 'MEMRI ?, Rupert Murdoch? A Hasbara 'recommended source' ?

Please provide some links to this amazing, elusive 'truth' so I can educate myself , or is it that being 'horse thieving' zionists you just don't like to share?

Pete m (67)
Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:35 am
Link to previous post-

Pete m (67)
Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:37 am

Tim Redfern (581)
Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:00 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Pete because you have done so within the last week.
Jones etc.:
I judge you based on your own comments, while you read mine
as a personal attack.
Yes, you got my attention.
Had you not, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your
exceedingly biased comment.
You haven't read the Gospels lately (or ever)?
Well, no kidding. That's more than a little obvious.
One thing you need to know about me:
I'm not your average Pastor, and not always a nice guy,
especially when it comes to suffering fools like you.
If you're so 110% behind Israel, then that makes you complicit
in their crimes againt humanity. Had you bothered to read my comment with an open mind,
assuming you have one, you would have seen that I said there
is NO innocent party in what's happening in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
Hamas and Hezbollah are as guilty as Israel, but who exactly is the nuclear
power recieving tens of billions of dollars per year of American money per year
in the region? And who gave them the nukes?

At present, the United States is the number one terrorist nation in
the world, and Israel comes in second by a photo finish.
Now, you and Lee Greenwood go sing "I'm Proud to Be An American", and
have yourselves a bloody nice life.

Stupid people wear me out.

Tim Redfern (581)
Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:06 pm
Hey, Jones?
Having just now blocked your contact,
and having seen your page.................
Jesus Christ is your role model?!
You have GOT to be kidding!
You've never read the Gospels,
you believe in a fraud like Edgar Cayce,
and you claim the Lord of all Creation to be your role model?!
May God forgive you for your blaspheme!

patrica and edw jones (190)
Monday May 17, 2010, 5:54 pm
Hey redfern - you are surely not hiding under that cloak of respectability that one would assume a Man of God would wear are you? I think I questioned your ethics et al before.......No one would assume to know everything like you do if they were in the right mind. Edgar Cayce was no fraud - he was a lay preacher and God used him for only GOOD works. He has many to his testament - WHAT DO YOU HAVE YOU JUDGEMENTAL FAKE.??

patrica and edw jones (190)
Monday May 17, 2010, 6:34 pm
Doesn't it also state in the Scriptures -'Judge NOT lest Ye be judged. Setting yourself up as Judge and Juror is not going to get you into HIS good books.

Past Member (0)
Monday May 17, 2010, 7:47 pm
why are you guys arguing with p&ej? i've been looking to squash them like a bug, but it's hard to get a hold of their hair. for example, that psyco cayce he's taking about is the same cayce of atlantis death ray fame. now how to you argue with that? i'm just waiting for the two jokers to have a lucid moment so i can chat with them. but they have no had one yet. atlantis death ray, i ain't lying guys.

Past Member (0)
Monday May 17, 2010, 7:49 pm
i'm just saying guys. i mean, you can keep trying to reason with them. but you're going to be wasting your breath.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 12:26 am
Got youir interest though didn't I? Where would you be without someone to 'cross swords' with?...and what a bloody dull thread it would be -.

Pete m (67)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 2:58 am
Yes Ambrose, there is no reasoning with the barking lot, but I just love the sound of their yapping. As Dave says, I get a kick out of it.

And any newbie who looks at these discussions can see what sort of demented loons Israels apologists generally are, so it does serve a purpose.

Eventually they learn ( tho it varies according to the level of their intellect/fanaticism.) ;-)

patrica and edw jones (190)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 3:08 am
Common sense has by passed you moronic adlepates - blinkered and one-eyed you definitely are.....still it keeps the mind working - of course you have to have a mind to keep working.....Mind it the Builder....get one.
Toodle Pip

Pete m (67)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 4:10 am
See what I mean?

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 11:30 am
true that.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 11:35 am
and p&ej, i'm not looking or trying to cross swords with you. cause you have no sword. but what i am gonna do is marginalize you.

Pete m (67)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 4:15 pm
While not being a believer or having read much of the scriptures, I found this the other day that gives me a little hope -

Ezekiel 9:9 YAHWEH said to me, "The guilt of Israel is exceedingly great; the land is full of blood, and the city full of injustice; for they say, ‘YAHWEH has forsaken the land, and YAHWEH does not see.'
Ezekiel 9:10 As for me, my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity, but I will requite their deeds upon their heads."
Ezekiel 21:25 And you, O unhallowed wicked one, prince of Israel, whose day has come, the time of your final punishment,
Ezekiel 21:29 while they see for you false visions, while they divine lies for you—to be laid on the necks of the unhallowed wicked, whose day has come, the time of their final punishment.
Ezekiel 22:4 You have become guilty by the blood which you have shed, and defiled by the idols which you have made; and you have brought your day near, the appointed time of your years has come. Therefore I have made you a reproach to the nations, and a mocking to all the countries.
Ezekiel 22:14 Can your courage endure, or can your hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with you? I YAHWEH have spoken, and I will do it.


patrica and edw jones (190)
Tuesday May 18, 2010, 5:37 pm
Ha Ha Ambrose - you can marginalise all you like......this is about the only thread you ever make comments on. Never see you on - animal or child neglect, oil spill and the like. So stay in Your margin and we will be better for it.
As for Pete - he can quote the Bible all he cares too.....It was written by MEN and mostly for men as they are the aggressors, A lot of the time it is MISQUOTED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.....IT IS TAKEN TOO LITERALLY. The God I know is a loving God and does not get involved in the petty quarrels of mankind. We have to 'grow up" at some stage and take responsiblity for ourselves and our actions. Shalom - Patricia.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.