Why is the subject of Zionism a taboo subject within the anti-war movement ?

Don't expect the media to shed any light on Zionism! Over 60% of the media is controlled by Zionists, at least 60%. Why even the SF Chronicle, with Phil Bronstein as the editor, has not printed the report about how Israeli delegates are now in DC asking for another $12 Billion + in aid from the US yet this has been widely reported in British and Israeli papers! It's obvious there IS a conspiracy in US media to hide the truth about Zionism, Israel and it's blatant racism and influence on US politics.

There are actually quite a few examples of such “best evidence” that Zionists have been the deciding factor in US Middle East policy.

Some of the best evidence, showing all-pervasive Zionist influence, is the fact that Israel’s openly racist policies – the creation and
perpetuation of Jewish supremacy in multi-ethnic Palestine (and all the obvious horrors inherent in that massive racial violence) – have passed
entirely unprotested, for the past fifty-plus years, by leftists and progressives, who claim to oppose such grisly regression.

It is patently absurd for progressives to claim that Big Oil has created the conditions for Middle East conquest, when the very worst actions
of colonial conquest and destabilization have been committed, right before our eyes, for decades, by Israel and its international Zionist
constituency – and the progressives, including Richard Becker, have been VOLUNTARILY (without protest) funding those UNDISGUISED policies,
in complete thrall to Zionist interests. How are the corporations supposed to stand up against that kind of public demand for racist conquest?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the big international corporations want this situation – no reason to think they can make more
profit from decimated, toxic wastelands full of bitter enemies, than they can from thriving markets in healthy societies. Conversely, Zionism
DEFINES ITSELF as a demand for Jewish supremacy in Palestine, a demand that absolutely requires suppression of all the people in that entire
sector of the globe.
With the Zionists in such control, it would be financial suicide for big corporations to try to change market conditions – in ways that would
directly oppose Zionist interests. Corporations are mindless entities that MUST do all they can to maximize profits, amid existing political
REALITIES. Progressives cannot expect Exxon to take the lead, in this matter, when self-declared “equal-rights activists” are afraid of
protesting overt racist war against Palestine, in their “anti-war” rallies!

It is an elementary axiom of human decency to protest actual, real-world crimes, when they are committed openly, for openly-vaunted
reasons of the very worst kind – such as ethnic-cleansing and the perpetuation of ethnic-supremacy. No one denies that Israel’s actions
constitute exactly that kind of crime, but even now, the progressives and leftists are culpably silent, as their essential moral obligation to
protest – that is, to stop VOLUNTARILY financing those crimes – is simply diverted by the saber-rattling over Iraq.
That silence, in itself, is an appalling victory of Zionist manipulation, as the most hideously racist policies ever conducted in broad daylight –
routine use of live ammunition against children, the ultimate need to build an actual racist WALL between the preferred and cleansed
ethnicities (two of MANY examples) – proceed, right before our eyes, without a peep of progressive protest.
The diversion of attention, from those ongoing horrors, is a deep negation of basic social values. It is quite clearly NOT “Big Oil” that is
responsible for those actions: Even if the corporations WANT to do business that way, they could not possibly stretch open the envelope of
permissible horrors – to free their hands for utterly rampant conquest – as the Zionists are doing right now, in Palestine, with enormous help
from the inexcusable silence of progressives, like some of the most prominent peace activists.
And those who cannot recognize the inadmissibility of those brazen horrors, in themselves, cannot be expected to notice that even the Iraq
distraction is pitifully weak, for one blazing reason: it is exactly the next phase of an unchecked Zionist future – it is linked to the racist-colonial
conquest of Palestine at every level. By far, the strongest argument against attacking Iraq is that direct linkage to the overt racist crimes of
Israel, but that linkage is ignored by our “anti-war” leadership, in its “actions” against war on Iraq, just as the hideous, ongoing war on
Palestine is given a green light by narrow “progressive” obsession with Iraq and oil.
In all this narrow focus – in the 1991 “No Blood for Oil” rallies, in the “No War on Afghanistan rallies, and again now – the silence about the
primary provocations in Palestine maintains the conditions for endless spin-off wars (and endless feel-good protest festivals), just as it always
has.

Most significantly, all these arguments and more have been presented to prominent peace activism leaders, and to the entire progressive community, for many
months – and they elicit absolutely no rational response at all, nothing even POSED in the forms of reason or information – just threats,
violence, sheer japing mockery, and slander: precisely the terms used by Zionists and by anyone who simply wants to perpetuate a policy that
cannot be defended by any form of ethics or reason whatsoever. (No, I am not exaggerating; it is all thoroughly witnessed, documented, and
recorded – important local history, with names and dates, for all time.)

Mr. Peace Activists’s brief reply to you is the thinnest pretense of “rebuttal,” just a set-up really, for a random, ostensible insult – the “ZOG” slogan.
In his reply to me, last June, he went farther, calling this argument “anti-Semitic,” in classic Zionist style. Your further attempt to reason with
him is necessary, to add to the growing data against Mr. Peace Activist and the neo-racist “progressive” movement.
But all Mr. Peace Activist has to do, as he did to me, when presented the simple and obvious replies to his dodges, is claim not to have the “time”
to respond – another classic Zionist ploy.

All this “proleftive” stuff is just a very thin charade of reason and ethics.
You and I are like the kid at a shell-game who looks away from the huckster’s distracting hand-gestures, sees the hole in the counter, says
“Hey Mister,” and finds himself swatted and chased away: “Get away kid, you bother me!” Our appeals to those standing around only bring
laughter and scorn.

No; they MAINLY bring laughter and scorn. There are more and more like you and me all the time. We need to start making a REAL “peace
and justice coalition,” start building a REAL progressive movement – one that is capable of objecting, when our own taxes fund unspeakable
and inexcusable crimes.

The existing organizations, represented by people like Mr. Peace Activist, certainly are part of the problem. They are active in their support for
violent state-racism and they cannot deny it at all. It is pretentious hypocrisy for progressive to wonder at the “ZOG” question (Zionist
Occupied Government) in the first place. The real problem is the “ZOP” – the Zionist Occupied Peace-movement.

History, truth, and the good intentions (and waking concern) of MANY people, are on our side.

Maybe because identifying Jews in the media and declaring them to be agents of foreign influence is what Nazis do. See http://www.honestreporting.com and http://www.camera.org to read what supporters of Israel think about the media.

Deciding to focus on Israel will attract the kinds of Jew-haters who howl and foam at the mouth about "Zionist Power" (like the ones who post here) and will drive away normal decent people who don't want to be associated with race hate.

With all the "haters", racists, bigots and neo NAZI's who come and post at Indy media....NONE, and I repeat NONE seem to have ever posted "hate" items or cartoons ridiculing blacks, hispanics or any other ethnic or religious group except Jews.

For the last couple years I have only seen "haters" both left and right and neo NAZI's attack only Zionists, Israel and Jews.

Why do you think this?

What if other Internet sites and the media did not censor everything to protect Israel? Would American Jews then begin to understand why ordinary decent Americans are so anxious and alarmed about what racist Zionists and doing to the Palestinians or to this country?

BAGHDAD BY THE BAY
By Brandon Bosworth

The ninth of April is Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time to remember and commemorate the 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Nazis. At the University of California at Berkeley, thoughtful members of the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine marked the somber day by staging protests and carrying signs with slogans such as “Holocaust or Not, Everyone Must be Accountable for Their Actions,” and “Israel Lovers are the Nazis of Our Time.”

Welcome to the Bay Area, arguably America’s capital of leftist anti-Semitism. Herb Caen once referred to San Francisco and its neighboring environs as “Baghdad by the Bay”—a term perhaps more accurate then he realized. He also called the city the “most European” of all U.S. cities. Again, considering Europe’s questionable historical relationship with the Jewish people, Caen seems to have hit the nail right on the head.

As in France, anti-Semitic incidents in the Bay Area are on the rise. In 2002 alone, Jews have been targeted in at least 20 documented incidents. This includes the savage beating of two Orthodox Jewish men walking through Berkeley one weekend in the early part of April. The Temple Beth Jacob in Redwood City was recently vandalized for the second time in two months. Each time the temple was defaced with swastikas, and in one incident the words “Nazi ya!” were painted on the temple windows. On March 22, Molotov cocktails were found on the roof of the San Francisco Temple Beth-Israel Judea, which had been doused with gasoline. On the first day of Passover, a cinder block was thrown through a plate glass window at the Hillel Student Center in Berkeley, and anti-Israel messages were scrawled on the outer walls. The center now must lock all is doors and screen anyone entering.

The true heart of this growing hatred sentiment lies within U.C. Berkeley itself. The campus’s Students for Justice in Palestine is one of the largest anti-Israel student movements in the nation, and they are very active. In April 2001, members took over one of the university’s buildings, Wheeler Hall, for six-hours in an effort to force the University of California to divest its $6 billion worth of holdings in companies that do business in Israel. All entrances were blocked, and students trying to attend classes were told the building was “occupied,” though a few did manage to enter the building by pushing their way in or climbing through windows. It eventually took thirty police officers to restore order, and by the end of the day there had been thirty-two arrests made. This led Shenal Shingavi, who was issued a citation for blocking a doorway, to whine, “It’s really disgusting that they are willing to do this to people protesting peacefully.” In a statement released on the day of the building’s seizure, the Students for Justice in Palestine issued a statement saying that “the parallels between Israeli and South African Apartheid are very strong.”

The Students for Justice in Palestine have kept themselves busy since then. The group’s 70 or so members (only 10 percent of whom are of Arab decent) have recreated Israeli checkpoints and Palestinian refugee camps, as well as—perhaps in homage to Bertrand Russell—staging “war crimes tribunals” for Israel. They also led a student-run class called “Occupied Palestine.”

September 11 did nothing to dampen their spirits. When a bipartisan “Rally for America” was held on campus less then two weeks after the terror attacks, the Students for Justice in Palestine held a counter-rally. One pro-U.S. speaker’s speech was interrupted by a man yelling, “Go back to Israel!” Signs were posted on university bulletin boards bearing slogans such as “It’s the Jews’ Fault” and “Stop the Jews.”

More recently, on April 9 of this week, while the university’s Jewish students attempted to honor Holocaust Remembrance Day by quietly reading aloud the names of those who had died at the Nazis’ hands, the Students for Justice in Palestine staged a protest and spewed their anti-Israel rhetoric only 50 yards away. They told anyone who would listen that the current situation in the Middle East is much like the Holocaust—except the Palestinians are now the victims. Pamphlets were passed out accusing Israel of murdering Palestine’s children. And, just like the year before, a building was seized; only this time Palestinian flags were flown from the window. About 1,000 students took part in this latest “occupation,” though only 79 were arrested.

To those with only a passing knowledge of the ways of the radical campus Left, it might seem peculiar that U.C. Berkeley—a campus that supposedly stresses “tolerance” and “diversity”—would be the home of such blatant anti-Jewish sentiment. But it isn’t really peculiar at all. Berkeley has long been at the forefront of anti-Americanism; from the sixties when students spoke out in favor of our enemies is Vietnam to more recent condemnations on the U.S.’s war for survival against terrorism (66 Berkeley professors signed an ad in the New York Times condemning our efforts in Afghanistan). And of course, many students at Berkeley have long held disdain for our system of liberty and the free-market, as can be seen by the seen by the rise in demonstrations against capitalism disguised as demonstrations against globalization.

In modern history, many of the arguments that have fueled anti-Semitism have been used to fuel anti-Americanism as well. For example, the writings of nineteenth-century German professor Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl blamed the Jews for the advance of bourgeois values and the destruction of local values and culture. The anti-globalist crowd makes similar allegations against America. Hitler held a particular loathing for the U.S. because he felt the nation was “too Jewish” in character. A stronger parallel can be found in France. Tony Judt, in his book Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals, 1944-1956, Judt notes that Jews are associated with capitalism and industry and thus modernity, something many left-wingers loathe. America, a nation build on capitalism and industry, was therefore a natural target of scorn. French intellectuals, writes Judt, believed “Jews (like Americans) were rootless, connected only to their means of livelihood and to the present” and that “Jews (like Americans) necessarily lacked taste and refinement….” Because of “their access to wealth,” Jews “broke the natural bond between material power and central authority so that (like Americans) they could now pollute Western culture with their purchasing power and their preferences.” These arguments differ little then the arguments made in Leftist publications such as Z or on campuses such as U.C. Berkeley, except the blatant anti-Semitism has been replaced by blatant anti-Americanism.

Behind the students’ so-called “calls for justice” there lies something deeper. There lies hatred; one ancient (hatred of Jews), one modern (hatred of America.)

In his book Modern Times, historian Paul Johnson’s observed, that in Weimar Germany, “the students were more anti-Semitic than either the working class or the bourgeoisie.” That seems to be the case in Berkley today as well.

because no one cares. go away.

It is capitalism, in particular, the profit motive, that is the problem. It is capitalist hegemony (note correct spelling; in fact, please do a Spell Check before posting) that is the problem.

And the rich do not pay enough taxes. In fact, they are now being given a gift of major tax cut by their loyal lackey in the White House, who will also benefit as he is rich too, of course. It is the poor who pay lots of taxes and should not pay any. In fact, all whose incomes are less than $75,000 per year should not have to pay any income taxes as all we pay is the war tax. The workingclass did not pay taxes before WW2. The government started taxing us to pay for the war economy, which we have had since December 7, 1941.

As to the miserable little hellhole called Israel of 4 million people, it is simply a US military base that exists to protect US oil profits in the Middle East. The Zionist government of Israel is by definition a racist, theocratic, anti-labor, anti-gay, anti-women militaristic little fiefdom in the American capitalist empire. Historically, the Zionists were the collaborators with European imperialism, the Nazis and now the American imperialists, all of whom are or were proud promoters of capitalism and proud opponents of communism. So much for the Israel garbage.

For more on the Zionists and their collaboration with the Nazis, see:
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/

By the way, Lenni Brenner has a fabulous new book now available in bookstores called 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis (Barricade Books, http://www.barricadebooks.com) ISBN 1-56980-235-1.

WARNING TO ALL ON ANTI-SEMITISM: The Zionists know the history of anti-Semitism very well, as does the rest of the Jewish community, including this writer. Keep away from all theories of "Jewish control" as you will certainly fall into the reactionary mode of anti-Semitism.

As to the composition of the Jewish community and its alleged control of the US government :

1. The United State is a country of 287 million people.

2. In the United States, there are about 5,600,000 who claim to believe in the Jewish religion, according to various almanacs. These are probably the people who show up at the temple. Since the overwhelming majority of Jewish temples are by definition pro-Israel, we can safely assume that at least 5 million people who are officially counted as Jews are Zionists.

3. A small percentage of those 5 million contribute significant sums to Israel and to American politicians, mostly Democrats, but significantly to Republicans too. All the money combined cannot compare to the US budget and cannot pay for Israel’s existence. It is not possible for the Zionists to direct US policy, and that is not their goal. Their goal, like all other capitalists, is to promote capitalism.

4. The overwhelming majority of Jews in the United States are atheists of Jewish descent and do not contribute any money to Israel or the Democrat-Republicans, including this writer. We cannot and will deny our ancestry as that explains why our ancestors came here and most importantly, we too are daily victims of anti-Semitism.

Rather than waste precious time and this website on anti-Semitic “Jewish control” garbage, it is best to spend your time promoting the elimination of capitalism by organizing a labor movement, for that is what we need the most in this country. The basic contradiction is between labor and capital and only a labor movement can put an end to this stench called capitalism and its endless wars. Always remember that it is LABOR THAT CREATES ALL WEALTH and both the capitalist class and the workingclass are INTERNATIONAL.

For a radical Jewish American voice read Michael Neumann:

Michael Neumann's Israel-Palestine Page
http://members.tripod.com/~mneumann/mnisrael.htm

esp:
Demonstrating a Genteel Reticence
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann1109.html
I can only guess about what the big problem is. Maybe the demonstrators know what would happen if they--as our baseball-capped selves would say--'did the right thing' and screamed for an active, armed US-Arab-Palestinian alliance. All those wonderful, courageous Jewish marchers who weep for the children of Palestine would pack their bags, go home and bolt the door behind them. They wouldn't call; they wouldn't write. And just as the Jewish left can't face up to the tribalism in its soul, so the American left simply can't face up to the tribalism in its midst. So Israel can kill and starve Palestinians to its heart's content, secure in the knowledge that no one will do anything to help them. The louder the world roars its disapproval, the more contentedly it will go back to watching the Simpsons, basking in the warmth of its own hot air.


Pro-Palestinian Activists and the Palestinians
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0820.html
If the situation of the Palestinians seems hopeless, it is not simply because of what Israel does. It is also because most pro-Palestinian activists, while complaining unceasingly about the American-Israeli alliance, spare no effort to maintain it. They do so because they are wedded to conventional left-wing assumptions.

The irony is that left can't stand up to Zionism because of the immense number of truly deranged people who are obsessed with Jews. All it would take is a few speakers or placards attacking "the jewish media" or "rich jewish bankers" and the entire rally would be painted as a racist hatefest. These jew-haters are really the best weapon Zionists have in America.

ZOM! That's right ZOM.

Zionist Occupied Media.

And it is true! No one can deny it! Ha! Yeah, just try it! What a joke! We all know it's true.

This is part of why so many Americans who are non-Jewish don't know the first thing about Zionism and how racist it is! But many are starting to "get it". The sooner the better for the world.

Down with racism!! Down with Zionism!!!

--"The ninth of April is Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time to remember and commemorate the 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Nazis."

It's ironic that Holocaust Rememberance Day falls on the exact day Zionists led by Menachem Begin committed the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin in 1948.

---------------------
From Joseph Sobran:
“Deir Yassin was a small Arab village just outside Jerusalem,” write George and Douglas Ball in their book The Passionate Attachment. “It had stayed out of the [Jewish-Arab] struggle and, wishing to be neutral, its inhabitants had entered into a mutual nonaggression pact with the neighboring Jews. They had also agreed not to harbor those attacking the Jews.

“Yet the village was almost the first to suffer the horror of Plan Dalet, which went into effect on April 1, 1948. It called for the destruction and evacuation of twenty villages in order to purge the land of Palestinian inhabitants by gaining ‘control of areas given to us by the UN in addition to areas occupied by us which were outside these borders.’”

On April 9 the irregular forces of the Irgun, led by Israel’s future prime minister Menachem Begin, slaughtered nearly all the residents of the nearly defenseless village. Many survivors of the first assault, all civilians, were marched into the village square, lined up against a wall, and shot. A Red Cross representative arrived while the violence was still in progress; he found 254 dead, including 145 women, 35 of whom were pregnant.

A few of the Arabs of Deir Yassin were still alive. The Balls write, “The other surviving women and children were stripped, and with their hands above their heads, paraded in three open trucks up and down King George V Avenue in Jewish Jerusalem, where spectators spat on them and stoned them.”

This had the desired effect. As word of the massacre spread, hundreds of Arabs fled the land. They have never been allowed to return to their homes. Their houses were destroyed and their property distributed to Jews.
-Joe Sobran
http://www.sobran.com/columns/020917.shtml

One of the most disgraceful moments in the left's history was it's complete and utter failure to call on ending aid to Israel in 1982 when Israel was busily slaughtering 20,000 Lebanese that summer. Noam Chomsky notes this silence as well as many liberals actual support of the invasion in his book on the subject -- "The Fateful Triangle."

See Noam Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle:"
http://www.infotrad.clara.co.uk/antiwar/fatefultri.html
or
http://www.littleredbutton.com/lebanon/
Eyewitness evidence of 91 international correspondents

The best resource on this is the 1983 issue of Race and Class which was devoted entirely to this invasion.
"Race and Class" Vol. XXIV (Volume 24), No. 4, Spring 1983. This can be found in most research libraries (university libraries).

Also, Noam Chomsky's "Pirates and Emperors" is a great source on this invasion and especially terrorism in general.

The subject is taboo? Typical activist hysteria. IMC is a hub for activists and considering one out of every 2 threads is about this subject this complaint is just the knee jerk reaction of a lefty to cry conspiracy

"Taboo" seems here to be a code word for "How come the rest of the world isn't as obsessed with Jews as I am?"

@%<

Why Gerig? Cause they don't want to look at what is being done in the name of Allah- it goes against their dogmatic ideology to judge Muslims as critically. And that is because they are cowards, intellectually and ethically void.

By the way, if you're interested in more Joe Sobran, you might want to take a look at the essays on Holocaust denier David Irving's website where Sobran steps out to Irving's defense.

You know, folks, the number of sites that the rabidly anti-Zionist types quote from which also contain overt antisemitism is surprisingly high, high enough that I'm starting to wonder if it's on purpose -- that is, whether the swastika-kissing types are playing mindfuck with you and you don't know it.

@%<

Lets face it -communism and socialism are dead. The anti-cop anti-prison movement will never get much popular support. And environmentalism isn't a real motivating force. What the left needs is a new focus - a focus on Jews. By focusing on the evil of the existance of Israel and on powerful Jews in the media, government and industry, the new left can unite muslims, blacks, the poor, angry white man and idealistic college students. This is the way of the future - we have seen it work before and it will work again.

Case in point.

@%<

You are the nut "case" with the "point"y head.

I rest my case. Get the point?

You anti-Semite (anti-Arab) Zionist, you.

Yes, but _everything_ looks like "roorback" to you. That's one of your, uh, characteristics. And I'm sure the antisemite who posted it was happily counting on you to run interference for him.

@%<

But there is a world of difference between "suspect" and "guilty until proven innocent" -- a world of difference you can be counted on to ignore in all but the most hypothetical cases, because it gives you an excuse to rage some more against The Zi-i-i-ionists.

@%<

Gehrig writes “Case in point” is response to this sick and racist right-wing comment by Nate, “What the left needs is a new focus - a focus on Jews. By focusing on the evil of the existance of Israel and on powerful Jews in the media, government and industry, the new left can unite muslims, blacks, the poor, angry white man and idealistic college students. This is the way of the future - we have seen it work before and it will work again.”

Gehrig seems to be the IMC resident anti-Semitic expert. He claims to visit numerous anti-Semitic sites. Is it to pick up ideas on how to attack and smear anyone who dares to say anything critical of Israel? Perhaps like most IMC readers, I have never visited the evil sites he appears to be familiar with. I do not personally know anyone, Moslem or Christian who believes that Israel existence is evil. However, that Israeli Jews do many evil things is well documented by many international witnesses and human rights groups--unfortunately too many Israeli supporters are in denial.

To project an unbiased image concerning his thoughts on the Mideast, Gehrig bravely attacks Sharon, just as he ridicules all who dare to be critical of Israel’s murderous occupation, condemned by many world leaders with great credentials.

S makes the paranoid comment that “The subject is taboo? Typical activist hysteria. IMC is a hub for activists and considering one out of every 2 threads is about this subject this complaint is just the knee jerk reaction of a lefty to cry conspiracy.” This absurdity draws another smear from Gehrig, aimed at all Israeli critics. Perhaps he ahould do another reading of the Uri Avnery comment.

Most human activist have a specific area of interest that concerns them. It seems obvious that Gehrig’s area is concerned with his version of anti-Semitism. And, that’s a valid concern. My focus has to do almost entirely with issues of war and peace--and that is what I write about. Having served in an infantry squad that was wiped out in North Korea, I know something about the worst evil-doers in this world. They are not the real or the phony anti-Semites--they are the war-profiteers who promote and make all wars possible.

Kofi Annan has called the Middle East the most dangerous place in the world. With a war-criminal, and a thief in charge of Israel’s rogue nuclear stockpile (funded with American dollars) we should be vocal about this danger. Also, in America we have an immature gunslinger in charge of an even much bigger stockpile of weapons-of-mass destruction. The time to discuss these threats to world peace from these two racist countries is now--before deadly, high-tech bombers that can kill millions of innocent human beings have been launched.

Peace

Gehrig writes “Case in point” is response to this sick and racist right-wing comment by Nate, “What the left needs is a new focus - a focus on Jews. By focusing on the evil of the existance of Israel and on powerful Jews in the media, government and industry, the new left can unite muslims, blacks, the poor, angry white man and idealistic college students. This is the way of the future - we have seen it work before and it will work again.”

Gehrig seems to be the IMC resident anti-Semitic expert. He claims to visit numerous anti-Semitic sites. Is it to pick up ideas on how to attack and smear anyone who dares to say anything critical of Israel? Perhaps like most IMC readers, I have never visited the evil sites he appears to be familiar with. I do not personally know anyone, Moslem or Christian who believes that Israel existence is evil. However, that Israeli Jews do many evil things is well documented by many international witnesses and human rights groups--unfortunately too many Israeli supporters are in denial.

To project an unbiased image concerning his thoughts on the Mideast, Gehrig bravely attacks Sharon, just as he ridicules all who dare to be critical of Israel’s murderous occupation, condemned by many world leaders with great credentials.

S makes the paranoid comment that “The subject is taboo? Typical activist hysteria. IMC is a hub for activists and considering one out of every 2 threads is about this subject this complaint is just the knee jerk reaction of a lefty to cry conspiracy.” This absurdity draws another smear from Gehrig, aimed at all Israeli critics. Perhaps he ahould do another reading of the Uri Avnery comment.

Most human activist have a specific area of interest that concerns them. It seems obvious that Gehrig’s area is concerned with his version of anti-Semitism. And, that’s a valid concern. My focus has to do almost entirely with issues of war and peace--and that is what I write about. Having served in an infantry squad that was wiped out in North Korea, I know something about the worst evil-doers in this world. They are not the real or the phony anti-Semites--they are the war-profiteers who promote and make all wars possible.

Kofi Annan has called the Middle East the most dangerous place in the world. With a war-criminal, and a thief in charge of Israel’s rogue nuclear stockpile (funded with American dollars) we should be vocal about this danger. Also, in America we have an immature gunslinger in charge of an even much bigger stockpile of weapons-of-mass destruction. The time to discuss these threats to world peace from these two racist countries is now--before deadly, high-tech bombers that can kill millions of innocent human beings have been launched.

Peace

Uh-oh, let's see what that nogoodnik Gehrig's up to.

"He claims to visit numerous anti-Semitic sites."

Not antisemitic sites as such, just Holocaust denial sites. As part of a personal effort to make the Internet as useless as possible for those who try to spread Holocaust denial. Take a look at the Google archives, and you'll see about seven years of my posts in alt.revisionism -- all of them signed with my own name and "@%<". If I've become familiar with some of the leading organizations of neo-Nazism, it's because they have a tendence to try to recruit in alt.revisionism, so I've had many a chance to see their bollocks.

My interest in the peculiar aberration of Holocaust denial was initially just the same love of pseudoscholastic crackpottery that makes me also study creationists' "scholarly" arguments against evolution. There is nothing funnier than seeing a drooling Nazi pretend to be a historical scholar. However, my interest picked up considerably with the events leading up to the David Irving trial.

So here's the state of play. There is serious debate on this site about the relationship of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. There are those who claim that something anti-Zionist _cannot be_ antisemitic: "I'm not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist." (As if someone can't be both.) There is broad consensus -- here and elsewhere -- that Holocaust denial (David Irving/Freddy Leuchter/Ernst Zundel etc.) is inherently antisemitic, undefensible, and as such it becomes a good measure -- and, importantly, one independent of Mideast politics -- to determine whether or not a site is antisemitic.

So what happens when I apply that measure to sites cited here about Zi-i-i-ionism? Well, you know the result.

And I have done this with enough consistency, and with enough pointed commentary about how sanguine progressives seem to be about becoming fellow travelers with Holocaust deniers, that we are now at the predictable point where rene is trying to blame the messenger.

Which he does as follows:

"Is it to pick up ideas on how to attack and smear anyone who dares to say anything critical of Israel?"

Is that what you think I'm doing? Maybe you should read closer. I have made it clear many times in this group that I believe there's nothing wrong with Ariel Sharon that can't be cured by a falling piano; I've hated him since June of 1982. I have given my thanks to the folks of Yesh G'Vul and B'Tselem. I've supported the concept of a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel, since the mid-80's. If you think that all Zionists think alike, of course, none of that will matter to you.

The anti-Zionists I _do_ criticize here, though, are the ones who try to oversimplify everything down to black hats and white hats -- noble Palestinian freedom fighter, e-e-evil Zionist IDF fascist. The ones who think that the answer is simply to do everything imaginable to demonize Israel and them wicked Zi-i-i-ionists, and so what if it starts bleeding over into overt antisemitism. That's about as intellectually fulfilling as an Ann Coulter column, except with the black hats and the white hats switched.

"I do not personally know anyone, Moslem or Christian who believes that Israel existence is evil."

Yet this site is full of posts saying exactly that. And nobody bats an eye. Except for Nessie, who only bats an eye long enough to blame those posts on tricky Zionists in disguise.

"To project an unbiased image concerning his thoughts on the Mideast, Gehrig bravely attacks Sharon, just as he ridicules all who dare to be critical of Israel's murderous occupation, condemned by many world leaders with great credentials."

Well, you're starting to tie yourself in a knot here. If I do indeed -- as you put it earlier -- "attack and smear anyone who dares to say anything critical of Israel," then I should be beating myself up, too, right? Pardon me if I am insufficiently flagellant for you.

I too think the occupation is horrific, and look forward to the day that the Palestinians have so totally renounced violence that Israel can actually start to believe they mean it, and can commence withdrawing from the West Bank in exactly the same way they withdrew from the Sinai twenty years ago, when Egypt renounced violence, not just in word, Arafat-style, but in deed.

@%<

Gehrig, I am not dumb enough to debate you on anything to do with Holocaust deniers. I know little about that subject, and I’m not interested in doing a seven year search on the integrity of your work in this area. In my opinion there are more important and timely issues to debate--such as all current issues of war and peace.

Regarding your defense of a racist statement, you write “Yet this site is full of posts saying exactly that. And nobody bats an eye.” Your comment probably indicates your own prejudices in seeing only what you want to see. I see many wild anti-Israel and also anti-Palestinian post on this site, and on other IMC sites. I also see many responses to these wildly nutty postings. That you only see attacks on “evil Israel” while being blind to the many attacks on Palestinians (including yours) is not a sign of a great scholar.

You say that the occupation is horrific and I agree. What I also find horrific is your suggestion that Palestinians should “totally renounced violence’ while you can completely ignore any stop to the much more murderous Israeli violence against all Palestinians.

Lastly, for you to compare the one year Suez-Sinai war and occupation with the 50-year occupation of Palestine is a bit infantile. I won’t bore you with all the details, but perhaps you should stick to your believable expertise on holocaust denials.

Peace

If the palestinkians were human beings, they would have made homes for themselves after 55 years. They and their arab brothers have trillions of dollars in oil money and 99% of the land in the middle east.

rene: "Regarding your defense of a racist statement"

Whoa, there, pardner, is that really what you meant to say?

rene: "That you only see attacks on "evil Israel" while being blind to the many attacks on Palestinians (including yours) is not a sign of a great scholar."

Ah, so if I don't comment on something in every post, that means I'm pretending it doesn't exist? Not half an hour ago I responded to a racist post against Islam. You're trying to turn me into something I'm not, rene, because you disagree with me politically. Do I comment more on the antisemtic posts? Yes I do -- but that is because I think I'm bringing new information to the discussion, in the form of those comments about what _else_ is on those sites. But I am no more constrained to react to every anti-Islamic post than you are to react to every antisemitic post.

And you're also verging on oversimplification again. There is, in my view, a world of difference between saying "Palestinians are animals" and saying "Arafat's fantastic ineptitude and power-hunger is one of the key factors preventing the creation of the state the Palestinians deserve, and has been since the sad day in 1964 when the PLO first came into being." So you'll do me the favor of not lumping me into the category of those who say "fuck Islam," in the same way that I'll do you the favor of not lumping you in with those who say "kill the kikes."

rene: "Lastly, for you to compare the one year Suez-Sinai war and occupation with the 50-year occupation of Palestine is a bit infantile. I won't bore you with all the details, but perhaps you should stick to your believable expertise on holocaust denials. "

Here's a hint: if you're trying to go for condescension, you should first make sure you've got a better grip on the facts than the person you're trying to be condescending to. Israel captured the Sinai peninsula during the Six-Day War in 1967 -- when it was primarily desert -- built cities, roads, houses, hospitals, struck oil (!) that Egypt didn't know it had, and then gave it all to Egypt, in its considerably improved condition, as part of the Camp David Accord. If I remember right, the last issue under international arbitration -- i.e. peaceful resolution -- was the refurbished resort city of Taba; Israel withdrew its claim to Taba in 1982 (if I remember right). So, unless 1982 minus 1967 is 1, I think that your refering to it as a "one-year war and occupation" betrays a lack of basic information. But, as you put it, "I won't bore you with details" -- although in this case at least I seem to be in a better position to say such a thing.

And that lack of information is particularly damaging in this case, I should mention, because it ignores an important historical precedent. For peace that was really peace, not words-of-peace-with-belt-bombs-attached, Israel pulled up its settlements and walked away from a vast area of land. Why? Because Sadat was able to do what Arafat simply can't -- convince Israel that he really means it when he says "peace."

Israel simply isn't going to end the occupation while it believes that, in doing so, it will be allowing a new world capital of terror to be built right next door, only miles from its major population centers. And unless you're more Candide than Candide, there is every reason to believe that, thanks to groups like Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa "Martyrs," that an Israeli withdrawal now would instantly lead to the Republic of Beltbombistan. There's a power vacuum in the West Bank. Do you think _Arafat_ will fill it, or do you think it will be the folks who are already the defacto leaders, the ones setting the agenda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa? Romanticize all you want, but the fact remains. And that is why each beltbombing pushes the creation of the Palestinian state -- which is what the majority of Israelis believe will be the ultimate outcome, incidentally, just as the rest of the world does -- that much further into the future.

@%<

Compare this

“”Why is the subject of Zionism a taboo subject…. ?””

and this :

“””Why Is It?
by Not about hate • Sunday January 12, 2003 at 03:24 PM

For the last couple years I have only seen "haters" both left and right and neo NAZI's attack only Zionists, Israel and Jews.”””


THe previous messages are typical racist excuse. .
Notice how they first denies there is a problem, then claims its the fault of the jews, and then says who cares anyway.

That's exactly it. The “left” and right racist is willing to accept total and utter lies about Israel and jews, yet is totally blind to their own sever jew-hating problem.

is that this was written by a guy actually named Mamhoud.

Stop insulting our intelligence. Do you think we were born yesterday?

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555696.php

gehrig: As you must know, the Israelis had a couple sneak attacks on the Egyptians that led to the takeover of the Sinai peninsula. The first war often called the Suez-Sinai war (1956), followed the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Nasser.

That operation done jointly with France and Great Britain turned into a farce when both America and Russia objected to that military adventurism. After occupying the entire Sinai and Gaza area the IDF withdrew within a year. I did use the correct name on that war and it was a one year deal.

Based on your comments and on another reading of your post, it is apparent that you were referring to the war of 1967 when Israel launched a massive attack on its neighbors and again took over all of Palestine, Gaza and the Sinai peninsula, and occupied it for 15 years.

However, I stand by my statement that it is infantile to compare the current situation with the war of 1956 (or the war of 1967). Not surprisingly, you imply Israel’s generosity in giving to Egypt all they had built in the Sinai, while conveniently leaving out that Israel never paid compensation to Egypt for the destruction from its war of aggression.

Despite your nasty comments regarding Sharon, your thinking is not very different. Like Sharon, you blame Arafat for all the problems and terrorism, and you make the Sharon like comment that "Arafat's fantastic ineptitude and power-hunger is one of the key factors preventing the creation of the state the Palestinians deserve, and has been since the sad day in 1964 when the PLO first came into being."

It is insane for anyone to think that Arafat can or should control all Palestinians at a time when he is virtually without any resource of any kind. The Israeli IDF routinely bombs and kills all of his police force and he can't even travel from one town to another. The Palestinians cannot compete with F16s, tanks, armored bulldozers helicopter gunships and a pile of nukes. All they have to fight with are third-world type arms and low-tech bombs. They cannot compete militarily or economically with the deadly Israel-U.S. combo. They can only compete in the world of public opinion and with the bravery of their young people who fight and die for freedom.

You ask, “There's a power vacuum in the West Bank. Do you think _Arafat_ will fill it, or do you think it will be the folks who are already the defacto leaders, the ones setting the agenda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa?” Are you being a bit inconsistent? I thought you and Sharon blamed Arafat for everything. If he is not the real leader, how can you blame him for everything?

In my mind, there is a problem with leadership in both the Israeli and the Palestinian populations. I am not optimistic of a quick solution on either side of the green line. At least the Israelis have a better shot at it, since the Palestinians to not send out goon suicide squads to murder new, potential leadership on the other side.

Peace

rene: "As you must know, the Israelis had a couple sneak attacks on the Egyptians that led to the takeover of the Sinai peninsula. The first war often called the Suez-Sinai war (1956)..."

Yet context oughta make it pretty clear that this isn't what I was talking about when I brought up the end of the occupation of the Sinai peninsula. It's frustrating to see such major sacrifices for peace as the relinquishing of the Sinai peninsula flushed down the progressive memory hole.

But then you get it:

rene: "Based on your comments and on another reading of your post, it is apparent that you were referring to the war of 1967 when Israel launched a massive attack on its neighbors and again took over all of Palestine, Gaza and the Sinai peninsula, and occupied it for 15 years."

Well, I think the operative phrase here is "no duh," hell yes I meant 1967, as anyone with more knowledge of Mideast history than can be gotten from the back of the average cereal box can see, although I notice that you have rewritten things enough, unsurprisingly, to make the 1967 war Israel's fault.

So here's the question. If Israel is really the wicked Zi-i-i-ionist imperialist state, how exactly does that correlate with their giving to Egypt as part of a peace treaty a vast area of land it won, in a war, fair and square, and then developed at its own expense?

The answer, of course, is that it does not, and that is why Camp David has been sucked down the progressive memory hole so completely that you could bobble the reference to the Camp David Accord when I brought it up (with the explicit words "twenty years ago," to which you responded with a misguided reference to a 1956 incident that verges on the half-century-ago).

rene: "Despite your nasty comments regarding Sharon, your thinking is not very different."

Then you aren't reading me very well. Like Sharon, I believe 1+1 = 2. Do you? I think even Hitler might have drawn the same mathematical conclusion. And like Sharon, I think that Arafat's ineptitude has been paid for in the blood of both sides. That doesn't make me a Sharonite or a Likudnik; it just makes me an observer who isn't deluded by romanticizing. Arafat isn't the only tragedy that's befallen the Palestinian people, but you'd have to have swallowed a remarkable amount of propaganda not to see his leadership as at least one of the chief Palestinian tragedies. That's how the Palestinians themselves see it.

If Arafat weren't an abject fool, the Palestinians would have their state decades ago.

So tell me -- given that even the majority of Palestinians now consider Arafat worthless as anything other than a figurehead -- are you now going to be more Palestinian that the Palestinians, and defend Arafat's sorry record of corruption, embezzlement, diplomatic obfuscation ("the policy of say-no, say-yes," he called it), stall tactics, and (in the Biblical phrase) sitting idly by the blood of his neighbor? Are you now prepared to tell us that Chariman Arafat is a great man, his hands unsullied, and that the Palestinian people are one iota better after nearly four decades of his "leadership"?

If I'm a Sharon-ite for saying so, then the majority of Palestinians are also Sharon-ites. Did you catch, for example, Arafat's decision not to visit Jenin after the siege was lifted? Do you know why? Because he knew that if he did, _he_ would be the subject of the protests, since even the Palestinians knew that it was _his_ ineptitude which led to the Israeli recapture of the West Bank.

rene: "It is insane for anyone to think that Arafat can or should control all Palestinians at a time when he is virtually without any resource of any kind."

This comment only makes sense if you believe history began in 2003. Arafat had an embarrassment of riches in the years after Oslo, more international funding than he knew what to do with -- although he would later learn how to embezzle at least five million dollars to Tunisia -- but dear Chairman Arafat, at the top of his game and with more international recognition as a statesman than he's had either before or since, fumbled the ball. All words, no follow-through. When the Palestinian Authority's policing forces were at full strength and flush with international cash, they sorta got too busy -- you know how it is, we wuz just tooo busy -- to do any actual, you know, crackdowns on Palestinian violent extremists of the "Hey, kids! Let's build a belt bomb!" variety.

Sorry, history makes that one pretty darn plain: when the going got tough, Arafat's men sat on their thumbs. When the going got tougher, there they were, still sitting on their thumbs. When international pressure -- not just from the US and Israel -- showed deep frustration at Arafat's perfunctory and reluctant gestures toward clamping down on Palestinian belt-bomb-building extremists, Arafat's men changed their approach, one-eighty, and sat on their _other_ thumbs. And then, when push came to shove and Israel got tired of sending the crews to mop up after the latest pizzaria was bombed by someone Arafat's well-financed security force was supposed to have arrested half a decade ago, rene stepped in and said "golly, how can you expect Arafat to do _anything_? How unfair! You Sharon-ite!"

rene: "The Palestinians cannot compete with F16s, tanks, armored bulldozers helicopter gunships and a pile of nukes."

They absolutely can. One fountain pen would do it. They could easily have a state in accord to UN resolutions and international wishes. It's been theirs for the asking for decades. Instead, they prefer to romanticize, hoping the naive will go along with their romanticized version of "the bravery of their young people who fight and die for freedom" by blowing up pizzarias and dance clubs.

@%<

It's not even worth reading your nonsensical posts anymore. So guess what? I'm not going to!

"""is that this was written by a guy actually named
Mamhoud. """

You're changing the subject.
I guess you don't have anything more to say about my issue.
You should comment my post, not my name.

""""Stop insulting our intelligence."""

The less intelligent people are the more they talking about own "intelligence"
(sources - Science -zine).

Gehrig,
let their racist propaganda article sink and die like it should be.

How was your rally in Oakland yesterday Nessie? I heard that you had over 2000 people there. Anything in the papers?

Dear Rene,
It really was a good one, unfortunately not from your side, you are a prisoner of the prejudices and the stereotypes, your thoughts are completely controlled by prejudgments. Your opinions and points of view are nothing but expected. I read your sentences to the end only to see I shouldn’t have, I was able to guess it on my own. You cannot even defend by saying that this is your “educated” opinions, for yours are ignorant based on lack or superficial knowledge in the history of the conflict (Yes, yes you read a book and a few articles, I am impressed) .

The only reason Ariel Sharon will win the coming elections in Israel is that Israelis blame Arafat for the violence, violence that started before Sharon was elected and in the pick of all picks in the negotiations.
Barak and Clinton have actually put Jerusalem (the eternal capital?…bla bla.. of Israel) on the table for discussions, can you even imagine, everyone ever close to the subject said that this is the ultimate obstacle. Israeli right-wingers threatened enormous demonstrations, columnists and journalists warned from the Pandora box that will be opened. Yet 2 years ago Barak and Clinton put it on the table for Arafat to debate, Israel was quite, huge headlines in the papers, but that was it, no demonstrations, and what seemed to be an amazing acceptance of the Israelis. After the murder of Rabin Israelis seemed to have their share of internal violence for years to come. Barak made the move of a lifetime that ended his career, but not because he made it, he was measured only by the result, and the result was the most vicious cycle of violence Israelis have yet known, and the collapse of the Oslo concept.

"What no one is "willing to accept" is that this was written by a guy actually named Mamhoud (Mahmoud). Stop insulting our intelligence. Do you think we were born yesterday?"

That's right! No one with the name "Mahmoud" would EVER hold the views you do. As so clearly demonstrated by mike a few weeks ago, a black man who holds right-wing viewpoints is a "Uncle Tom Republican". And so it is with someone of Arab descent who holds the viewpoints you hold.

> a black man who holds right-wing viewpoints is a "Uncle Tom Republican"

You got that right.

Gehrig, you are a good Israeli spokesperson and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. It’s your right. Your paroting of the official Israeli versions of the 1967 wars against its neighbors is similar to that of most right-wing, nationalistic Zionist. I hope you will be able to outgrow a version of history based on prejudice and hatred of Arabs and Muslims. Albert Einstein had it right when he said that "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

You write “I notice that you have rewritten things enough, unsurprisingly, to make the 1967 war Israel's fault.” Gehrig, at least you have to be given credit for not defending the 1956 Israeli attack. I’m sure that it’s apparent to you that I am not handicapped by Israeli or American official propaganda. Perhaps a couple quotes from people who knew about the real facts will show that I do not need to rewrite history.

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’ ...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” --Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle.”

Was the 1967 war defensive?

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Gehrig, your Utopian view of an easy Mideast solution would make Pangloss proud. You conclude “They absolutely can. One fountain pen would do it. They could easily have a state in accord to UN resolutions and international wishes. It's been theirs for the asking for decades. Instead, they prefer to romanticize, hoping the naive will go along with their romanticized version of "the bravery of their young people who fight and die for freedom" by blowing up pizzarias and dance clubs.”

The inhumane Sharon could not have said it better. Sadly, it is clear to most knowledgeable people in the world that the racist Israeli government’s idea of a viable Palestinian state is a pitiful joke. Please tell me why Sharon should honor UN resolutions or Geneva Convention protocols? With $100,000,000,000 of our tax dollars from generous politicians who are intimidated by the Jewish lobby and the Jewish dominated media, Sharon can continue his stealing and destruction of Palestinian property, amd his torture, killing and crippling of thousands of innocent Palestinians with relative impunity--but with worldwide condemnation.

The Palestinians (including Arafat) are mostly in favor of the Saudi Peace Plan (Summer 2002). All Mideast Arab states would agree to a full recognition of Israel in return for the Israelis pullback to the 1967 border in accord with UN resolutions--even Bush cheered that plan. Yet, this was immediately shot down by the Israelis. That’s the fact. That’s the history.

Peace

Gehrig, you are a good Israeli spokesperson and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. It’s your right. Your paroting of the official Israeli versions of the 1967 wars against its neighbors is similar to that of most right-wing, nationalistic Zionist. I hope you will be able to outgrow a version of history based on prejudice and hatred of Arabs and Muslims. Albert Einstein had it right when he said that "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

You write “I notice that you have rewritten things enough, unsurprisingly, to make the 1967 war Israel's fault.” Gehrig, at least you have to be given credit for not defending the 1956 Israeli attack. I’m sure that it’s apparent to you that I am not handicapped by Israeli or American official propaganda. Perhaps a couple quotes from people who knew about the real facts will show that I do not need to rewrite history.

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’ ...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” --Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle.”

Was the 1967 war defensive?

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Gehrig, your Utopian view of an easy Mideast solution would make Pangloss proud. You conclude “They absolutely can. One fountain pen would do it. They could easily have a state in accord to UN resolutions and international wishes. It's been theirs for the asking for decades. Instead, they prefer to romanticize, hoping the naive will go along with their romanticized version of "the bravery of their young people who fight and die for freedom" by blowing up pizzarias and dance clubs.”

The inhumane Sharon could not have said it better. Sadly, it is clear to most knowledgeable people in the world that the racist Israeli government’s idea of a viable Palestinian state is a pitiful joke. Please tell me why Sharon should honor UN resolutions or Geneva Convention protocols? With $100,000,000,000 of our tax dollars from generous politicians who are intimidated by the Jewish lobby and the Jewish dominated media, Sharon can continue his stealing and destruction of Palestinian property, amd his torture, killing and crippling of thousands of innocent Palestinians with relative impunity--but with worldwide condemnation.

The Palestinians (including Arafat) are mostly in favor of the Saudi Peace Plan (Summer 2002). All Mideast Arab states would agree to a full recognition of Israel in return for the Israelis pullback to the 1967 border in accord with UN resolutions--even Bush cheered that plan. Yet, this was immediately shot down by the Israelis. That’s the fact. That’s the history.

Peace