AIPACSTANDS FOR

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington is a city of acronyms, and today one of the best-known in Congress is AIPAC. The mere mention of it brings a sober, if not furtive look, to the face of anyone on Capitol Hill who deals with Middle East policy. AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – is now the preeminent power in Washington lobbying. When AIPAC sometimes finds out what Congressmen say about Middle East policy even in private conversations, and those who criticize Israel do so at their political peril. AIPAC is only a part of the Israeli lobby, but in terms of direct effect on public policy it is clearly the most important. It is no overstatement to say that AIPAC has effectively gained control of virtually all of Capitol Hill’s action on Middle East policy. Almost without exception, House and Senate members do its bidding, because most of them consider AIPAC to be the direct Capitol Hill representative of a political force that can make or break their chances at election time. Its promotional literature regularly cites a tribute published in The New York Times : “ The most powerful , best-run and effective foreign policy interest group in Washington. ” A former Congressman, Paul N. “ Pete ” McCloskey puts it more directly : Congress is “ terrorized ” by AIPAC. The Washington presence is only the most visible tip of the lobby. Its effectiveness rests heavily on the foundation built nationally by U.S. Jews, who function through more than 200 national groups. Over the years the pro-Israel lobby has thoroughly penetrated this nation’s governmental system, and the organization that has made the deepest impact is AIPAC, to whom even the president of the United States turns when he has a vexing political problem related to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Most Congressional actions affecting Middle East policy are either approved or initiated by AIPAC. Paul Weyrich, who worked as a Senate aide before becoming a political analyst, details the effectiveness of AIPAC :

It’s a remarkable system they have. If you vote with them, or make a public statement they like, they get the word out fast through their own publications and through editors around the country who are sympathetic to their cause. Of course it works in reverse as well. If you say something they don’t like, you can be denounced or censured through the same network. That kind of pressure is bound to affect Senators’ thinking , especially if they are wavering or need support.

An illustration of lobby power occurred October 3, 1984, when the House of Representatives approved a bill to remove all trade restrictions between the United States and Israel ; 98.5 percent ( 416 ) voted affirmative, despite the strong opposition of the AFL-CIO and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The vote was 416 to 6 on legislation that normally would elicit heavy reaction because of its effect on markets for commodities produced in the United States.

2

As they voted, few were aware of a Commerce Department study which found that the duty-free imports proposed in the bill would cause “ significant adverse effects ” on U.S. producers of vegetables. Because the White House wanted the bill passed, notwithstanding its effects on jobs and markets, the study was classified “ confidential ” and kept under wraps. One Congressman finally pried a copy loose by complaining bitterly and correctly to the White House that AIPAC had secured a copy for its own use. An Ohio Congressman speaks of AIPAC with both awe and concern :

AIPAC is the most influential lobby on Capitol Hill. They are relentless. They know what they’re doing. They have the people for financial resources. They’ve got a lot going for them.

But what distresses me is the inability of American policy-makers, because of the influence of AIPAC, to distinguish between our national interest and Israel’s national interest.

After the 1982 elections, Thomas A. Dine summed up the significance of AIPAC’s achievements : “ Because of that, American Jews are thus able to form our own foreign policy agenda. ” Later, when he reviewed the 1984 election results, Dine credited Jewish money, not votes : “ Early money, middle money, late money. ” He claimed credit for defeating Republican Senators Charles Percy of Illinois and Roger Jepson of Iowa and Democratic Senator Walter Huddleston of Kentucky, all of whom incurred AIPAC wrath by voting for the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. Dine said these successes “ defined Jewish political power for the rest of this century. ”

Columnist Carl Rowan said, “ There are a lot of American Jews with lots of money who learned long ago that they can achieve influence far beyond their numbers by making strategic donations to candidates…. House leadership, principally Speaker “ Tip ” O’Neil, discourages opposition to Israel : “ Nobody in the leadership will say no to the Israeli lobby. Nobody. ”

Stephen J. Solarz, a hard-working Congressman who represents a heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn, prides himself on accomplishing many good things for Israel. Since his first election in 1974, Solarz established a reputation as an intelligent “ eager beaver, ” widely-traveled, aggressive, and totally committed to Israel’s interests. In Committee he seems always bursting with the next question before the witness responds to his first. In a December 1980 newsletter to his constituents, he provided an unprecedented insight into how Israel-despite the budgetary restraints under which the U.S. government labors is able to get ever-increasing aid. Early that year he had started his own quest for increased aid. He reported that he persuaded Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to come to his Capitol Hill office to talk it over. There he threatened Vance with a fight for the increase on the House floor if the administration opposed it in committee. Shortly thereafter, he said Vance sent word that the administration would recommend an increase-of $ 200 million extra in military aid although not as much as Solarz desired. His next goal was to convince the Foreign Affairs Committee to increase the administration’s levels. Solarz felt an increase approved by the committee could be maintained on the House floor. The first step was a private talk with Lee H. Hamilton,

3

chairman of the subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, the panel that would first deal with the request. Tall, thoughtful, scholarly and cautious, Hamilton prides himself on staying on the same “ wavelength ” as the majority whether in committee or on the floor. Never abrasive, he usually works out differences ahead of time and avoids open wrangles. Representing a rural Indiana district with no significant Jewish population, he is troubled by Israel’s military adventures but rarely voices criticism in public. He guards his role as a conciliator. Solarz found Hamilton amenable : “ He agreed to support our proposal to increase the amount of ( military assistance to Israel )… by another $ 200 million. ” That would bring the total increase to $ 400 million. Even more important, Hamilton agreed to support a move to relieve Israel of its obligation to repay any of the $ 785 million in economic aid. The administration had wanted Israel to pay back one-third of the amount. “ As we anticipated, ” Solarz reported, “ with the support of Congressman Hamilton, our proposal sailed through both his subcommittee and the full committee and was never challenged on the floor when the foreign aid bill came up for consideration. ” Democrat Frank Church of Idaho, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Jacobs Javits, senior Republican-both strongly pro-Israeli guided proposals at the same level smoothly through their chamber. Solarz summed up : “ Israel, as a result, will soon be receiving a grand total of $ 660 million more in military and economic aid than it received from the U.S. government last year. ” He reflected upon the magnitude of the achievement : Through a combination of persistence and persuasion, we were able to provide Israel with an increase in military-economic aid in one year alone which is the equivalent of almost three years of contributions by the national UJA ( United Jewish Appeal ).

In his newsletter Solarz said that he sought membership on the Foreign Affairs Committee “ because I wanted to be in a position to be helpful to Israel. ” He explained that, while “ hundreds of members of Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats ” support Israel , “ it is the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, and the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, who are really in a position to make a difference where it counts in the area of foreign aid, upon which Israel is now so dependent. Solarz’s zeal was unabated in September 1984 when, as a member of the House-Senate, conference on Export Administration Act amendment, he demanded in a public meeting to know the legislation’s implications for Israel. He asked Congressman Howard Wolpe, “ Is there anything that the Israelis want from us, or could conceivably want from us that they weren’t able to get ? ” Even when Wolpe responded with a clear “ no, ” Solarz pressed, “ Have you spoken to the ( Israeli ) embassy ? ” Wolpe responded, “ I personally have not. ” but he admitted, “ my office has. ” Then Solarz tried again, “ You are giving me an absolute assurance that they ( the Israelis ) have no reservation at all about this ? ” Finally convinced that Israel was content with the legislation, Solarz relaxed, “ If they have no problem with it, then there is no reason for us to. ” A veteran Ohio Congressman observes :

When Solarz and others press for more money for Israel, nobody wants to say “ No.” You don’t need many examples of intimidation for politicians to realize what the potential is. The Jewish lobby is terrific. Anything it wants, it gets. Jews are educated, often have a lot of money, and vote on the basis of a single issue Israel. They are unique in that respect. For example, anti-abortion supporters are numerous but not that

4

well educated, and don’t have that much money. The Jewish lobbyists have it all, and they are political activists on top of it.

THIS CONGRESSMAN DIVIDES HIS COLLEAGUES INTO FOUR GROUPS :

For the first group, it’s rah, rah, give Israel anything it wants. The second group includes those with some misgivings, but they don’t dare step out of line ; they don’t say anything. In the third group are Congressman who have deep misgivings but who won’t do more than try quietly to slow down the aid to Israel. Lee Hamilton is an example. The fourth group consists of those who openly question U.S. policy in the Middle East and challenge what Israel is doing. Since Findley and McCloskey left, this group really doesn’t exist anymore. Democratic Congressman Mervyn M. Dymally, former lieutenant-governor of California, came to Washington in 1980 with perfect credentials as a supporter of Israel. He says, “ When you look at black America, I rank myself second only to Bayard Rustin in supporting Israel over the past twenty years. ” Short, handsome and articulate, Dymally was the first black American to go to Israel after both the 1967 and 1973 wars. In his successful campaign for lieutenant-governor, he spoke up for Israel in all the statewide Democratic canvasses. He co-founded the Black Americans in Support of Israel Committee, organized pro-Israeli advertising in California newspapers and helped to rally other black officials to the cause. In Congress, he became a dependable vote for Israeli interests as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, in 1982 the pro-Israeli community withdrew its financial support, and the following year the AIPAC organization in California marked him for defeat and began seeking a credible opponent to run against him in 1984. Explaining this sudden turn of events, Dymally cites two “ black marks ” against his pro-Israeli record in Congress. First, he “ occasionally asked challenging questions about aid to Israel in committee ”; although his questions were mild and not frequent, he stood out because no one else was even that daring. Second far more damning in the eyes of AIPAC, he met twice with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Both meetings were unplanned. The first encounter took place in 1981 during a visit to Abu Dhabi, where Dymally had stopped to meet the local minister of planning while on his way back from a foreign policy conference in southern India. The minister told him he had just met with Arafat and asked Dymally if he would like to see him. Dymally recalls, “ I was too chicken to say ‘no,’ but I thought I was safe in doing it. I figured Arafat would not bother to see an obscure freshman Congressman, especially on such short notice. ” To his surprise, Arafat invited him to an immediate appointment. This caused near panic on the part of Dymally’s escort, an employee of the U.S. embassy, who was taking Dymally on his round of appointments in the ambassador’s car, a vehicle bedecked with a U.S. flag on the front fender. Sensitive to the U.S. ban on contact between administration personnel and PLO officials, the flustered escort removed the flag, excused himself and then directed the driver to deliver Dymally to the Arafat appointment. “ He was really in a sweat, ” Dymally recalls. After a brief session with Arafat, he found a reporter for the Arab News Service waiting outside. Dymally told him Arafat expressed his desire for a dialogue with the

5

United States. That night Peter Jennings reported to a nationwide American audience over ABC evening news from London that Dymally had become the first Congressman to meet Arafat since Ronald Reagan became president. The news caused an uproar in the Jewish community, with many Jews doubting Dymally’s statement that the meeting was unplanned. Stella Epstein, a Jewish member of Dymally’s Congressional staff, quit in protest. Dymally met the controversial PLO leader again in 1982 in a similarly coincidental way. He had gone to London with his colleagues, Democrats Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio, Nick Rahall of West Virginia and David E. Bonoir of Michigan, and Republican Paul N. “ Pete ” McCloskey to meet with Lebanese leaders, visit refugee camps and view the effects of the Israeli invasion. Dymally was shocked by what he saw : “ There’s no way you can visit those ( Palestinian ) refugee camps without bleeding a little inside. ” After arrival they accepted an invitation to meet with Arafat, who was then under siege in Beirut. His trouble with the Jewish community grew even worse. Dymally was wrongly accused of voting in 1981 for the sale of AWACS intelligence-gathering aircraft to Saudi Arabia. He actually voted the way the Israeli lobby wanted him to vote, against the sale. Moreover, to make his position explicit, during the House debate he stated his opposition in two separate speeches. He made the second speech, written for him by one of his supporters, Max Mont of the Jewish Labor Committee, Dymally explains, “ because Mont complained that the first was not strong enough.” Only Dymally complained that aid to Israel was too high. “ How can the United States afford to give so much money in view of our economic crisis…to a country that has rejected the President’s peace initiatives and stepped up its settlements in the occupied territories ? ” he demanded.

“ I Do Not Feel As Free ” Dymally’s occasional independence in speaking and voting on Middle East questions predictably brought complaints from Israel’s activists in his home district, and, although they did not succeed in finding a credible candidate to oppose him in 1994, he sees no likelyhood that the breach will be closed. He says membership on the Foreign Affairs Committee is a “ no win ” situation. “ I must confess to you that I do not feel as free to criticize Israel as I do to criticize Trinidad, the island on which I was born, ” Dymally declares. Noting that Trinidad was one of the islands supporting the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, he says his own strong opposition to the invasion did not cause the islanders to turn against him. “ Sure, some of Trinidad’s leaders were unhappy with me. But they are not boycotting my campaign for re-election. In fact, people from that area are putting on a fundraiser in New York for me. They don’t see me as anti-black, anti-Grenada, anti-West Indies. They just disagree with me on the invasion, but they don’t fall out. ” He contrasted this reaction with that of his Jewish critics in California. “ What is tragic is that so many Jewish people misconstrue criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. ” He speaks admiringly of the open criticism of Israeli policy that often occurs within Israel itself : “ It is easier to criticize Israel in the Knesset ( the Israeli parliament ) than it is in the U.S. Congress, here in this land of free speech. ”

6

Fourteen Freshmen Save the Day Under the watchful eye of Israel’s lobby, Congressmen will go to extreme measures to help move legislation providing aid to Israel. Just before Congress adjourned in December 1983, a group of freshmen Democrats helped the cause by taking the extraordinary step of changing their votes in the printed record of proceedings, a step Congressmen usually shun because it makes them look indecisive. This day, however, under heavy pressure from pro-Israel constituents, the first-term members buckled and agreed to switch in order to pass catch-all legislation known as a Continuing Resolution. The resolution provided funds for programs Congress had failed to authorize in the normal fashion, among them aid to Israel. Passage would prevent any interruption in this aid. For once, both the House Democratic leadership and AIPAC were caught napping. Usually in complete control of all legislative activities which relate to Israel, AIPAC failed to detect the brewing rebellion. Concern over the budget deficit and controversial provisions in the bill for Central America led these freshmen Democrats to oppose their own leadership. Unable to offer amendments, they quietly agreed among themselves to oppose the whole package. When the roll was called the big electric board over the speaker’s desk showed defeat the resolution was rejected, 206 to 203. Twenty-four first-term Democrats had deserted the leadership and voted no. Voting no did not mean they opposed Israel aid. Some of them, concerned over the federal deficit, viewed it as a demand to the leadership to schedule a bill raising taxes. For others, it was simply a protest. But for Israel it was serious. “ The Jewish community went crazy, ” a Capitol Hill veteran recalls. AIPAC’s professionals went to work. Placing calls from their offices just four blocks away, they activated key people in the districts of a selected list of the errant freshmen. They arranged for “ quality calls ” to individuals who had played a major role in the recent Congressional election. Each was to place an urgent call to his or her Congressman, insist on getting through personally and use this message :

Approval of the continuing resolution is very important. Without it, Israel will suffer. I am not criticizing your vote against it the first time. I am sure you had reasons. However, I have learned that the same question will come up for vote again, probably tomorrow. I speak for many of your friends and supporters in asking that you change your vote when the question comes up again.

Each person was instructed to report to AIPAC after making the calls. The calls were accordingly made and reported. The House of Representatives took up the question at noon. It was the same language, word for word, which the House had rejected two days before. Silvio Conte, senior Republican on the appropriations Committee, knowing the pressure that had been applied during the debate, challenged the freshmen Democrats to “ stick to their guns ” as “ men of courage. ” Republican leader Bob Michel chided those unable to “ take the heat from high. ” Some of the heat came, of course, from the embarrassed Democratic leadership, but

7

AIPAC was the institution that brought about changes in votes. On critical issues, Congressmen respond to pressures from home, and, in such circumstances, House leaders have little leverage. To Republicans Conte and Michel, the main issue was the need for budgetary restraint. They argued that the measure should be rejected for that reason. During the debate, no one mentioned that day or any other day the influence of the Israeli lobby. The urgent telephone messages from home carried the day. When the roll was called, 14 of the freshmen a bit sheepishly changed their votes. They were : C. Robin Britt of North Carolina, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward F. Feighan of Ohio, Sander M. Levin of Michigan, Frank McCloskey of Indiana, Bruce A. Morrison of Connecticut, James R. “ Jim ” Olin and Norman Sisisky of Virginia, Timothy J. Penny of Minnesota, Harry M. Reid of Nevada, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, John M. Spratt, Jr. of South Carolina and Harley O. Staggers, Jr., of West Virginia. To give the freshmen an excuse they could use in explaining their embarrassing shift, the leadership promised to bring up a tax bill. Everyone knew it was just a ploy : the tax bill had no chance to become law. But the excuse was helpful, and the resolution was approved, 224 to 189. The flow of aid to Israel continued without interruption.

Subsidizing Foreign Competition

The final vote on the Continuing Resolution authorized a remarkable new form of aid to Israel. It included an amendment crafted by AIPAC and sponsored by ardently pro-Israeli Congressmen Clarence Long of Maryland and Jack Kemp of New York that permitted $ 250 million of the military grant aid to be spent in Israel on the development of a new Israeli fighter aircraft, the Lavi. The new fighter would compete for international sales with the Northrop F-20 and the General Dynamics F-16-both specifically designed for export. The amendment authorized privileged treatment Uncle Sam had never before extended to a foreign competitor. It was extraordinary for another reason : it set aside a U.S. law that requires that all foreign aid procurement funds be spent in the United States. During debate of the bill, Democrat Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia was the only Congressman who objected. He saw the provision as threatening U.S. jobs at a time of high unemployment :

Approximately 6,000 jobs would be lost as a direct result of taking the $ 250 million out of the U.S. economy and allowing Israel to spend it on defense articles and services which can just as easily be purchased here in the United States.

Americans are being stripped of their tax dollars to build up foreign industry. They should not have to sacrifice their jobs as well

Since the establishment of modern Israel in 1948, only a handful of Senators have said or done anything in opposition to the policies of the government of Israel. Those who break ranks find themselves in difficulty. The trouble can arise from a speech, an amendment, a vote, a published statement, or a combination of these. It may take the form of a challenge in the next primary or general election.

8

Appearing on CBC television’s “ Face the Nation ” in 1973, Senator J. William Fulbright declared that the Senate was “ subservient ” to Israeli policies which were inimical to American interests. He said the United States bears “ a very great share of the responsibility ” for the continuation of Middle East violence. “ It’s quite obvious ( that ) without the all-out support by the United States in money and weapons and so on, the Israelis couldn’t do what they’ve been doing. ” Fulbright said the United States failed to pressure Israel for a negotiated settlement, because,

The great majority of the Senate of the United States somewhere around 80 percent-are completely in support of Israel, anything Israel wants. This has been demonstrated time and time again, and this has made it difficult for our government.

The Senator claimed that “ Israel controls the Senate ” and warned, “ We should be more concerned about the United States’ interests. ” Six weeks after his “ Face the Nation ” appearance, Fulbright again expressed alarm over Israeli occupation of Arab territories. He charged that the U.S. had given Israel “ unlimited support for unlimited expansion. ”

In a speech just before the end of his Senate term, Fulbright warned, “ Endlessly pressing the United States for money and arms-and invariably getting all and more than she asks-Israel makes bad use of a good friend. ” His central concern was that the Middle East conflict might flare into nuclear war. He warned somberly that “ Israel’s supporters in the United States… by underwriting intransigence, are encouraging a course which must lead toward her destruction-and just possibly ours as well. ” Pondering the future from his office three blocks north of the White House, Fulbright sees little hope that Capitol Hill will effectively challenge the Israeli lobby :

It’s suicide for politicians to oppose them. The only possibility would be someone like Eisenhower who already feels secure. Eisenhower had already made his reputation. He was already a great man in the eyes of the country, and he wasn’t afraid of anybody. He said what he believed.

“ Sins of Omission ”The Israeli lobby’s long string of Capitol Hill victories has been broken only twice during the past twenty-five years. Both setbacks occurred in the Senate and involved military sales to Saudi Arabia. In 1978 the Senate approved the sale of F-15 fighter planes by a vote of 54 to 44, and in 1981 the sale of AWACS ( planes ) by a vote of 52 to 48. Curiously, both controversies entangled the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the politics of the state of Maine.

9

Even president Gerald R. Ford, was dissatisfied with Israeli behavior, he had issued a statement calling for a “ reappraisal ” of U.S. policies in the Middle East. His statement did not mention Israel by name as the offending party, but, his message was clear : Ford wanted better cooperation in reaching a compromise with Arab interests, and “ reappraisal ” meant suspension of U.S. aid until Israel improved its behavior. It was a historic proposal, the first time since Eisenhower that a United States president even hinted publicly that he might suspend aid to Israel. Israel’s response came, not from its own capital, but from the United States Senate. Instead of relying on a direct protest to the White House, Jerusalem activated its lobby in the United States, which, in turn, signed up as supporters of Israel’s position more than three-fourths of the members of the United States Senate. A more devastating and intimidating response could scarcely be conceived. The seventy-six signatures effectively told Ford he could not carry out his threatened “ reappraisal. ” Israel’s loyalists in the Senate-Democrats and Republicans alike were sufficient in number to reject any legislative proposal hostile to Israel that Ford might make, and perhaps even enact a pro-Israeli piece of legislation over a presidential veto. The letter was a demonstration of impressive clout. Crafted and circulated by AIPAC, it had been endorsed overnight by a majority of the Senate membership. Several Senators who at first had said “ No ” quickly changed their positions. Senator John Culver admitted candidly, “ The pressure was too great. I caved. ” So did President Ford. He backed down and never again challenged the lobby.

Once, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles replied to Republican Senator William Knowland “ We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem. ” Dulles also told Henry Luce, owner of Time, Inc. and a supporter of Israel’s position, “ I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. ”

Early in 1983, Jesse L. Jackson began traveling the country as a “ non-candidate ” but already drumming up interest in a “ rainbow coalition ” of interest groups. At a time when prospective candidates often try to blur controversial statements made in the past, Jackson reiterated his recommendation that the United States open a dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization. In a statement over New York television he said the United States can best help Israel by supporting the creation of a Palestinian homeland. Until that happens, he said, Palestinians will engage in “ more acts of terrorism, more acts of desperation. ” He urged direct U.S. talks with the PLO to get the peace process

10

moving, but he said our diplomats cannot even discuss this option, because “ intimidation is so great ” in the United States. These statements put him at odds with most Jewish leaders. He proved that a black man could be a credible candidate for the nation’s highest office, even while supporting positions strongly opposed by the Israeli lobby. In doing so, he lifted the self-esteem of two ethnic groups often abused or neglected in U.S. society : blacks and Arab Americans.

Israel Finds the Ammunition--in Hawaii !

In its 1973 Yom Kippur war against Egypt and Syria, Israel sustained heavy losses in weapons of all kinds, especially tanks, more than 400 of them. It looked to the United States for the quickest possible resupply. Henry Kissinger was their avenue. Richard Nixon was entangled in the Watergate controversy and soon to leave the presidency, but under his authority the government agreed to deliver substantial quantities of tanks to Israel. Tanks were to be taken from the inventory of U.S. military units on active duty, reserve units, even straight off production lines. Nothing was held back in the effort to bring Israeli forces back to desired strength as quickly as possible. Israel wanted only the latest-model tanks equipped with 105 millimeter guns. But a sufficient number could not be found even by stripping U.S. forces. The Pentagon met the problem by filling part of the order with an earlier model fitted with 90-millimeter guns. When these arrived, the Israelis grumbled about having to take “ second-hand junk. ” Then they discovered they had no ammunition of the right size and sent an urgent appeal for a supply of 90-millimeter rounds. The Pentagon made a search and found none. Thomas Pianka, an officer then serving at the pentagon with the International Security Agency, recalls : “ We made an honest effort to find the ammunition. We checked everywhere. We checked through all the services-Army, Navy, Marines. We couldn’t find any 90-millimeter ammunition at all. ” Pianka says the Pentagon sent Israel the bad news : “ In so many words, we said : ‘ Sorry, we don’t have any of the ammunition you need. We’ve combed all depots and warehouses, and we simply have none.’ ” A few days later the Israelis came back with a surprising message : “ Yes, you do. There are 15,000 rounds in the Marine Corps supply depot in Hawaii. ” Pianka recalls, “ We looked in Hawaii and, sure enough, there they were. The Israelis had found a U.S. supply of 90-millimeter ammunition we couldn’t find ourselves. ” The Israelis operate in the Pentagon very professionally, and in an omnipresent way. They have enough of their people who understand our system well. They just interact with the system in a constant, continuous way that keeps the pressure on.

“ They Always Get What They Want ” Israel’s agents are close students of the U.S. system and work it to their advantage. Besides obtaining secret information by clandestine operations they apply open pressure on executive branch office thoroughly and effectively. A weapons expert explains their technique :

If promised an answer on a weapons request in 30 days, they show up on the 31 st day and announce : ‘ We made this request. It hasn’t been approved. Why not ? We’ve waited

11

30 days.’ With most foreign governments, you can finesse a problem. You can leave it in the box on the desk. With Israel, you can’t leave anything in the box.

He says the embassy knows exactly when things are scheduled for action :

It stays on top of things as does no other embassy in town. They know your agenda, what was on your schedule yesterday, and what’s on it today and tomorrow. They know what you have been doing and saying. They know the law and regulations backwards and forwards. They know when the deadlines are.

He admires the resourcefulness of the Israelis in applying pressure :

They may leak to Israeli newspapers details of their difficulty in getting an approval. A reporter will come in to State or Defense and ask a series of questions so detailed they could be motivated only by Israeli officials. Sometimes the pressure will come, not from reporters, but from AIPAC.

If things are really hung up, it isn’t long before letters or calls start coming from Capitol Hill. They’ll ask, ‘ Why is this bad guy in the Pentagon not approving this item ?’ Usually, the letter is from the congressman in whose district the item is manufactured. He will argue that the requested item is essential to Israel’s security. He probably will also ask, ‘ Who is this bad guy in the Pentagon-or State-who is blocking this approval ? I want his name. Congress would like to know.’

The American defense expert pauses to emphasize his point : “ No bureaucrat, no military officer likes to be singled out by anybody from Congress and required to explain his professional duty. ” He recalls an episode involving President Carter’s secretary of defense, Harold Brown :

I remember once Israel requested an item on the prohibited list. Before I answered, I checked with Secretary Brown and he said, ‘ No, absolutely no. We’re not going to give in to the bastards on this one. ’ So I said no.

Lo and behold, a few days later I got a call from Brown. He said, “ The Israelis are raising hell. I got a call from ( Senator Henry ) ‘ Scoop ’ Jackson, asking why we aren’t cooperating with Israel. It isn’t worth it. Let it go. ”

When Jimmy Carter became president, the Israelis were trying to get large quantities of the AIM 9-L, the most advanced U.S. air-to-air missile. The Pentagon kept saying , “ No, no, no. It isn’t yet deployed to U.S. troops. The production rate is not enough to supply even U.S. needs. It is much too sensitive to risk being lost. ” Yet, early in his administration, Carter overruled the Pentagon, and Israel got the missiles. A former administration official recalls a remarkable example of Israeli ingenuity :

Israel requested an item of technology, a machine for producing bullets. It was a big piece of machinery, weighed a lot, and it was exclusive. We didn’t want other countries to have it, not even Israel. We knew if we said ‘ no, ’ the Israelis would go over our heads and somehow get approval. So, we kept saying we were studying the request. Then, to our astonishment, we discovered that the Israelis had already bought the machinery and had it in a warehouse in New York.

This sense of futility sometimes reaches all the way to the top. Unrestricted supplies to Israel were especially debilitating in the 1974-77 period when U.S. military services were trying to recover from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. In that conflict the United States stripped its own army and air forces in order to supply Israel.

12

During this period of U.S. shortage, Israel kept bringing in its shopping lists. The official recalls that the Pentagon would insist, “ No, we can’t provide what you want now. Come back in a year or so. ” In almost every one of those cases, he said, the Pentagon position was overruled by a political decision out of the White House. This demoralized the professionals in the Pentagon but, still worse, handicapped national security : “ Defense Department decisions made according to the highest professional standards went by the board in order to satisfy Israeli requests. ”

THE MOSSAD

The U.S. tolerates Mossad’s operations on American soil partly because of reluctance to anger the American Jewish community. Penetration by Israel continued at such a high level that a senior State Department official who has held the highest career positions related to the Middle East confides, “ I urged several times that the U.S. quit trying to keep secrets from Israel. Let them have everything. They always get what they want anyway. When we try to keep secrets, it always backfires. ”

The principal function of Mossad is to conduct agent operations throughout the world, particularly in Western Europe and the United States….

Objectives in Western countries are equally important ( as in the U.S.S.R. and East Europe ) to the Israeli intelligence service. Mossad collects intelligence regarding Western, Vatican and UN policies toward the Near East ; promotes arms deals for the benefit of the IDF ; Israeli Defense Forces ; and acquires data for silencing anti-Israel factions in the West. ( emphasis added )

Under “ methods of operation, ” the CIA booklet describes the way in which Mossad makes use of domestic pro-Israeli groups. It states that “ Mossad over the years has enjoyed some rapport with highly-placed persons and government offices in every country of importance to Israel. ” It adds, “ Within Jewish communities in almost every country of the world, there are Zionists and other sympathizers, who render strong support to the Israeli intelligence effort. ” It explains,

Such contacts are carefully nurtured and serve as channels for information, deception material, propaganda and other purposes…. Mossad activities are generally conducted through Israeli official and semiofficial establishments : deep cover enterprises in the form of firms and organizations, some especially created for, or adaptable to, a specific objective, and penetrations effected within non-Zionist national and international Jewish organizations.

The theft of scientific data is a major objective of Mossad operations, which is often attempted by trying to recruit local agents :

In addition to the large-scale acquisition of published scientific papers and technical journals from all over the world through overt channels, the Israelis devote a considerable portion of their covert operations to obtaining scientific and technical intelligence. This had included attempts to penetrate certain classified defense projects in the United States and other Western nations.

13

Admiral Thomas Moorer recalls a dramatic example of Israeli lobby power from his days as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the time of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war Mordecai Gur, the defense attaché at the Israeli embassy who later became commander-in-chief of Israeli forces, came to Moorer demanding that the U.S. provide Israel with aircraft equipped with a high technology air-to-surface anti-tank missile called the Maverick. At the time, the U.S. had only one squadron so equipped. Moorer recalls telling Gur :

I can’t let you have those aircraft. We have just one squadron. Besides, we’ve been testifying before the Congress convincing them we need this equipment. If we gave you our only squadron, Congress would raise hell with us.

Moorer looks at me with a steady piercing gaze that must have kept a generation of ensigns trembling in their boots : “ And do you know what he said ? Gur told me, ‘ You get us the airplanes ; I’ll take care of the Congress.’ ” Moorer pauses, then adds, “ And he did. ” America’s only squadron equipped with Mavericks went to Israel. Moorer, speaking in his office in Washington as a senior counselor at the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies, says he strongly opposed the transfer but was overruled by “ political expedience at the presidential level. ” “ But, ” he adds,

I’ve never seen a President, I don’t care who he is stand up to them ( the Israelis ). It just boggles your mind.

They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down.

If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on.

One has to keep in mind the constant character of this pressure. The public affairs staff of the Near East Bureau in the State Department figures it will spend about 75 percent of its time dealing with Jewish groups. Hundreds of such groups get appointments in the executive branch each year.

In acting to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East, the Israeli lobby has the field virtually to itself. Other interest groups and individuals who might provide some measure of counterbalancing pressure have only begun to get organized.

Student Editor Under Fire

A student newspaper editor who learned to think twice before criticizing Israel is John D’Anna, editor of the Arizona Daily Wildcat at the University of Arizona in Tucson during the 1982 – 83 academic year. In February of 1983, 22 - year-old D’Anna wrote an editorial entitled “ Butcher of Beirut Is Also a War Criminal, ” in which he decried the fact that former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was permitted to remain a memberof the Israeli Cabinet after being found “ indirectly responsible ” for the massacre of

14

Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon. If Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the infamous “ butcher of Lyon ” was to be tried for his crimes against humanity, asked D’Anna, “ shouldn’t those responsible for the Beirut massacre be tried for theirs ?” D’Anna was shocked at the reaction to his editorial :

My grandparents were the only John D’Annas listed in the phone book, and they were harassed with late night phone calls. I personally got a couple of the type ‘ If we ever catch you alone….’ There were threats on my life. I also got hate mail. Some of the letters were so vitriolic it makes me shudder.

There followed a series of letters to the newspaper accusing D’Anna of “ irresponsible polemic, ” “ fanning hatred ” and “ inciting violence. ” The director of the local B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation wrote that D’Anna’s editorial “ merely inflames passions, draws conclusions on half-truths and misleads. ” The uproar prompted D’Anna to write an apology in a subsequent issue. He said that while he stood by his beliefs, “ I just wish I had expressed those beliefs differently.” He agreed with some of his critics that it was a bad editorial and that he could have made the same point “ without arousing passions and without polemic. ” Nevertheless, the day after D’Anna’s apology appeared, members of twenty local Jewish groups wrote to the university president demanding that the Wildcat editor resign or be fired for his “ anti-Semitic ” and “ anti-Israel ” editorial. If he was not fired by noon the following Monday, said the letter, the group would tell Wildcat advertisers that the newspaper was “ spreading hatred, ” in the hope that the advertisers would cancel their ads. The group’s spokesman was Edward Tennen, head of the local Jewish Defense League, a group founded by Meir Kahane, who advocates the forcible expulsion of Arabs from Israel. The JDL is shunned by AIPAC and other Jewish groups. When the deadline passed without D’Anna’s removal, the group calling for a boycott, having dubbed itself “ United Zionist Institutions, ” distributed a letter to local businesses and ad agencies urging them to stop supporting the Wildcat’s “ anti-Semitic editor ” and his “ consciously orchestrated bigotry. ” Calling D’Anna “ an accomplice to PLO aims, ” the letter asked the advertisers to “ search your consciences and do what you know must be done. ”D’Anna noted that the group’s acronym was UZI, the name of the standard issue Israeli machine gun. Meanwhile, about twenty-five members of local Jewish groups, mostly from the campus Hillel organization, attended a meeting of the university’s Board of Publications during which they confronted D’Anna with their complaints. As the former editor recalls it :

I was on the hot seat for about two hours. And I tried to deal with all their questions and they kept demanding that steps be taken. I asked them what steps, and they said they wanted a review board. And I said ‘ That’s fine, you can review anything you want after it comes out in the paper, ’ and they said ‘ No, we want to review it before it comes out in the paper, ’ and I said that was totally unacceptable.

In the end the boycott effort was ineffective, as only two business cancelled their advertising. Moreover, D’Anna received firm support from the newspaper staff and from the head of the university’s journalism department. Yet the former editor recalls that the campaign against him had an impact : “ It was effective to a certain extent. I was gun-shy and it was quite a while before I touched any international issue. ”

15

Conservative Christians Rally To The Cause

Fundamentalist and evangelical groups have been active in this campaign to narrow the bounds of free speech. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proselytize tirelessly for ever-increasing U.S. backing of Israel, citing scriptural passages as the basis for their arguments. As the membership of conservative Protestant churches and organizations has expanded over the last decade, this “ Christian Zionist ” approach to the Middle East has been espoused from an increasing variety of “ pulpits ”: local churches, the broadcast media and even the halls of Congress. Senator Roger W. Jepsen, a first-term legislator from Iowa, told the 1981 annual policy conference of AIPAC that one of the reasons for his “ spirited and unfailing support ” for Israel was his Christian faith. He declared that “ Christians, particularly Evangelical Christians, have been among Israel’s best friends since its rebirth in 1948, ” His views are hardly unique, even among members of Congress, but his statement on this occasion aptly expressed the nearly mystical identification some Christians feel toward Israel :

I believe one of the reasons America has been blessed over the years is because we have been hospitable to those Jews who have sought a home in this country. We have been blessed because we have come to Israel’s defense regularly, and we have been blessed because we have recognized Israel’s right to the Land .

Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority and a personal friend of Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir, has been described by The Economist of London as “ the silk-voiced ayatollah of Christian revivalism. ”

Most estimates place the number of evangelical Christians in the United States in the neighborhood of 30 million. Jerry Falwell’s “ Old Time Gospel Hour ” is aired on 392 television stations and nearly 500 radio stations each week. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin describes Falwell as “ the man who represents twenty million American Christians. ” Nor is the American style of evangelical programming confined to U.S. shores. Its pro-Israeli message is now broadcast from the Middle East itself. The High Adventure Holyland Broadcasting Network of George Otis has maintained the Voice of Hope radio station in southern Lebanon since the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978. He describes it as an effort “ to bring the Word of God to an area that has not had the Word of God in many centuries. ” Cooperation between Jewish and conservative Protestant groups has an important impact in the political sphere. At a recent address in Israel, Jerry Falwell declared that “ The day is coming when no candidate will be elected in the United States who is not pro-Israel. ”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the summer of 1983, Mike Evans Ministries of Bedford, Texas, broadcast an hour-long television special called “ Israel, America’s Key to survival. ” Evangelist Evans used the program to describe the “ crucial ” role played by Israel in the political-and spiritual-fate of the United States. Radio and television broadcasts by Jim Bakker, Kenneth Copeland, Roberts, Swaggart and others routinely proclaim the sanctity of Israel through scriptural quotations.

16

“ The Time May Not Be Far Off ”

A man who pioneered in establishing the state of Israel and helped to organize its crucial underpinning of support in the United States later became a frequent critic of Israeli policy. Nahum Goldmann is a towering figure in the history of Zionism. He played a crucial role in the founding of Israel, meeting its early financial problems, influencing its leaders, and organizing a powerful constituency for it in the United States. His service to Zionism spanned nearly fifty years. Goldmann negotiated with West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer the agreement under which the Germans paid over $ 30 billion in compensation and restitution to Israel and individual Jews. Near the end of his life, however, Goldmann’s views of the pro-Israel lobby changed. In 1980 he warned : Blind support of the Begin government may be more menacing for Israel than any danger of Arab Attack. American Jewry is more generous than any other group in American life and is doing great things….But by misusing its political influence, by exaggerating the aggressiveness of the Jewish lobby in Washington, by giving the Begin regime the impression that the Jews are strong enough to force the American administration and Congress to follow every Israeli desire, they lead Israel on a ruinous path which, if continued may lead to dire consequences. He blamed the Israeli lobby for U.S. failures to bring about a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. “ It was to a very large degree because of electoral considerations, fear of the pro-Israel lobby, and of the Jewish vote. ” He warned of trouble ahead if the lobby continued its present course. “ It is now slowly becoming something of a negative factor. Not only does it distort the expectations and political calculations of Israel, but the time may not be far off when American public opinion will be sick and tired of the demands of Israel and the aggressiveness of American Jewry. ” In 1978, two years before he wrote his alarmed evaluation of the Israeli lobby, New York magazine reported that Goldmann had privately urged officials of the Carter administration “ to break the back ” of the lobby : “ Goldmann pleaded with the administration to stand firm and not back off from confrontation with the organized Jewish community as other administrations had done. ”

“ 80 to 85 Percent … Are Terrorists ”

Arab Americans in the Detroit area have learned about discrimination firsthand. In a June 1983 meeting at Detroit between U.S. Customs officials and airline officials concerning the processing of luggage, a senior Customs official declared that “ 80 to 85 percent of Arabs in the Detroit metropolitan area are terrorists and the rest are terrorist sympathizers. ” This harsh accusation came after the arrest in 1983 of a 29-year-old Arab Canadian who tried to bring heroin in a false-bottomed suitcase through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and a vendetta in which Customs officials began to single out motorists who “ looked Arab ” for interrogation and automboile searches. In one case, an 18-year-old girl was strip-searched. Though the Customs Service later apologized for the remark charging Arabs with terrorism – the offending official received only a reprimand – a local publication joined in

17

the racial stereotyping. After the arrest of a military officer from the Yemen Arab Republic ( North Yemen ) for attempting to smuggle guns out of the United States,

Monthly Detroit magazine carried a story entitled “ The Mideast Connection : How the Arab Wars Came to Detroit. ” Though it cited no examples of Arab Americans being arrested for gun or drug-smuggling , the article portrayed the city’s nearly 250,000 Arab Americans as a lawless and violent community.

“ A Consistent Pattern ”

Efforts to stifle public debate on the Middle East focus to a great extent on the centerpiece of free speech in our country : the press. Over the years, support for Israel has become a requisite for respectability in journalism, just as it has in politics and others professions. Edmund Ghareeb, a scholar who has written widely on the Middle East and the American media, observes that the media present “ a rosy picture of Israel as the democracy in a sea of barbarians in the Middle East….” On the other hand, the Palestinians are often referred to as “ Arab terrorists, ” the Arab is portrayed as a camel driver, somebody who is a murderer, or something of this sort. ” Journalist Lawrence Mosher agrees : “ They have stereotyped the Arab as an unsavory character with dark tendencies, and they have ennobled the Israeli as a hero. ” Even Time magazine is guilty of perpetuating such stereotypes. In 1982 the magazine ran a four-color house ad with a photo of a sheik under a single-word headline : “ Power. ” Columnist Richard Broderick described the sheik as “ all you could want from an evil Arab-dyspeptic, garbed in traditional Saudi dress, he stares out at the camera with palpable malevolence. ” Such stereotype of Arabs is common in editorial cartoons. As Craig MacIntosh, editorial cartoonist for The Minneapolis Star, points out, “ The Arabs are always in robes, the Palestinians always in ‘ terrorist ’ garb, with an AK 47. ” Robert Englehart, editorial cartoonist for the Journal Herald ( Dayton, Ohio ), agrees : “ I could depict Arabs as murderers, liars and thieves. No one would object. But I couldn’t use Jewish stereotype.

“ Too Controversial and Fanatical ”

Journalist Harold R. Piety observes that “ the ugly cry of anti-Semitism is the bludgeon used by the Zionists to bully non-Jews into accepting the Zionist view of world events, or to keep silent. ” In late 1978 Piety, withholding his identity in order not to irritate his employer, wrote an article on “ Zionism and the American Press ” for Middle East International in which he decried “ the inaccuracies, distortions and perhaps worst inexcusable omission of significant news and background material by the American media in its treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ” Piety traces the deficiency of U.S. media in reporting on the Middle East to largely successful efforts by the pro-Israel lobby to “ overwhelm the American media with a highly professional public relations campaign, to intimidate the media through various means and, finally, to impose censorship when the media are compliant and craven. ” He lists threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas among the weapons employed against balanced journalism.

18

Despite this impressive list of tools for media manipulation, Piety draws from his own experience and blames the prevailing media bias more on editors and journalists who submit to the pressure than on the lobby which applies it. Pressure began to build against Piety’s employer, the Journal Herald of Dayton, Ohio, in the late sixties as his growing interest in the Middle East led him to write editorial pieces critical of Israeli policy. His editor received a long letter, hand-delivered, from the president of the local Jewish Community Council, along with a lecture on Middle East politics. A column asserting that American Jews “ were being herded, and willingly so, into the Zionist camp ” brought a lengthy response from the Zionist Organization of America and a delegation of six Jewish leaders to the paper for a meeting with the editorial board. A 1976 column on West Bank riots led Piety’s editors to order him to write no more on the theme. Upon writing another column in April 1977 on the anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacres in which Jewish terrorists under Menachem Begin murdered more than 200 Palestinian villagers, he was sharply rebuked by his editors. Editor Dennis Shere informed Piety that he had received orders presumably from the corporate management to “ shut you up or fire you. ” Piety was subsequently told that he was “ too controversial and too fanatical ” and that he would not receive a promised promotion to editor of the Journal Herald editorial page. Under this pressure Piety left his position.

Mediawatch Blinks Out

During the summer of 1982, Minneapolis columnist Richard Broderick devoted several installments of his “ Mediawatch ” column a weekly feature on media coverage to exposing such inequities in American media coverage of the Israeli invasion. Among his findings :

Tapes purportedly of ( Yasser ) Arafat;s ‘ bunker ’ and ‘ PLO military headquarters’ being bombed aired over and over again while tape of civilian casualties wound up on the edit room floor….

As Israeli ground forces swept through Southern Lebanon, the American press continued to employ the euphemism ‘ incursion ’ to describe what was clearly an invasion.

In local newspaper coverage, Broderick found :

While Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were being killed by the thousands, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune ran a front-page photo of an Israeli mother mourning her dead son.

Later that same day, another photo showed a group of men bound and squatting in a barbed-wire enclosure guarded by Israeli soldiers. The caption described the scene as a group of ‘ suspected Palestinians’ captured by Israeli forces. Simply being Palestinian, the caption implied, was sufficient cause to be rounded up.

Broderick also used his column to relate scenes of horror witnessed by the Reverend Don Wagner, who had been in Beirut inspecting Palestinian refugee camps when the Israeli bombing began. Wagner saw a wing of the Gaza Hospital knocked down by the

19

bombing and was in Akka Hospital while hundreds of civilian casualties were brought in. Wagner described his experiences to the Beirut network bureaus for NBC, ABC, and CBS, but their reports beamed back to the United States were never aired. While such examples of bias are disturbing , still more so are the consequences suffered by the journalist who publicized them. Soon after the “ Mediawatch ” columns on Israel ran in the Twin Cities Reader, movie distributors of Minneapolis who collectively represent the largest single source of advertising for the paper began telephoning editor Deb Hopp with threats of permanently removing their advertising as a result of the Broderick column. Hopp mollified them by agreeing to print, unedited, the thousand word reply to the offending column. Contrary to usual policy, Broderick was not allowed to respond to this rebuttal. Later in the summer, Broderick reported an attempt, as he saw it, by Minnesota Senator Rudy Boschwitz to manipulate public opinion through the local media. Boschwitz coordinated and appeared in a press conference with members of the American Lebanese League ( ALL ), an organization which endorsed the Israeli invasion. Boschwitz cited the testimony of league members in arguing that the people of Lebanon welcomed the Israelis. Broderick quoted in his column a report by the nationwide American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee which described the league as “ the unregistered foreign agent of the Phalange Party and the Lebanese Front. They work in close consultation with AIPAC, which creates for them their political openings.” Senator Boschwitz, upset at seeing this information made public, castigated Hopp and Broderick in a lengthy telephone call. Three weeks later, Broderick was informed that his services would no longer be needed at the Twin Cities Reader.

The Perils of Non-Orthodoxy

A New York businessman almost made an “ enemies list, ” thanks to media coverage of his views. Jack Sunderland, businessman and chairman of Americans for Middle East Understanding, a national organization which issues scholarly reviews, made statements supporting Palestinian self-rule and an end to Israeli West Bank settlement construction during a trip to the Middle East several years ago. His remarks were widely reported in the U.S. and foreign media, and shortly after returning to his New York home, Sunderland learned that a man had visited several of his neighbors asking personal questions about his family, including his children’s schedule and routes to and from school. Concerned for his family’s safety, Sunderland engaged a private detective. Working with FBI cooperation, the detective soon located a graduate student who admitted to the obtrusive questioning and also to illegally gaining access to computer information about Sunderland’s finances and credit record. The student said he was an employee of B’nai B’rith and that Sunderland was being investigated as a prospect for inclusion on the organization’s “ enemies list. ” Faced with the student’s confession, B’nai B’rith officials refused to meet with Sunderland personally but agreed not to mention his name in future publications. When the “ enemies list ” appeared in 1983, under the sponsorship of B’nai B’rith’s affiliate, the Anti-Defamation League, the organization Sunderland heads was listed as a “ vehicle ” of “ Arab propaganda. ” Several officers were mentioned by name but not Sunderland. On a Saturday morning in 1977 producer Debbie Gage encountered peril of a different sort when she put on a one hour program of interviews with local people of

20

Palestinian origin on Minneapolis Public Radio. The station’s switchboard was promptly swamped with calls demanding equal time for the Israeli viewpoint. Gage demurred, responding that she had decided to do her program because of the heavy coverage being given to the Israeli view in the local press. She saw her broadcast as “ simple a small attempt to redress that imbalance. ” The following Monday news director Gary Eichten informed Gage that her job would be terminated in three weeks and that a program devoted to pro-Israeli views would be aired the following Saturday. Eichten denied that he was pressured into doing the follow-up program, but, as station intern Yvonne Pearson observes, “ If dozens of angry phone calls aren’t pressure, I don’t know what is.” Even when the media makes an effort to ignore the dangers and resist pressure and bias, the price can still be high for those who speak out. James Batal, a man of Lebanese ancestry, was interviewed on Miami TV during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. He was 72 years old at the time. Batal sought to explain the little-understood Arab view of the conflict. Following the broadcast of his interview, he received an abusive-and anonymous-phone call warning that his house would be burned down or bombed in retaliation for his remarks on television. Batal appealed to local police and the FBI, but was told that they were unable to provide protection. In desperation, he and his ailing wife closed their home and moved into a small apartment with her sister. Grace Halsell, a noted writer on the Middle East, tells of a similar incident which took place in late 1983. while in Jerusalem, she visited Amal, a young Palestinian woman with whom she had become friends while living in Jerusalem, some years before. An American TV journalist had asked to interview Amal while she was employed as assistant to the U.S. vice-consul in East Jerusalem, and her American boss had agreed to her being interviewed. But when the interview was shown, she was fired. She explains, “ I was thought to be too pro-Palestinian. I had merely said, in answer to a question, that my family lived in a house where Israelis now live. ”

“ Who Could Be Mad at Us ? ”

In its April 1974 issue, National Geographic Magazine published a major article entitled “ Damascus, Syria’s Uneasy Eden. ” The article discussed ancient and modern life in the Syrian capital, but a brief segment on the life of the city’s small Jewish community caused a storm of protest. Author Robert Azzi, a journalist with years of experience in the Middle East, found that “ the city still tolerantly embraces significant numbers of Jews ” and Sephardic Jews enjoy “ freedom of worship and freedom of opportunity ” although they live under a number of obtrusive restrictions, including strict limitations on travel and emigration. He had learned that about 500 Jews had left Syria in the years following the 1967 war, and that “ reprisals against the families of those who leave are…rare. ” A number of U.S. Jewish groups and many subscribers were outraged by Azzi’s portrait of Jewish life in Syria. A torrent of angry letters poured into the offices of the National Geographic Society protesting the “ whitewash ” of Syria’s treatment of its Jewish citizens and the refusal of the editors to correct Azzi’s “ shocking distortions. ” Society President Gilbert M. Grosvenor later recalled that his offices received more than 600 protest letters. This correspondence was liberally seasoned with harsh charges, including “ hideous lies, ” “ disgraceful, ” “ inhuman, ” “ Communistic propaganda, ” and “ as bad as Hitler’s hatred for the Jews. ” One letter threatened Grosvenor’s life. As the controversy grew, the Society even received a letter from Kansas Senator Robert Dole

21

expressing concern over the issue and forwarding a longer letter from the Jewish Community Relations Bureau of Kansas city. Unaccustomed to controversy, the National Geographic offices were shocked at the outcry raised over a small section of what had been seen as a standard article. Protestations by Grosvenor that the piece had been checked for accuracy by Western diplomats in Syria, the Syria desk officer at the U.S. State Department and even several rabbis-none of whom had found any problems with the text were unavailing. The criticism culminated in a public demonstration by the American Jewish Congress outside the Society’s Washington offices in late June. Informed of the picketing outside the Society’s opulent headquarters, a receptionist was incredulous : “ Are you kidding ? Who could be mad at us ? ” Phil Baum, associate executive director of the AJC, met with Grosvenor and declared that the picketing became necessary due do to the refusal of National Geographic to acknowledge its “ errors ” in print. This was the first instance of picketing against the National Geographic Society since its establishment in 1888 to “ increase and diffuse geographic knowledge. ” As the picketers prepared to depart after marching in near 100 degree heat, one told a New York Times reporter, “ The magazine doesn’t print letters to the editor. This is our letter to the editor. ”

“ A Double Standard Toward Terror and Murder ”

CBC radio became a storm center about the same time as the Wallace controversy. On its “ First Line Report ” White House correspondent Robert Pierpoint used this forum in March 1973 to make a controversial statement on events in the Middle East. Focusing on two recent incidents a commando-style raid against Palestinian refugee camps 130 miles inside Lebanon and the downing of a Libyan commercial airliner which strayed over then Israeli-occupied territory in the Sinai Desert Pierpoint commented on the differing American response to acts of violence committed by Israelis and by Arabs. He observed that after the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics Games in Munich, “ the United States, from President Nixon on down, expressed outrage.” Yet these two more recent acts by Israel had caused the death of more than a hundred innocent civilians, and there had been hardly a ripple of American response. Pierpoint’s conclusion was blunt :

What this seems to add up to is a double standard in this country toward terror and murder. For so long Americans have become used to thinking of Israelis as the good guys and Arabs as the bad guys, that many react emotionally along the lines of previous prejudices. The fact is that both sides have committed unforgiveable acts of terror, both sides have killed innocents, both sides have legitimate grievances and illegitimate methods of expressing them.

Knowing that he had voiced an opinion rarely heard over network airways, Pierpoint was not surprised when CBC switchboards in Washington and New York were jammed for hours with protest calls after his broadcast. Robert Pierpoint received over 400 letters on his broadcast, some labeling him “ a vicious anti-Semite ” and describing his report as “ like Goebbels’s propaganda machine. ” He later remarked that his commentary had caused him to be perceived as a “ public enemy ” by some Jewish Americans.

22

Soon after the “ First Line Report ” broadcast, Ted Koppel discussed the Pierpoint affair for ABC radio’s “ World of Commentary. ” Koppel cited the swift reaction of the pro-Israeli Lobby

The Anti-Defamation League responded immediately. Regional offices of the ADL sent out letters the next day, enclosing copies of the Pierpoint report, and calling on friends of the ADL to sent their protests to the local CBC affiliate station.

Pressure to “ Stop the Ads ”

Direct pressure to reject paid advertising unsympathetic to Israeli interests was applied beginning in late 1982 against major media in Maryland, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. The National Association of Arab Americans ( NAAA ), a Washington-based private membership organization, purchased radio air time in these areas for commercials questioning the U.S. government’s decision to increase aid to Israel. Typical of the messages was this one aired in Pennsylvania :

While there are more than 12 million Americans unemployed, with over half a million from Pennsylvania alone, Congress decided to give Israel two billion, 485 million of your tax dollars. Senator Arlen Specter ( D-PA ) is on the Senate Appropriations Committee that wanted to give Israel even more. Is funding for Israel more important than funding for Pennsylvania ? Call your senator and ask them if they voted to give your tax dollars to Israel. ”

Thirteen Pennsylvania stations contracted to carry the NAAA message, but four of these cancelled the ads after only three days of an agreed-upon five-day run. Mike Kirtner, an ad salesman representing two stations in Allentown, informed the NAAA that its ads were being taken off the air because “ they were getting a lot of calls, hate calls, and a lot of pressure was coming down on the station to stop the ads. ” Station management refused to comment on who was pressuring the station to take the ads off the air. Mike George, salesman for an Erie station which cancelled the ads, was more frank. He informed the NAAA that the station owner had been called by “ a group of Jewish businessmen who told him that if he did not cancel the ads immediately, they were going to cause his radio and television stations to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. ” In Maryland the NAAA sponsored similar messages citing the prominence of Congressman Clarence “ Doc ” Long ( D-Md ) in supporting aid to Israel. Although the ads were aired on four stations in Washington and four in the Baltimore area, a number of stations rejected them as “ anti-Semitic. ” Later, in California the NAAA found stations in San Francisco, San Mateo, Berkeley and Santa Clara unwilling to carry the NAAA’s paid message, despite editorial statements in some local newspapers supporting the NAAA’s right to free speech. The stations offered no reason for their refusal. Ron Cathell, communications director for the NAAA, is not surprised :

23

This has happened to us before. People have been threatened with financial losses to prevent them from having a talk show with us or running our ads. ( But ) it hasn’t happened to this degree before. This week was really pretty stunning.

Cathell Adds :

The only way to get ( the Middle East conflict ) resolved is to talk about it. And if we can’t talk about it here in the United States, how do we expect them to talk about it in the Middle East ?

Repairing the Damage

It is clear that many Americans do not feel they can speak freely on one of the most complicated and challenging current issue : the Arab-Israeli dispute. The relatively few people who have ventured into this arena have found their cherished vision of the free and open society an illusion. Unlike other controversies, those on one side of the argument leave no room for honest disagreement. The only side that can be advocated with impunity is the Israeli side. Those who criticize Israeli policy in any sustained way invite painful and relentless retaliation, and even loss of their livelihood, by pressure by one or more parts of Israel’s lobby. Presidents fear it. Congress does its bidding. Prestigious universities shun academic programs and grants which it opposes. Giants of the media and military leaders buckle under its pressure. Instead of having their arguments and opinions judged on merit, critics of Israel suddenly find their motivations, their integrity, and basic moral values called into question. No matter how moderate their criticism, they may be characterized as pawns of the oil lobby, apologists for Arab terrorists, or even anti-Semitic. The lobby has already attained strength far beyond the level its numbers would suggest. Those active in its ranks constitute a tiny part of the population of the United States, but their demographic concentration in states critical to deciding national elections, combined with their unique ability to mobilize campaign resources and public opinion, gives them influence in the political process far out of proportion to their numbers.

24

The lobby’s success in stifling dissent is shocking, particularly in congress. Polls show that a plurality of American Jews and of the American people as a whole oppose certain Israeli policies. Normally this division would be reflected in the statements and voting records of their legislators. But on this issue, the views of these pluralities are not represented. In fact, the gulf between the expressions in Congress on the Arab-Israeli dispute and the views held by private citizens is probably greater than on any other topic. The lobby has made free speech a casualty by skillful use of our free institutions.

It’s one thing to know before you speak out that people will disagree with you. It’s quite another to know they will seek to discredit you and destroy your reputation. To say the least, the threat of this kind of retaliation curbs the open exchange of ideas that is essential to the development of sound policy in a democracy. The result is that most people come to consider Middle East issues “ too hot to handle ” and keep their views to themselves. They see what happens to their bolder colleagues and hesitate to voice their opinions. They censor themselves out of fear that the Israeli lobby will censure them if they do not. The damage to U.S. institutions is clear. What may not be clear is why the lobby came into being and pursues its intimidating activities with such zeal. Its origin and motivation can be summed up in just one word : fear. Many Jews are afraid, and their fear is understandable. Remembering Adolf Hitler’s terrible program, which exterminated six million Jews, they see Israel as a place of refuge, perhaps the only one, if such horror should someday return. A resident of Potomac, Maryland, perry J. Saidman, expressed this fear in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post :

Nearly all Jews believe that the survival of Israel is synonymous with the survival of Judaism. This is easy to understand in view of the Holocaust, since Jews in the diaspora now that the only country that will not refuse them during the next Holocaust will be the Jewish state of Israel.

To Saidman, and to many other Jews, another holocaust is entirely possible, especially if criticism of Israel goes unpunished. To such people, the Holocaust is not only a historical event but a personal ordeal in which relatives or family friends were ruthlessly destroyed. Fear of future ordeals is deep-seated. During his earliest shuttle diplomacy mission to the Middle East, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, musing privately over the possibility

25

that unwise policy by Israel might someday provoke a wave of anti-Semitism in the United States, said to a colleague, “ I worry about my son when he grows up a Jew in America. ” A Jewish women who voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 Michigan primary election was warned by her outraged brother, “ You will die someday in a gas chamber. ” Jewish ties to Israel are powerful and intimate for other reasons, too. Beyond being a place of ultimate refuge, Israel is the physical repository of Judaism, the fulfillment of age-old Jewish dreams and the symbol of Jewish resilience and achievement. Equally important, it is linked by family ties to American Jews, most of whom have relatives and other acquaintances there and feel keenly the sorrow of Israeli families who have suffered death or injury in conflicts with Arabs. These ties are deepened and made urgent by Israel’s own sense of insecurity, Israel remains at war with all its neighbors except Egypt. The nation is widely seen by its citizens and other Jews as struggling for survival in a vast and growing sea of hostile Arabs. It is a tiny country, only about nine miles wide at one point. This bleak prospect keeps military forces on a constant state of alert, produces in many Israeli’s a siege mentality and causes them to accept restrictions on civil liberties that they would consider anathema in other circumstances. The press, both Israeli and Arab, is censored, and Arab populations, especially in the occupied areas of the West Bank and Gaza, have their liberties restricted and are often brutalized. This siege outlook pervades not just Israel but much of the U.S. Jewish community. Because Israel remains at war, many U.S. Jews feel they too are at war. Worried about Israel’s survival in a generally inhospitable world, they accept tactics which stifle dissent in their own communities and throughout America as necessary measures which, in their view, enhance the likelihood that the United States will continue to serve as Israel’s lifeline. And, indeed, the United States is Israel’s lifeline. Most observers feel that Israel could not have won the 1967 war without U.S. supplied weapons. In the 1973 war, Israel’s survival was in question until the United States undertook two extraordinary measures : ordering its own forces to a high state of alert worldwide in order to forestall a larger Soviet role in the war, and ferrying vast armor and supplies to Israel in an intercontinental airlift. The rescue operation demonstrated Israel’s loneliness. Faced with the necessity of refueling its air transport fleet during the long journey to Israel, the United States found Portugal the only nation among our allies in western Europe willing to permit the use of its bases for this purpose. If another war with Arab states should occur and many Jews feel it is only a matter of time most Jews are convinced that Israel’s prospects will be bleak without unqualified United States help.

The lobby works diligently in the wings and the corridors to provide Israel with uncritical support. Whatever Israel undertakes is characterized as helpful to the United States, an attitude that makes criticism of Israel “ un-American ” and therefore unthinkable. Its partisans have defined the terms for discussing Middle East issues so rigidly that debate itself is excluded. “ If you are not for us, ” its members say, “ you are against us. ” There is no middle ground. Issues are painted in black and white. The gray areas where truth is often found is considered too dangerous.

26

In a democracy, the position taken by a large citizens’ group like those making up the Israeli lobby must, of course, be taken into account. The United States, in addition to its moral interest in the survival of Israel, has a legitimate reason and an obligation to act in accordance with the wishes of its citizens, so long as the preferences of a particular special interest group do not violate the interests of the majority. But this does not require blind conformity. Surely one can criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Israel, just as one can criticize American policies without being anti-American. Getting free speech off the casualty list requires realism, attention and commitment on the part of us all. As a starter, we must disenthrall ourselves from the false notion that the Israeli lobby is “ bigger than life.” Its members are neither superhuman nor especially blessed with the truth. The lobby consists of a relatively small group of people, not more than 200,000 at the most, and the core activists who keep things rolling are but a fraction of that total. Although its leaders are highly professional and highly committed, these same qualities can be found in other citizens. The lobby raises a lot of money and marshals broad support, but it cannot prevail over an informed and determined majority of our citizens.

Knowledge is power as the lobby well knows and the best way to demolish its façade of invincibility is to understand its tactics. It is often able to create a false impression of numbers. For example, several years ago one hundred identically worded telegrams were sent to Senator Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois, protesting against legislation he was proposing. The telegrams bore serial numbers in sequence, indicating that they were ordered by a single individual even though each carried a different name. During the same period, Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut received twenty-eight telegrams. All carried identical wording and were charged to the same telephone number in Hartford, but each bore a different name as the sender. Even two or three telephone calls can create the image of substantial constituent protest, even though the few actually placing the calls may be the sum total of protesters. Only a few telephone calls persuaded fourteen freshmen Congressmen in 1983 to take the exceptional step of changing their votes on legislation providing aid to Israel. These calls would have had far less impact if counterbalanced by even one call expressing the opposite view to each wavering Congressman. When Congressmen hear only one side of an issue by mail, telegram, telephone call, personal visit or in public debate they naturally assume there actually is only one side worth considering.

The Israeli lobby has proven, that a small number of highly committed people can have substantial effect on public policy. Partisans of Israel press early and often through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, political action committees, other organizations and as individuals. They seem never to sleep, guarding Israel’s interests around the clock. Those citizens who favor a more balanced U.S. policy in the Middle East based on fundamental ideals of justice and peaceful settlement of international disputes, like the pro-Israel activists, may work through established organizations and supplement this work with personal activity. If they bring a high level of commitment to these endeavors, candidates and officials will respond. The majority of Congressmen resent heavy-handed tactics by the Israeli lobby and will welcome constituent pressure to modify their habit of voting for whatever Israel wants.

27

ISRAEL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The United States provides a “ nuclear umbrella ” over many nations. It encourages all nations in the Middle East to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty under which signatories pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel has refused to ratify the treaty and carries forward nuclear research and development in secrecy at Dimona, where experts believe it has clandestinely produced a number of atomic bombs. Some estimates claim, that Israel has about 300 of them. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Israel attempted to shoot down a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft which overflew Dimona, even though the U.S. at the same time was ferrying arms to Israel. Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, reports that Israel picked up the aircraft on its radar, identified it correctly as a U.S. SR-71 and “ ordered its fighter planes to down it. ” Israel considers secrecy that important when it comes to Dimona. Fortunately, Moorer adds, “ The plane was flying too high for the Israeli fighters to reach, ” and it returned safely. While Israel may be convinced that it must take extreme measures to shield its nuclear facilities, such a policy is in conflict with our government’s long-standing commitment to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Nuclear weapons policy is but one of the fundamental differences which separate the United States and Israel. Other obvious ones are the occupation of territory taken by force of arms and relations with Iran and Israel’s Arab neighbors. In fashioning our policies toward the Middle East, we must recognize that we will differ with Israel on important issues while cooperating fully on others. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk observes, “ Israel has demonstrated over and over again that it is not a satellite of the United States. It is just as important for everyone to recognize that the United States is not a satellite of Israel. ” Our goal must be decency, fair play, and security for all parties in the region. In particular, we must demonstrate our concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have lived under Israeli military occupation for more than seventeen years. All through our history, we have recognized self-determination as the most fundamental aspect of democracy. It is hallowed in our traditions, and on several

28

occasions the United States has taken the ultimate step, going to war in order to promote, among other objectives, self-determination for the people in Western Europe, Korea and Vietnam. It is inconsistent, to say the least, for the United States to advocate self-determination for everyone except Palestinians. While we should not and need not use military force to demonstrate our concern for the Palestinians, we must avoid uncritical support of Israel’s military policies which deny humans rights to these people and degrade the great moral traditions of Judaism---lest our own nation’s moral values suffer. Indeed, the United States can serve Israel best by regaining its position as the respected advocate of even-handed policies that are fair to all parties. There is already a realization by many Israelis that their democracy will best be preserved, not through unquestioning support by the United States, but through thoughtful analysis and free debate by all---Jews as well as non-Jews. U.S. support could go far in furthering the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace, but it cannot be applied effectively so long as the lobby, as the voice of the U.S. Jewish community, demands that the United States give unquestioning support to the sterile military view of national security now current in Israel. As Washington columnist Richard Cohen warned during the Israeli war in Lebanon in 1982 :

The age-old dream of an Israel that incorporates the very best of Judaism, the dream that propelled kids like me out of the house with a cannister for the Jewish National Fund, is turning slowly into a nightmare.

For the American Jewish community to defend the indefensible would only isolate it from the American community at large and transform a moral force in this country into nothing more than a lobby.

Our concern must reach beyond the damage being done to the moral force represented by our Jewish community, even though all citizens suffer as this force withers. All Americans must recognize the broader threat---the damage being done to our cherished institution of free speech as citizens fear to speak out on Middle East policy. We could hardly do better than follow the vision ---and heed the warning---which Israeli writer Amos Oz offers for his own country :

If there are people who could ‘ cure ’ us of the curse of pluralism, and open, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, the eyes of whoever does not see the light as they

29

do, then there is bound to be an ugly, even a dangerous, struggle. ( but ) if the confrontation is a matter of lobbying, with recognition of the legitimacy of different positions and a willingness to be persuaded, then there will be fertile, creative tension.

Throughout history, the greatest threat to our society has come from within : the tendency of fearful people to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. Abraham Lincoln warned that those who, in the name of national security, “ destroy the spirit that prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands everywhere ” have effectively “ planted the seeds of despotism around your doors. ” Democracy cannot function in an atmosphere in which citizens fear to speak out. If one powerful group can succeed in inhibiting free expression on a particular topic, others inevitably will be tempted to try the same in order to advance their favorite causes. If the great institutions of education can be forced to ignore challenges to academic freedom on one subject, they will be fair game on other subjects. If a great newspaper can be pressured into letting the agent of a lobby look over the shoulders of editors as they prepare coverage of the war in Lebanon, other lobbies have a precedent on which to base similar demands. If a Catholic nun and an Episcopalian dean can be vilified as anti-Semitic because they apply religious principles to the tragedy of the Middle East, and if these same principles can be bent to political ends, religious freedom everywhere is endangered. If a lobby can force government officials into ignominious silence in one vital area of public policy, other parts of the body politic could be similarly disabled. In short, when a lobby stifles free speech nationally on one controversial topic - the Middle East - all free speech is threatened.

FROM THE BOOKTHEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT

BY

PAUL FINDLEYPEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT ISRAL’S LOBBY

PAGE - 25 - 26 - 27 - 32 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 49 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 74 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 84 - 95 - 96 - 99 - 100 101 - 119 - 137 - 138 - 141 - 142 - 144 - 145 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 161 - 164 - 186 - 187 - 239 - 240 - 241 - 242 - 244 - 272 273 - 274 - 290 - 295 - 296 - 297 - 298 - 300 - 301 - 304 - 305 - 307 - 308 - 313 - 314 - 315 - 316 - 317 - 318 - 319 - 321

328 - 330 - 331 - 332

COMPILEDBY

FLAVIO CODARIN30

SOME HISTORY AND SOME BEHAVIOROF THE SELF PROCLAIMED CHOSEN PEOPLE

BYFLAVIO CODARIN

In 1938, Hitler offered to let the Jews out of Germany if they relinquished their property and left the country within six weeks. We all know the consequence of the ones that stayed behind.

President Roosevelt’s adviser Morris Ernst wrote in 1948 of his shock at the refusal of American Jewish leaders to consider the possibility of giving “ these beaten people of Europe a choice, ” instead of offering them only the option of emigration to Palestine ; the program he advanced “ would free us from the hypocrisy of closing our own doors while making sanctimonious demands on the Arabs, ” he wrote, adding that he “ was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor ” for suggesting that the survivors of the Holocaust be permitted the choice of emigrating to the United States. Despite what was being done to Jews in Hitler’s Europe, none of the holy Western democracies welcomed Jews into their countries. In the month of April, 1939, when the United States Congress began hearing on whether or not to admit 20,000 Jewish children into the U.S. to escape Hitler. Congress voted No.

In 1939, a ship called the St Louis left Germany with 930 Jews, most of whom had U.S. immigration permits. When the ship got to America, she was refused and had to go back. The New York Times wrote a heartbreaking editorial about “ man’s inhumanity to man. ”

In 1941 when the massacre of Jews had spread to Rumania, a Turkish minister in Rumania came up with a plan to save 300,000 Rumanian Jewish refugees by getting into the U.S. America passed new immigration laws making it almost impossible for Jews to get into the U.S..

Here in Canada, as Hitler moved inexorably toward the Holocaust, Prime Minister Mackenzie King refused to accept Jews as immigrants. For King , non was too many. The question remains, Why didn’t Jews persuade the U.S. to open the doors to save Jews from the camps ? Because - as horrible as it is to admit - Zionists cared more about creating a Jewish state in Palestine than they did about saving Jews from Hitler.

31

MENACHEM BEGIN

Referring to

YASSER ARAFAT

Former Prime Minister Of Israel Menachem Begin, had compared the PLO organization to the Renaissance of nazism, and Yasser Arafat to be a Hitler of modern times, and regularly had referred to Arafat to be a << two-legged beast >>, I personally think that this reveals a complete lack of responsibility and judgment from a man that held such a high position in the Israeli government. Begin also commented to U.S. president Ronald Reagan that the destruction of the general-headquarters of Yasser Arafat during the Lebanese war of 1982, provided him with such a sensation that made him feel as if he had sent the Israeli forces to Berlin to destroy Hitler’s bunker. Such words from a man who became Prime Minister of Israel makes any sane thinking individual wonder how could such a person be elected to represent a country ? Comparing the PLO to the Renaissance of nazism, meaning the ( Palestinian Liberation Organization ), that in reality was born because the Palestinian population got their country taken away from them when the State of Israel was created in 1948, and comparing Yasser Arafat to Hitler, is the biggest and the most disgusting, preposterous, distorted reality and lie to ever be pronounced from some-one’s mouth since God created human-beings. The creation of the state of Israel was decided by a few imperialistic nations, and the consequences of this injustice toward the Palestinian people has forced millions of Palestinians out of their home-land, and they are spread out in many different countries.Hundreds of thousands are still living in refugee camps for the past 59 years. The Palestinian problem is the largest and most intractable refugee situation in the world. They now number over 4.2 million.

Israeli writer Amon Oz had sent an open letter to Menachem Begin, that dictator Adolph Hitler died a longtime ago, and Hertzl Rosenblum, chief publisher of the Israeli daily newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, replied to the Amos Oz letter to Begin by quoting that if << Yasser Arafat >> had

32

the power, he would do to us Israelis such terrifying things that even

Hitler would never have dreamt of doing. Hitler decimated us with a certain restraint. If Arafat would one day take power, he would not waste any time before ordering cutting off the heads of our children in full daylight, and the raping of our women before cutting them to pieces, he would throw us from the top of high buildings and shred us apart like starved leopards from the jungle. If we compare Hitler to Arafat it can be said, that Hitler could be compared to a altar boy in comparison to Arafat’s cruelty.

A few weeks after the episode, a Holocaust survivor, Dr. Shlomo Schmalzman, started a hunger strike at Yad Vashem to protest against the exploitation of the Holocaust by Menachem Begin to justify his Lebanese war.

FROM THE BOOK

VICTIMES HISTOIRE REVISITÉE

DU CONFLITARABO - SIONISTE

BYBENNY MORRIS

PAGE - 559EDITIONS COMPLEXE

YEAR - 2003TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH - BY - FLAVIO CODARIN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLAVIO’S COMMENTS

After having read the above reported facts we can ask ourselves, how could Menachem Begin consider the late Yasser Arafat, who was the leader and representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization , and the man who was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, be compared to Hitler. This is nonsense. In fact, Menachem Begin was once himself a leader in the Irgun terrorist organization, and later in life was elected Prime Minister of Israel. To have an idea of what the Israelis did to the Palestinian people, you just have to read the book by Noam Chomsky titled ( Fateful Triangle, The United States, Israel & The Palestinians ), and you wont have to wonder any longer to comprehend the Palestinian tragedy and the cause of it, that in this case happens to be the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, decided by the imperialistic nations at the expense of the Palestinian people.

33

Can any responsible individual remain indifferent to the plight of the Palestinian people ? They are still without a country since 1948, and are systematically harassed by the Israeli army every day of their lives since that time. They have been doing

what the American Patriots were doing to resist the English imperialists during the 18th century, or the French Resistance fighters against the German occupation during the Second World War, and the mudjaihidin’s Al–Kaeda’s fighters of Ben Laden, who were supported by the United States to fight against the Russian invaders of Afghanistan. The world knows by now the cruel reality that is out there, and cannot be fooled much longer. Here I will present four of the most famous Israeli terrorist leaders who later in life were elected Prime Ministers of the state of Israel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

First. We start with Menachem Begin, former commander of the IRGUN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. Begin was the leader of the massacre in the village of Deir Yassin, where 254 Palestinian children, women and old men were butchered by the Zionists while the young Arab men worked in the fields. Unborn children were killed inside the wombs of their murdered mothers. There was talk of hands being cut off and children being blinded but that was hard to prove, because most of the bodies were thrown down a well. The Zionists also dynamited houses, looted, and raped but that’s hardly worth mentioning. Within a few days, half a million Palestinians fled their country in terror to make room for Israel. Menachem Begin used to be proud to be a terrorist commander, he praised his killers for their humanity, for “ acting in a way that no other fighting force had ever done. In 1948, Begin even tried to overthrow the first government of Israel but failed. In 1976 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and in 1977, was elected Prime Minister of Israel.

Second. Yitzak Shamir, the founder of the terrorist organization named LEHI, that had offered to help the Nazi in a 1941 proposal to form a Jewish state “ on a national and totalitarian basis, which was to establish relations with the German Reich ” and protect Nazi interests in the Middle-East. Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.

Third. David Ben Gurion, was in charge of the terrorist organization named HAGANAH, that carried-out countless bomb attacks against civilians, railway lines, bridges, and even British army and air-force bases in Palestine. The Royal Air-Force lost many planes to such attacks, including Lancaster and Halifax bombers. In 1938 Ben Gurion gave Jewish Leaders conniptions by telling the truth: “…in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us, ” but said, “ let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. ” Ben Gurion said, “ we are the aggressors and they defend themselves…”In 1954, the former Prime Minister David Ben Gurion mentioned to Prime Minister Moshe Sharett that it would be in Israel’s interest to provoke a civil War in Lebanon between Christians and Moslems. Also Moshe Sharett wrote in his diary back in 1955 : Ben Gurion himself said it would be worthwhile to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war.

34

Fourth. Ariel Sharon’s terrorist career is well-known. When he was in charge of Unit 101 they massacred about 800 civilians, men, women and children, in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Chatila in September 1982.

The order from Ariel Sharon was. “ I don’t want a single one of them left alive. ” UN commander Major General Vagn Bennike, reporting to UN Security Council, describing how “ bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons.” Referring to Ariel Sharon’s reputation and character, Civilian Administrator Menachem Milson, said that General Sharon gave instructions as to how to deal with demonstrators : “ Cut off their testicles. ”That same Ariel Sharon who later became Prime Minister of Israel.

Flavio’s comment : You the reader, might still have some hope that a solution one day will be found without another war between Israel and the Arabs, but at the same time, you are also aware that a solution wont be easy to achieve until Israelis keep electing Prime Ministers with the above reputation. And Menachem Begin, comparing Yasser Arafat to Hitler, is completely out of the imagination from a man with a very sick mind.

HERE IS ANOTHER HOPLESS CASE

Former Prime Minister of Israel Yitzak Rabin once said, that Israel could never negotiate with any Palestinians : such negotiations could only lead to Palestinian self-determination in a separate state, which Israel will never accept.

BITS OF HISTORICAL FACTS AND

BEHAVIOR OF ISRAELIS BY

FLAVIO CODARIN

Regarding what happened to the Palestinian people, it can be said, that anyone who has read a bit more history than U.S. president George W. Bush, ( who has been called a moron by his own people for lacking knowledge about history, ) we can easily figure out that the historical truth is not what has been presented by some Israeli extremists .

The truth is that the Jews have taken the land of the Palestinians, and more than 4 millions now live in many different countries, and hundreds of thousands in refugee camps for the past 59 years.

The Israelis have killed many more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. Only during the Lebanese War of 1982, Israeli soldiers have killed about 40.000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and some soldiers, while the Israelis only lost 500 soldiers. The ratio comes to about 80 dead Arabs for each Israeli.

35

The pain, the humiliation, and the suffering concerning the situation of the Palestinian refugees has been going on since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.The problem between Israelis and Palestinians unfortunately for humanity will only worsen , and it could be solved by leaders who recognize the truth instead of always accusing the other-side, as the Israeli leaders have done so systematically.

It can also be said , as long as Israelis think and believe that they are the chosen people of God as they have claimed , the Palestinians could also argue that if this would be the truth , one could accuse God for been a racist , and that would be contrary to the philosophical ideal that we are all born equal.

THE CHOSEN PEOPLE ?

Jewish myths claim that Arabs are descended from Jews ( i.e., Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son by his Egyptian maid. ) The real irony of that claim is that it’s the other way around : Jews are descended from Arabs.The logic is simple : Semites are either Arabs or Jews.Abraham, the first Jew, lived ( at the earliest ) c. 2000 BCSemites have been around since about 10.000 BC.That leaves only two options :▪ Either Jews are descended from Arabs▪ or a flying saucer dropped Abraham off in the middle of the desert around 2000 BC --- in the middle of a bunch of Arabs !!

THE UNITED KINGDOM OF ISRAEL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United Kingdom of Israel lasted for 98 years

---- from 1020 BC to 922 BC----

In 922 there was a revolt and Israel split into two kingdoms :

Israel Judah The northern Kingdom The southern Kingdom lasted for 200 years lasted for 336 years -from 922 BC to 722 BC- -from 922 BC to 586 BC-

36

JEWS AND TERRORISMSOME FACTS

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Historian writer Simha Flapan ( in his book Zionism and Palestinians ) says that Zionist terror groups “ established the pattern of terrorism adapted 30 years later by Al – Fatah. Two of the most notorious Israeli terrorist groups have been the IRGUN and the STERN GANG.

In July of 1938, IRGUN terrorists killed 76 Arabs by setting off bombs in markets and other public places.

In 1938, when an IRGUN member was arrested by the British, the IRGUN killed another 52 Arabs.

In 1946, Jewish terrorists blew up British headquarters in Jerusalem, killing 338 British citizens.

In 1947, the Zionists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 British and several Jews.

In 1947-1949 Israel’s Land Cleaning Operation not only created 780,000 Palestinian refugees, but Zionist terror squads also totally destroyed 416 Palestinian villages.After 20 years of Israeli Land Cleaning Operation, 2 million Palestinians, were run out of their own country, considered to be the bad ones by the world , and even more ridiculous is the Israeli assertion that they did not exist.

In 1954, the Israeli air force hijacked a Syrian airliner to get hostages to exchange for Israeli soldiers. That was 20 years before the PLO did it ! The PLO didn’t start the hijackings - Israel did !

In 1967, Israeli planes attacked the American electronic ship Liberty on international waters. They lied and said it was an accident but it wasn’t , they attacked the Liberty again and again, over a span of hours. They even shot lifeboats out of the water. The Israelis killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 171 others.

In 1968, the Israelis bombed the Beirut Airport. They destroyed 13 civilian airliners belonging to Middle East Airline ( Lebanon’s Largest ). The UN Security Council condemned Israel for its brutal attack.

In 1972, when 9 Israeli Olympic athletes and a trainer were killed in Munich by the Black September, Israel bombed Lebanon, killing 400 civilians.

In 1972, three Japanese terrorists killed 26 people at Tel Aviv’s Lydda airport. The Israelis in retaliation bombed Lebanon, killing over 100 civilians.

In 1975, about 30 Israeli warplanes bombed and strafed Palestinian refugee camps and nearby villages, killing 57 people.

In 1985, the Israelis killed 70 Tunisians & Palestinians in Tunis because of one Israeli killed in the hijacking of the Italian passenger ship the Achille Lauro.

In 1985, Israelis hijacked an Egyptian airliner and killed 60 passengers.

In 1985, Israelis kill two CBC cameramen.37

In 1985, Israeli tanks rolled into the Lebanese town of Zrariya and killed 35 men, women and children. Reporters tried to talk to the survivors, the survivors said the Israelis told them that if journalists or TV crews were allowed into their town , the Israelis would destroy every house in the village. There were no such thing as an Arab terrorist until Israel stole Palestine.

It is noteworthy that former terrorists are honored in Israel, as the examples of Menachem Begin, Yitzak Shamir, Ariel Sharon and there are many other examples. The Israeli Cabinet recently decided to issue a new series of stamps in memory of Zionist heroes, including Shlomo Ben-

Yosef, who was hanged by the British for shooting at an Arab bus ; the murderers of Lord Moyne in 1944. Since terrorism is considered to have been an honorable vocation, it is not surprising that its perpetrators have been protected by government authorities. Perhaps the most remarkable illustration of the ability to efface atrocities concerns Deir Yassin, where 250 people were murdered by Menachem Begin’s IRGUN and LEHI in April 1948. More recently, most of the Deir Yassin cemetery was bulldozed to prepare the ground for a highway to a new Jewish settlement.

THE WARS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE ARAB STATES

The first war in 1956, Israeli forces first attacked Egypt. When Israel was compelled to withdraw from the Sinai after its attack on Egypt in collusion with France and Britain, the Israeli forces “ systematically destroyed all surfaced roads, railway tracks and telephone lines ” and destroyed “ all buildings in the tiny village of Abu Agelia and El Queseima, ” prompting UN Commander General Burns to comment : “ God had scorched the Sinai earth. and His chosen people removed whatever stood above it . ”

The second war of 1967, Menachem Begin, had the following remarks to make : we again had a choice, the Egyptian Army concentration in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

The third war of 1973 was the only clear case of an Arab attack. They attacked Israeli Defense Forces on Occupied Territories in the Sinai & Golan Heights - Which , according to the United Nations, Israel was supposed to have left 6 years earlier. The attacks came only after Israel had rebuffed several Arab attempts at peaceful settlements, including Sadat’s 1971 offer to Israel of a full Peace Treaty with better conditions than the ones Israel finally accepted in 1979.

ISRAEL INVADES LEBANONIN

1978 - 1982 - 1988 - 1993 - 1996 - 2006

Israel’s Air Force made use of cluster bombs and phosphorus bombs in Lebanon against heavily - settled civilian areas “ to get maximum kill per hit, ” even though those bombs are banned by the Geneva Convention. We Americans provide Israel with those bombs gratis or at bargain rates.

38

William Farrel reported from Beirut, describing the effects of Israel’s latest bombardments : cemeteries jammed , peoples buried in mass graves, hospitals in desperate need of supplies, bodies decomposing under tons of rubble, buildings little more than shattered hulks, morgue refrigerators full, bodies piled on the floors of hospitals, the few doctors desperately trying to treat victims of cluster and phosphorus bombs, Israel blocking Red Cross medical supplies, hospitals bombed etc… etc….

The dead. In the first 3 months of the Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon 19,085 Lebanese & Palestinians… 84 % were civilians.

Jacobo Timerman a Zionist Jew, reported and described Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. “…Since we passed the border into Lebanon I have not seen a single house that did not show some war damage…”According to Timerman, on one day, Sunday 13, 1979, doctors at the American University in Beirut removed 1,100 limbs from victims of Israel’s bombing of Beirut . On June 4 Israel bombed a children’s hospital in the Sabra refugee camp. On June 12 Israel shelled an Armenian sanitarium near Beirut. And the Gaza hospital in Beirut. A the Acre hospital in Beirut. And a hospital in Aley. On June 24 Israel bombed the Islamic Home for Invalids. An American nurse working in Beirut testified that Israel “ dropped bombs on everything , including hospitals , orphanages and…a school bus carrying 35 young schoolgirls ”.By August 4, there was only one orphanage left standing in Beirut. Israel had destroyed the other eight . On one day, the Israelis shelled 17 different hospitals. In one month , more children were killed in Beirut by Israelis than during 30 years of terrorism in Israel .

“ Each day brought new torture. ” Many prisoners were beaten with iron bars, on the genitals, on the hands, breaking fingers, and another man was hung by his feet “ and they had used him as a punching bag. ” when prisoners begged for water they were given urine, provided by the liberators. Also, prisoners “ had to stand or sit in the sun all day. The only water they got was poured on the ground , and they had to lap it up like animals. ” It might be noted, incidentally, that brutal treatment of helpless prisoners is an old Menachem Begin specialty. Survivors were paraded through the streets of Jerusalem by Israeli soldiers. Colonel Meir Pail, who was communications officer for the Haganah, describes how Begin’s heroes loaded 25 survivors into a truck and drove them through Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, then took them to a quarry where they’ were murdered.

Amon Dankner reports testimony by an Israeli soldier who served as a prison guard. He too describes the terrible smell, intolerable to the Israeli guards ; and “ the cries of pain of those under interrogation. ” He describes the pleading women who kisses your hands and shows you a picture, begging you to tell them whether you have seen their husband or child, whom they have not seen or heard from for three months. And the suicide of an Israeli soldier, who, its seems, could bear no more.

39

Aharon Bachar writes of “ the things that are being done in my name and in yours ”: “ we will never be able to escape the responsibility and to say that we did not know and we did not hear. ” He describes a meeting between Labor Alignment leaders ( including some of the most noted hawks, such as Golda Meir’s adviser Israel Galili ) and Menachem Begin, where they presented to Begin “ detailed accounts of terroristacts ( against Arabs ) in the conquered territories. ” They described the “ collective punishment in the town of Halhul, ” in these words : The men were taken from their houses beginning at midnight, in pajamas, in the cold. The notables and other men were concentrated in the square of the mosque and held there until morning. Meanwhile men of the Border Guards ( noted for their cruelty )

broke into houses ; beating people with shouts and curses. During the many hours that hundreds of people were kept in the mosque square, they were ordered to urinate and excrete on one another and also to sing Hatikva ( “ The Hope, ” the national anthem of Israel ) and to call out “ Long Live the State of Israel. ” Several times people were beaten and ordered to crawl on the ground. Some were even ordered to lick the earth. At the same time four trucks were commandeered, and at daybreak the inhabitants were loaded on the trucks, about 100 in each truck , and taken like sheep to the Administration headquarters in Hebron.

On Holocaust Day, the 27 of Nissan ( the date in the Jewish calendar ), the people who were arrested were ordered to write numbers on their hands with their own hands, in memory of the Jews in the extermination camps.

The Knesset passed a law extending civilian law and administration to the Golan Heights. The Israeli military command closed the area, forbidding villagers to move between villages and preventing journalists, lawyers and medical staff from entering. No supplies were allowed to enter. All telephones were disconnected, “ ( all villagers were restricted to their homes, they were even forbidden to visit the toilets which are in outhouses ).” The press reported the case of a three - year old boy who was beaten with a club by a soldier after he threw an Israeli ID card to the floor ; his mother was shot when she came to his aid. Former Supreme Court Justice Chaim Cohen described the Golan Law as “ the law of the barbarians. ”

Dr. Shafiqul Islam from Bangladesh, who was on the staff of the Palestinian hospital in Sidon, reports that he was arrested by the Israeli Defense Forces while operating on a 12 - year - old Palestinian boy with severe internal shrapnel injuries. He was not permitted to complete the operation, but was arrested, beaten mercilessly, forbidden to ask for food or water for four days. One eyewitness saw a Palestinian doctor unconscious, “ his hands and neck tied to a post, his face bloodied and covered with flies.” Palestinian hospitals were closed down, their staff arrested, removed to prison camps and brutalized. In Sidon, the Israeli army closed down the Palestinian Red Crescent hospital. A Dutch nurse working there told a reporter : “ I was in Holland during World War II. I know what fascists are like. It’s terrible that all these women and children are being killed. Tell that to the World. ” A Belgian doctor at the closed Sidon hospital, who “ struggled to cope with wounded men, women and children ” stated that “ we had a good operation here. We were doing surgery and everything ” before almost the entire staff was arrested by the Israeli army. Canadian and Norwegian doctors, along with Palestinian doctors, will be taken to Israel

40

for interrogation and possible imprisonment . The Canadian and Norwegian doctors, along with a Norwegian social worker, were indeed arrested and taken to Israel, then released after protest from their governments. Their testimony received a brief notice in the New York Times. Canadian surgeon Chris Giannou’s testimony before congress that he had seen prisoners beaten to death by Israeli soldiers and other atrocities. In his congressional testimony, Giannou reported that he was “ a witness to four prisoners who were beaten to death. ” He also witnessed “ the total, utter devastation of residential areas, and the blind, savage, indiscriminate destruction of refugee camps by simultaneous shelling and carpet bombing from aircraft, gunboats, tanks and artillery. ” leaving only “ large blackened craters filled with rubble

and debris, broken concrete slabs and twisted iron bars, and corpses ”; “ hospitals being shelled, ” one shell killing about 45 people ; the shelling of the camps after Israeli soldiers had permitted women and children to return to it ; the use of cluster bombs in settled areas ; “ the calcinated, carbonized bodies of the victims of phosphorous bombs ”; 300 cadavers in one area while he was evacuating the Government Hospital ; and much more. He saw “ the entire male staff ” of the hospital being taken into custody, leaving patients unattended, and “ savage and indiscriminate beatings ” of prisoners with fists, sticks, ropes with nuts and bolts tied to them. He saw a Palestinian doctor hung by his hands from a tree and beaten and an Iraqi surgeon “ beaten by several guards viciously, and left to lie in the sun with his face buried in the sand. ” all in the presence of an Israeli Colonel who did nothing about it. He watched prisoners “ being rehearsed by an Israeli officer to shout ‘ Long Live Begin ’.” The Norwegians confirmed his story and said that they had seen at least 10 people beaten to death, including an old man who was crazed by the lack of water and intense heat as the prisoners were forced to sit for hours in the sun ; he was beaten by four soldiers who then tied him with his wrists to his ankles and let him lie in the sun until he died.

More than half of the estimated 15.000 prisoners were reported to be in prisons or camps in Israel, where the Red Cross stated that it was still denied any access to them, many months after the war ended.

Some information has come from released prisoners, and more from Israeli sources to which we turned directly. The few released prisoners interviewed by the press report “ sardine-like ” overcrowding , with prisoners required to lie on the ground day and night. Some report that they were required to hold their hands over their heads and forced to “ bark like the dogs you are ” and shout “ Long live Begin, long live Sharon .” Jonathan Randal, who reports these facts, states that “ there appear to be virtually no Palestinian men between the ages of 16 to 60 free in southern Lebanon .

A London Times inquiry reported in Yediot Ahronot led to the discovery of 7 young men apparently killed in an Israeli detention camp near Sidon, their bodies found with hands tied and signs of severe beatings.

Military historian Col. ( Ret. ) Meir Pail, former head of the Israeli Defense Forces officers training school, was writing that the region “ looked as though it had suffered a major earthquake in the ‘ best ’ tradition of the destruction by Vandal conquests in ancient times or of the Mongols in the Middle Ages. ”

41

A team of Italian medical volunteers had attempted to reconstruct the services for Palestinians and poor Lebanese in the Acre hospital, where, according to Professor Walter Cavallari of a Rome hospital who headed the orthopedic unit of the team, “ medical personnel had been kidnapped, killed, tortured, and raped. ” A glimpse of what the invasion has created was given by AP reporter Paola Crociani, arrested and expelled, charged with “ contacts with undesirable elements ” ( Palestinians ). In prison , she was shown a room with hundreds of men piled on top of one another, “ a huge heap of human bodies with exhausted desperate faces, ” without food or water, unable to move ; “ the stench was unbearable. ” She saw torture victims

and heard “ terrible screams - screams of pain of men subjected to torture during interrogation. ” The case of Colonel Yehuda Meir, “ who ordered soldiers to break the arms and legs of Palestinians ” in the West Bank villages, but was never charged .

Lebanese Ambassador Ghassan Tueni informed the Security Council on June 5 1982, that Israeli commandos had landed on the coastal road between Sidon and Beirut and had opened machine gun fire on cars and buses in which civilian refugees were fleeing from the south.

Through early 1992 Israel carried out a series of provocative actions in southern Lebanon, including the sinking of Lebanese fishing boats in Lebanese territorial water.

THE ISRAELI STRATEGYFROM THE BOOK - FATEFUL TRIANGLE

BYNOAM CHOMSKY

PAGE - 218----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Connell, a journalist with wartime experience and Lebanon project officer for Oxfam, describes Israel’s strategy as follows :

The Israeli strategy was obvious. They were hitting a broad belt, and they kept moving the belt up toward the populated area and pushing the people in front of it. The Israelis forced an increasing concentration of people into a smaller space, so that the casualties increased geometrically with every single shell or bomb that landed. The attackers used highly sophisticated U.S. weapons, including “ shells and bombs designed to penetrate through the buildings before they exploded, ” collapsing buildings inwards, and phosphorus bombs to set fires and cause untreatable burns. Hospitals were closed down or destroyed. Much of the Ain el-Hilweh refugee camp near Sidon was “ flat as a parking lot ” when Connell saw it. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------42

THE PRESS Turning to the press, Tom Segev of Ha’aretz toured “ Lebanon after the conquest. ” He saw “ refugees wandering amidst swarms of flies, dressed in rags, their faces expressing terror and their eyes, bewilderment…, the women wailing and the children sobbing. ”

In Sidon, the destruction was similar to the cities of “ Germany during the end of the Second World War. ” Even shelters in which people hid from the Israeli bombardments were destroyed. A government investigation estimated that 90% of the casualties were civilians.

Repeatedly, Israel blocked international relief efforts and prevented food and medical supplies from reaching victims. Israeli military forces also appear to have gone out of their way to destroy medical facilities.

A French doctor reported witnessing “ an intense Israeli bombing raid around and against the ( GAZA ) hospital, which forced the evacuation of the hospital at the time. ” When the Beirut mental hospital was hit shortly after, “ 800 patients varying in conditions from senile dementia to violent schizophrenia were released into the streets of Beirut. ” The hospital, clearly marked by Red Cross flags, was hit by artillery and naval gunfire, including four phosphorus shells. Medical personnel reported that the patients, including children with mental problems whose nursery was hit by rockets that set beds on fire, were 90% Lebanese. No military target was found within a half-mile.

One of the true heroes of the war is Dr. Amal Shamma, an American trained Lebanese-American pediatrician who remained at work in Beirut’s Berbir hospital through the worst horrors. She spent several weeks touring the U.S., receiving little notice, as expected. She was, however, interviewed in the Village Voice, where she described the extensive medical and social service for Palestinians and poor Lebanese that were destroyed by the Israeli invasion. No medical team came from the U.S., although several came to help from Europe ; the U.S. was preoccupied with supplying weapons to destroy. She reports that the hospitals were clearly marked with red crosses. On one day, 17 hospitals were shelled. Hers “ was shelled repeatedly from August 1 to 12 in 1982, until everything in it was destroyed. ” An American nurse working in Beirut, who was appalled by the “ watered-down descriptions in American newspapers. ” reported that Israel “ dropped bombs on everything, including hospitals, orphanages and, in one case, a school bus carrying 35 young schoolgirls who were traveling on an open road ”; she cared for the survivors.

Col. Dov Yirmiah, the oldest soldier in the Israeli army to serve in Lebanon. He tells story after story of prisoners savagely and endlessly beaten in captivity, of torture and humiliation of prisoners, and of the many who died from beatings and thirst in Israeli prisons or concentration camps in Lebanon. Some guards shouted at prisoners : You are a nation of monkeys, you are all terrorists, and we will break your heads : You want a state ? Build it on the moon. ”

43

On the bus trip to an Israeli prison, one 55-year old man, diabetic with heart disease, felt ill and asked for air ; he was thrown out of the bus by a soldier, fell and died. His son heard his cries and tried to help him, but he was stopped with “ severe beatings. ”

In the first few days of the war, the press reported that “ Israeli military authorities have ordered the United Nations peace-keeping force in Lebanon to stop donating and delivering food to Lebanese civilians caught in the fighting. ” “ The Israeli Army refused to allow any United Nations relief convoys to cross the border into Lebanon, and the

civilians’ situation became desperate, according to United Nations officials.” The UN stated that “ Unifil ( UN peacekeeping forces, largely West European ) teams trying to help and assess the needs of victims were told to pull out, and that all humanitarian questions would be handled by Israel. ” UN observers “ provided detailed accounts of civilians, including small babies, stranded without food and water.” “ One reason for the Israeli decision to bar the United Nations appeared to have been to prevent reports of the situation from getting out, ” including reports of “ the immense suffering that appears to have been inflicted on the Lebanese population. ”

THE WILL AND THE SUFFERING

Journalists reported that, in a Ramallah hospital, there were many severely injured patients but no doctors to be seen, and few nurses. A confrontation with soldiers had taken place a few hours earlier outside the hospital, and the medical staff risk detention if they attempt to assist the wounded. Patients and families were at first reluctant to speak to us, wary that we might be Israeli agents masquerading as journalists. After our guide had established his credentials, they were willing to do so, describing the circumstances in which they were beaten and shot. One man paralyzed from the waist down, with tubes coming out of his body and five bullet wounds, told us softly as we left his bedside that “ if you have need of a homeland, you must sacrifice.” A 13 - year old boy, hit by a “ rubber bullet ” told us that he had been shot while returning home from a mosque and trying to leave the scene of a demonstration nearby. Asked how he felt, he replied that his mood was “ higher than the wind.” The sentiments are common, expressed without rhetoric or anger ; people lacking means of self-defense, having endured much suffering and facing more, have stars in their eyes, and a sense of inevitable victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44

In a town named Salfit occupied by the Israeli army, we were told, soldiers entered the mosque and desecrated it, and one climbed the minaret where he called out in Arabic, “ Your God is gone, we are in charge here, ” a further exercise in humiliation. The same has been reported elsewhere, for example, in Beit Ummar, where more than 100 windows of the mosque were broken, holy books and other property destroyed, and tape recordings of the Koran readings stolen during a five-hour army rampage with bulldozers that severely damaged virtually every building along the main street, destroyed cars and tractors, uprooted trees, and caused general havoc.

An Israeli Defense Forces officer, a man of considerable culture, breaks into a discussion of a Mahler Symphony with this comment to his troops : with regard to the local Arab population,

There are two alternatives, to live with them or to destroy them. Personally I hate them. They stink. They do not share our culture. They sleep with goats. It is necessary to vaporize them, to turn them to a gas.

Flavio’s comment : “ This IDF officer, must have been very impressed by the efficiency of the Nazi’s technique in using gas to eliminate people you hate.

A standard procedure is for soldiers to break into the home of a family that is in mourning for someone killed by Israeli troops. In one reported incident, a large group of soldiers forced their way into the home of the mourners, smashing furniture and household articles and taking eight people outside, including Aref, the 17-years-old brother of the young man who was killed, forcing them to stand with their hands against a wall. After two hours, Aref fainted and the women were allowed to bring him into the house. The other seven were arrested. A few hours later, troops returned to the house and arrested Aref. In another case, soldiers shot and killed one of the mourners. “ Your soldiers seem to think that we do not suffer pain and do not have to mourn, ” the Nablus resident who disclosed these incidents added in an interview in the Hebrew press. “ Most of those killed are young people, and the Palestinian mother cries, like every mother. The brothers and sisters cry too, just as in France, England, China, or Israel. We are the only ones forbidden to cry, so I have a small request : if you do not permit us to be happy, at least let us cry. ”

45

Israeli general Moshe Dayan’s attitude was expressed in a September 1967 meeting, he urged that we tell the Arabs : “ we have no solution, and you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever prefers – may leave….” American journalist Vincent Sheean, arrived in Palestine in 1929. He was a harsh critic of the Zionist enterprises largely because of the attitudes among the Jewish settlers towards what they called the “ uncivilized race ” of “ savages ” and “ Red Indians, ” referring to Palestinians.

Israeli Minister of Justice Avraham Sharir informed an audience of American Jewish functionaries in February 1988 that “ the Arabs are liars from birth, ” eliciting no reaction, the Israeli press reports. The head of Israel’s Northern Command, General Avigdor Ben Gal, described the Arabs of Galilee ( within Israel proper ) as “ a cancer in Israel’s body, ”

A Israeli sergeant who ordered two soldiers to bury four Palestinians alive with a bulldozer receives four months imprisonment

Gabriel Dahan, who was convinced of killing 43 Arabs in one hour, served just over a year , the longest sentence served, and was then promptly engaged as officer for Arab affairs in Ramle.

A Palestinian artist Fathi Ghabanreceives a six-month prison sentence for using the colors of the Palestinian flag in a painting.

The case of a 17 - year-old Palestinian girl shot and killed in a schoolyard in Gaza, her killer, Shimon Yifrah of the Jewish settlement of Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip, arrested a month later and released on bail because, the Supreme Court determined, “ the offense is not severe enough to order the arrest of the accused. ”

Palestinian Storekeepers are threatened with a five years in prison - “ if they failed to wash anti-Israeli graffiti off their buildings and remove Palestinian flags. ”

Under 1983 orders of the military commander of the West Bank, no one may plant a tree or a vegetable without written authorization, Attorney Avigdor Feldman comments. Punishment for planting an illegal tomato is up to a year in prison.

CURFEWS When some atrocities occurs, Palestinians are placed under harsh curfew, no matter who is responsible. A striking illustration was the massacre of 29 Arabs praying in a Mosque by the right-wing American religious settler Baruch Goldstein in February 1994, followed by severe curfew of Palestinians and killing of many more Palestinians. In one of the innumerable other curfews, in September 1998, a day-old infant died in Hebron and another, three months old, died in her mother’s arms, both on their way to the hospital, when Israeli soldiers refused to let them pass through security barriers that had been set up to ensure that Jewish settlers could observe ritually prescribed seven days of morning without disturbance.

46

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER YITZHAK SHAMIR

SAID :“ WE WILL CRUSH ARABS LIKE GRASSHOPPERS ”

The Israeli editor Yigal Schwartz, on completing his tour as a reserve officer in the West Bank, described the prevailing attitudes among the military as based on assumption that they are dealing with “ primitive people, whom it is our duty to educate and discipline, ” teaching them, that “ they are our children and we are parents who educate them, ” with a rod if necessary. “ from right to left, ” disorder is taken to show that “ we are bad teachers, ” that “ if we had beaten them properly at the beginning they would be properly trained, ” so that it is necessary now to beat and humiliate them, even when three soldiers beat a helpless women, as he describes. On similar

premises, New York Mayor Edward Kock calls on Israel to “ crush the riots in the territories with an iron fist and drastic methods, ” to deport stone throwers without being “ so sensitive about the media reaction. ” Prime Minister Shamir warned that Palestinians who resist the occupation will be crushed “ like grasshoppers,” with their heads “ smashed against the boulders and walls ”; We say to them from the heights of this mountain and from the perspective of thousands of years of history that they are grasshoppers compared to us.”

Flavio’s comment : Referring to the above comment of New York Mayor Edward Kock, pressing Israel to crush Palestinian riots in the occupied territories with an iron fist and drastic methods, and to deport stone throwers without being so sensitive about the media reaction. Mayor Kock probably has forgotten the iron curtain, and the iron fist the Russian government used against Jews ? But reality shows, that the Jews refused that type of drastic method, and left Russia by the hundreds of thousands instead. Beside, caring and making sure that the media keeps exposing their suffering under the Nazi regime even after 60 years since it happened, right ? And about Prime Minister Ytzak Shamir warning Palestinians who will resist the occupations will be crushed “ like grasshoppers, ” with their heads “ smashed against boulders and walls ”. Shamir would probably smash his own head today if he were alive against the new wall Israel has almost finished to build to keep terrorists out of Israel. And he would also witness and have proof, that, those grasshoppers as he described Palestinians, were able to jump even higher then that wall and strike at the Israelis for their dictatorial behavior and cruelty. The Jews have stolen their country, and over 4 million Palestinians live in other countries and hundreds of thousands still live in refugee camps in appalling inhumane conditions since 1948. If you were a Palestinian, would you be patient and behave peacefully like Gandhi ? Or would you be less patient and more violent like God was when he lost his patients and punished humans with 40 days and nights of rain ?

JEWS KILLED BY TERRORISTSAND

TERRORISTS KILLED BY JEWS

According to figures provided by Minister of the Interior Yosef Burg , in 1980 ten Jews were killed by terrorists and in 1981, eight. In contrast, we have killed about a thousand terrorists in 1982, and caused the loss of life of thousands of inhabitants of an enemy country. If so, it results that for every 6 - 8 Jews sacrificed, we kill in return thousands of Gentiles. This is, undoubtedly, a spectacular situation, an uncommon success of ZIONISM.” Migvan ( Labor Party ), Oct / Nov 1982, quoting Aluf Hareven of the Van Lee Institute, in a debate on “ ZIONISM - 82 ” held at Tel Aviv University.

47

Note : All of this factual information was taken from Israel’s Lebanon War by Ze’vs Schiff & Ehud Ya’ari, considered the definitive account of Israel’s ‘ 82 invasion of Lebanon.’ Schiff is Military Correspondent for Israel’s largest newspaper ; Ya’ari is Middle East correspondent for Israel TV. As bad as it makes Israel look, the Israelis censored 20 - 50 % of the original manuscript - so they’re probably 35% worse than they look here !

ISRAEL WANTING PEACE ?FROM THE BOOK - FATEFUL TRIANGLE - BY - NOAM CHOMSKY

Noam Chomsky’s 550 pages THE FATEFUL TRIANGLE. In the 40 - and some years of its existence, Israel has never made a offer to the Arabs. U.S. President Jimmy Carter nearly had to put a gun to Menachem Begin’s head to get him to sign a treaty with Egypt’s Anuar El Sadat.

In 1976, Yitzak Rabin announced that he would not negotiate with any Palestinian on any political issue, and he would not negotiate with the PLO even if the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel !

In 1977, the PLO offered Israel a full peace treaty. Israel said no. Later that same year the U.S and Russia got together and issued a joint peace proposal. The PLO accepted it ( Oct ‘ 77 ’ ) but the Israelis griped until the U.S. dropped it.

In Nov, 1978. Yasser Arafat told rep. Paul Findley he wanted to talk peace with the U.S. Arafat’s statement was that “ the PLO will accept an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, with connecting corridor, and in those circumstances will renounce any and all violent means to enlarge the territory of that state. The Israelis ignored him. Arafat offered Israel everything they said they wanted and they wouldn’t even talk to him.

▪ In 1981 the PLO signed a truce with Israel.▪ The truce held for a year until Israel broke it and invaded Lebanon ▪ Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was an act of unmitigated aggression.▪ The 4th strongest army in the world destroyed Rashidiyeh refugee camp, killing hundreds of Palestinians, used ‘ anti-personnel ’ bombs on the trapped residents of Ein Hilweih refugee camp, coldly murdering hundreds more Palestinians, besieged Beirut, cutting off food, water and medical supplies and then, when the residents were nicely trapped, dropped cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs on schools, orphanages and hospitals.

48

The Zionists “ deliberately and systematically murdered, maimed and menaced the innocent Palestinians for political purpose, ” obviously, was to take down the 2000 - year-old sign that said Palestine and replace it with one that said Israel.

The famous Jewish author, Hhad Ha’am said that the Zionists “ treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds. ” If this is the “ Messiah, ” then I do not wish to see his coming.

Henry Kissinger had made a secured deal with Israel not to talk to the PLO, and America’s UN Ambassador Andrew Young had been forced to resign for merely talking to the PLO.

Israeli General Moshe Dayan had said that Israel must “ invent danger ” and “ adopt the method of provocation and revenge. ” Dayan said “ above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire space. ”

RAFAEL EITAN----------------------------------------------

Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan statedthat “ Since I have constructed a military machine costing billions of dollars, I am obliged to use it. ”

ISRAELI PROPAGANDATHAT PLO FIGHTERS ARE HIDINGBEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Israeli soldiers described their admiration for the Palestinians as “ brave fighters.” In his War Diary Colonel Yirmiah writes that “ the terrorists fought with a stubbornness that is unlike anything that preceded in Israel’s wars with the Arabs… In this war a new generation was born and a new era opened that will be remembered in the history of the Palestinian world as a heroic era, in the light of which the coming generations will be taught. ” Mordechai bar-On, former IDF chief education officer and no admirer of the PLO observed that “ the PLO’s desperate and heroic fight has, in addition to its other accomplishments, brought it glory in the eyes of the Palestinians…it is already clear that even those moderate leaders who had been somewhat reserved towards the PLO

49

leadership and methods, today feel impelled to express their admiration for the heroism of their brothers in Lebanon. ” As we have seen reactions in the occupied territories after the war tend to confirm this judgment. Israeli journalist Victor Ciegelman drew the same conclusion from his survey of opinion in the occupied territories. The London Bureau chief of Newsweek gave his impressions from Beirut at the war’s end as follows : The Palestinians leave here as victors in their own minds and in the eyes of the Arab world. As all of their leaders have said, they fought off one of the most powerful armies in the world. I have no doubt, having seen the intensity of the bombing and shelling of West Beirut, that the Israelis wanted to get into West Beirut to kill or drag the PLO fighters off into captivity. Despite what Ariel Sharon the Israeli defense minister might say, I do not think Israel spent billions of dollars, sacrificed hundreds of its young men and blackened its name in the civilized world just so that Yasser Arafat and George Habash and their men could fly off as heroes to the capitals of the Arab world.The guerillas now spreading out across that Arab world did what all the combined Arab Armies have never been able to do : they denied Israel its victory. For the first time after

an Israeli-Arab war, the ending is not recorded in pictures of long lines of Arab troops marching off to captivity and humiliation with their arms over their heads. The world is seeing triumphant soldiers carrying their arms and their flags to new battles. For the first time an Arab-Israeli war has produced a cadre of veterans who know what it is like to face the full strength of the Israeli army, navy and air force-and to stop them dead in their tracks.

Chris Drake of the BBC, describing the ferocious Israeli bombing of August 1, 1983, referred to “ The PLO - which can rightfully claim to have fought a tremendous battle against overwhelming military opposition…” An Israeli journalist, a reserve sergeant in the paratroops, wrote that “ the PLO fighters fought bravely in Beirut confronted with the Israeli machine of destruction. They continued to fight, in spite of the fact that they had no military chance, just as was the case for the Jewish fighters 40 years ago in the Warsaw ghetto, in 1943. ” When Israeli troops overran the Ain el-Hilweh refugee camp after 5 days of fighting , they are reported to have “ found many of the defenders had committed suicide, a grisly Palestinian replay of the fate of the ancient Jewish warriors of Massada. ”

FROM THE BOOK - FATEFUL TRIANGLE - BY - NOAM CHOMSKYPAGE - 312 - 313

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flavio’s comment :I was thinking about the present conflict that started July 11, 2006, and the Israeli military attack in Southern Lebanon against the Hezbollah fighters that is now in its second week. The other five times Israel invaded Lebanon was in, 1978, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1996. I was wondering if the Israeli military machine and technology was in the hands of the Hezbollah fighters, and that the Israeli soldiers instead were fighting with the Hezbollah military equipment, if the Israelis were going to accept the onslaught and face their enemy head-on, and also, outside civilian populated areas in reference to the Israeli ridiculous argument that the Hezbollah guerillas are cowards for fighting the Israelis in populated areas.

50

THE REASON OF THE ISRAELI INVASION OF LEBANON

IN2006

BY

FLAVIO CODARIN

The Israeli government decided to attack Lebanon because one of its soldier was captured by the Hezbollah fighters that are hiding in Southern Lebanon. This is the first time in the past 12 years that an Israeli soldier has been captured. The reason given for the Israeli attack has been, that it was because the Hezbollah Organization refused to free the captured Israeli soldier.The argument given by the Hezbollah Organization is, that they were willing to free the Israeli soldier if Israel also frees Palestinian women and children that are in Israeli jails, and 64 Hamas Leaders rounded up in the West Bank. Including 8 cabinet ministers.

There is also the urgent critical problem of the 165,000 government workers that have not been paid for the past two months, because international aid has been cut off. Even if Hamas leaders were able to collect tens of millions of dollars in the Arab and Muslim world to counter the Western sanctions, the money could not be transferred to Gaza because of Israeli and U.S. pressure on banks afraid of running afoul of Washington’s anti-terrorism regulations.

CANADIANS IN LEBANON

Canada has about 40 thousand Canadians presently in Lebanon, and is trying to get them back home. The problem is very critical because of the fact that Israel has bombed roads, bridges, sea-ports, railway-lines and airports, so they are trapped and cannot move out of the war zone.

ISRAEL’S HARD STANDBY

FLAVIO CODARIN

The countries of the world at the United Nations have recently expressed their concern and their point of view concerning the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah Organization fighters in southern Lebanon. They have condemned Hezbollah for capturing and holding hostage for the first time since twelve years a Corporal by the name Gilad Shalit. They also condemned the excessive destructive use of force by Israel’s military power in Lebanese territory.

51

THE THREE LONERSBY

FLAVIO CODARIN

From all the countries of the world, only three have disagreed that Israel did not use excessive force in Lebanon. Those three countries are the United States, Canada and England. The only two countries in the world to have voted against establishing a tribunal, that is a court of justice to condemn the perpetrators of war crimes committed against humanity were the United States and Israel.

IS THERE ANY HOPE OF NEGOTIATIONBETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH ?

BYFLAVIO CODARIN

It will depend mostly at the objective of the most powerful of the two sworn enemies, and that is Israel of course. Here are some Newspaper articles exposing Israel’s hard stand,

WE WONT NEGOTIATE, ISRAEL SAYSThe Gazette July 4, 2006

GAZA CITY, GAZA STRIP - Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert rejected an ultimatum yesterday set by Palestinian militants who suggested they would kill a captured Israeli soldier unless Israel began to release Palestinian prisoners. Olmert said, “ The government of Israel will not yield to the extortion of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas government, which is led by murderous terrorist organizations, ” and continued, “ We will not conduct any negotiations on a prisoner release. ”

Flavio’s comment : Referring to the process of peace in Northern Ireland, Margaret Tatcher also said she refuses to negotiate with the ( IRA ) Irish Republican Army, that made use of terror since the beginning of its activities, and over 3000 people have been killed between soldiers, policemen and civilians. But later Margaret Tatcher did negotiate with the ( IRA ), and a peace accord was signed finally.

The Gazette July 14, 2006

The European Union criticized Israel yesterday for using “ disproportioned ” force in its attacks on Lebanon while Russia warned against a dangerous escalation of the Mid-east conflict. “ The European Union is greatly concerned about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hezbollah on Israel, ” according to a statement issued by Finland, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency. “ The imposition of an air and sea blockade on Lebanon cannot be justify, ”Egypt warned that the violence could engulf the entire region. “ Targeting civilians under the pretext of fighting terrorism is unacceptable and unjustified. Israeli practice violates international law, ” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said .

52

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a “ fierce response, ” state television reported.

ISRAEL VOWS TO DESTROYLEBANON’S MILITANT ‘ CANCER ’

The Gazette July 15, 2006

Beirut - Israeli warplanes smashed Hezbollah chief Sayed Hassan Nasrallah’s headquarters yesterday, and shortly after, Hezbollah vowed to unleash “ open war ” and crippled an Israeli warship off the Lebanese coast. The rapid exchange of blows marked a sharp escalation in three days of intense fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Four Israeli sailors were missing after an unmanned drone slammed into the warship. “ You wanted open war. We are going to open war, ” Nasrallah said yesterday in a call to Hezbollah television.

Flavio’s comment : Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel.

Israel vows to destroy Lebanon’s Militant ‘ Cancer ’ Hezbollah. And, President George W. Bush vowed to destroy Terrorism. It looks like it will be a very exiting time for the military establishment if all these threats were to come true. Maybe, its time to invest in shares of those companies producing military hardware ?

The Gazette July 20, 2006

Beirut - the airport has been bombed several times ; there is an air and sea blockade ; the Syrian border has been bombed ; civilians cannot leave the country easily - if at all. Bridges, gas stations, roads and entire villages ( Haret Hreik, Chtaura, Saida, Tyre, Dahiye, Kfarshima ) and much of the infrastructure have been targeted and destroyed. All that has been destroyed in just a matter of days. Israeli planes today dropped fliers to warn Lebanese villagers to flee their villages, at most, an hour before these villages are wiped out. How much time does that give people to run ? What about the people that cannot read or the tourists who cannot read Arabic ? And how can they run away if their roads and bridges have been destroyed ?

***********************************************************************************************

The Gazette July 20, 2006

Nathalie Malhane----------------------------------------------------

A Montreal and McGill University graduate, attends university in Beirut. She lives in a Christian area of the city. Yesterday, a bomb exploded behind her house.Malhame was not injured, but a neighbor died of heart attack. These are her feelings about the situation ; “ No, Hezbollah should not have captured the Israeli soldier. They did it without the knowledge of the Lebanese population or of its government. Indeed, the soldier should

53

be released back to Israel. But that does not give the Israeli military the right to destroy entire villages, kill innocent people or bomb our entire infrastructure. Yes, Hezbollah should be disarmed. An immediate ceasefire must take place now and the international community must intervene so that the Lebanese government can take control again. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is a good man, with his heart in the right place. We must give him the chance to take control. He cannot do so unless there is a ceasefire. This conflict has gone beyond the capture of a soldier. It has spilled over, way over, into the danger Zone. Do we really want to see the start of the Third World War ? Do we really want to ignore the value of human life ? Day by day, more tears and blood are spilled, Mainly in Lebanon right now but also in Haifa, Gaza - in Palestine, Israel and Lebanon. Is this really what you want ? what for ? what for ? Please, just tell me what for. I stand up and cry out with dignity and love for humanity : No more violence, no more violence. Please, people of all nations from Lebanon and Israel to Canada, France and the rest of the world : Stand up and say No ! Tell me you will not stand idly by, tell me that you will not close your eyes, tell me that you will not give up. Tell me that you will raise your voice of peace and help intervene now, fast and urgently before more human lives are lost. Thank you for listening. From Lebanon with tears. ”

***************************************************MY PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW

FLAVIO CODARIN

First . Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has refused to negotiate with the Hezbollah Organization to free the Israeli captured soldier by saying , that Israel does not negotiate with terrorists. This is the same policy applied by U.S. president George W. Bush. Therefore, we don’t have to wonder and ask ourselves if there will be a solution to solve the problem in Lebanon with the Hezbollah Organization. The United Nations can stop wasting their time in trying , we already have the answer, in the fact that the United States and Israel said no negotiations

Second . Israel has vowed to destroy the Hezbollah Organization. That is what they are doing presently in Lebanon. Therefore, again we wont have to ask ourselves the reason why Hezbollah fighters are fighting like hell. The Hezbollah Organization and their fighters know that Israel wont negotiate, and wants to destroy them, just like George W. Bush, and the world knows it too. Leaving the Hezbollah fighters with no choice but to fight for their survival.

Third . Israel has exposed herself to the world by attacking Lebanon for the Sixth time during the last 28 years. We also know that Israel had four Prime Ministers that themselves were leaders of organizations that were using terrorist tactics. Such as the four that I mentioned in my essay. They are, David Ben Gurion, - Yitzak Shamir, - Menachem Begin, and Ariel Sharon. The world had to negotiate with them, but they won’t negotiate with anybody.

54

Fourth . If every country that has problems with terrorists would attack the countries where those terrorists are hiding and operating from, then the world would be in constant war and no place would be spared.

Fifth . The destruction that Israel is presently doing to the nation of Lebanon, killing so many civilians and destroying most of the country’s infrastructure, is the reality and the arrogance of Israel and her monstrous military machine against a nation that has been bombarded for over 30 days, by over a thousand plane sorties, tanks, Apache helicopters, warships, cannons and rockets. Lebanon’s military has not fought back. I have no recollection that this has ever happened in the history of the world. The arrogance of Israel has exploded with her bombs, she did not listen to world opinion and over-reacted just for one of her soldiers who was captured during a fight with Hezbollah guerillas. I personally believe she has started to dig her own grave. In the long-run, the United States won’t be able to save her from her own destruction because of her arrogance, and for the fact that the U.S. also finds itself in the same situation.

Sixth . The horror of what is happening to the Lebanese people and Palestinian refugees reminds us of the Second World War, when Jews were massacred by the Nazi regime and the world was standing still. Now the Lebanese people and Palestinians are massacred by Israeli Jews with their monstrous military machine and American technology while the world is standing still.

History repeats itself, and the world is watching the Lebanese, the Palestinians and others bleed to death. How can it be that five million Jews could scare 6 billion other human beings of the world to a stand still ? Now we see all of this on TV, therefore, it is not like during the Second World War that television was almost non existent, and the masses of people of the world did not see the massacres with their own eyes such as we see these days directly and in color. Is this the new democracy ?

RELIGIONS ALSO USED TERRORISM

JUDAISM. The Jews founded Israel by a form of genocide. Joshua had particularly practiced a policy of ethnic cleansing , as can be read in the biblical account of his reign, when he killed the population of Ai, men, women and children together to the number of 12.000, and burned the town. He exterminated King after King and tribe after tribe, particularly in Hebron. ‘ And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, the King thereof , and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein : he left none remaining ’. The great problem of any religion is when it passes from poverty to power. When the faithful are persuaded that they now rule through the leaders, a terrible revenge is exacted against those who disagree.Terrorism has a long history. As an activity, it has a lineage of at least two millennia and has been traced back to Roman times. Most of terrorism identified during this period was inspired by religion. Extremists associated with Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam have instigated terrorism. This characteristic is particularly noticeable during times of great religious change and unrest.

55

FROM THE BOOK

POURQUOI BUSH VEUT LA GUERREBY

RODRIGUE TREMBLAYReligion, politique, et pétrole

dans les conflits internationauxPAGE - 50

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although we call ourselves more civilized than our ancestors, we have been able to terrorize to death at least 100 million people in the twentieth century, a scale of genocide made possible by modern technology, which is our pride and joy. UNESCO has estimated that 200 million people have been killed by religious violence and religious wars during the last 2000 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEVELOPING INDUSTRY ?

During the occupation, the Israeli military administration bars independent development. An official order declares that “ no permits will be given for expanding agriculture and industry which may compete with the state of Israel.” Ronny Shaked recalled that, in the territories, Israel governments “ are only interested in calm and cheap manpower. Decisions to develop any infrastructures, to create any industrial or agricultural development, are taken only to promote a specific Israeli interest and are forced on the inhabitants. In Hebron, for example, the Civil Administration refused a request to set up a factory for making nails, fearing competition with a factory in Tel Aviv.

ARABS WORKING IN ISRAEL

Arab workers are not permitted to spend the night within Israel. Since employers do not want to pay the cost of shipping workers back and forth, some have adopted the idea of locking them into factories at night, a practice that became public knowledge when several were found burned to death in a locked room after a fire in a small Tel Aviv factory. Others have been kept under armed guard behind barbed wire in factory detention camps, including one owned by Histadrut, the socialist trade union. These practices aroused some protest in Israel where, for example, Natan Dunvitz wrote in Ha’aretz that “ it is unacceptable to treat Arab workers as Black slaves were treated in American cotton fields. ”

Amos Hadar, General of the Moshav movement says, “ There is no choice but to employ Arabs, ” they must be brought from Gaza in the morning and returned there in the evening. “ It is hard, it is costly, it is problematic from an economic standpoint - but there in no other solution, if Jews in the State of Israel are unable to pick the oranges and grapes. ”

56

Hadar continues. There is also, the issue of child labor, of children aged six or seven trucked in by labor contractors at 4 AM to work on private or collective farms for “ a meager subsistence wage, ” though “ often they are cheated on that. ” The matter has not been discussed in the United States, to my knowledge.

ISRAELI BORDER GUARDS

Knesset Member Ran Cohen reported the treatment of Arab workers by Border Guards in a Tel Aviv hotel : “ The Arab workers were cruelly beaten up, and were compelled to masturbate before the Border Guards, to lick the floor of their flat and to eat coffee mixed with sugar and tooth paste, and their money was stolen.” They brought complaints to the authorities, but after more than two months, there had been no investigation. The key feature of the occupation has always been humiliation : they must not be allowed to raise their heads. The basic principle, often openly expressed, is that the “Araboushim ”– a term that belongs with “ nigger ” or “ kike ” – must understand who rules this land and who walks in it with head lowered and eyes averted. If shopkeepers try to open their stores in the afternoon as a gesture of independence, the army compels them to close in the afternoon and open in the morning. If a remote village declares itself “ liberated, ” meaning that it will run its own internal affairs, the army attacks, and if stones are thrown as villagers try to keep the soldiers out, the result will be killings, beatings, destruction of property, mass arrests, and torture.

THE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN WORKERS

The rights of the Palestinian workers in the “ new Middle East ” were spelled out in a may 1995 ruling by Justice Y. Bazak of the Jerusalem District court, rejecting a lawsuit brought by the workers’ right group Kav La’Oved ( “ Workers’ Hotline, ” Tel Aviv ). The plaintiffs had requested restitution of $ 1 billion withheld from salaries for social benefits that Palestinian workers had never received ( pensions, unemployment payments, and so on ); the funds ended up in the State treasury. The Court dismissed the case, accepting the government’s argument that Knesset legislation to implement the Oslo I accords retroactively legalized the robbery, thus removing any legal basis for the suit. The Court also accepted the government’s argument that Israel’s National Insurance Law grants rights only to residents of Israel. The deductions were never intended to ensure equal rights for the Palestinian workers, Justice Bazak ruled, but were designed to keep wages for Palestinians high on paper but low in reality, thus protecting Israeli workers from unfair competition by cheap Palestinian labor. This is “ a worthy and reasonable purpose which is recognized by the Court, ” Justice Bazak explained, “ just as the legality of imposing customs taxes is recognized for the purpose of protecting the country’s products.” One can see why the Israeli judicial system must retain veto power over any legislation that the Palestinian authorities might contemplate ; and why American taxpayers must be kept in the dark about the use of the huge subsidies they provide to Israel.

57

THE WATER OF THE LAND

A handful of Israeli settlers run luxury hotels with swimming pools for guests and profit from water-intensive agriculture, Palestinians lack water to drink – or, increasingly, even food to eat, as the economy collapses. Individual cases clarify the general picture. For example, the village of Ubaydiya, where 8000 Palestinians were deprived of running water for 18 months while the nearby Jewish settlements were “ flourishing in the desert. ” As reported by the London Financial Times, “ Nothing symbolises the inequality of water consumption more than the fresh green lawns, irrigated flower beds, blooming gardens and swimming pools of Jewish settlements in the West bank ” while nearby Palestinian villages are denied the right to drill wells and have running water one day every few weeks, polluted by sewage, so that men have to drive to towns to fill up containers with water or to hire contractors to deliver it at 15 times the cost. In Summer 1995, the Israeli national water company, Mekorot, cut supplies to the southern and central parts of Gaza for 20 days because people had no money to pay their bills.

THE LEBANESE SOIL

“ Israeli lorries have been scooping up truckload after truckload of Lebanon’s fertile topsoil and carting ( it ) off to Israel, ” leaving the Lebanese “ with an ugly open-cast mine.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MY FINAL ANALYSISOF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH

FIGHTERS LOCATED IN SOUTHERN LEBANON BY

FLAVIO CODARIN

First . The cause and the root of the problem concerning the present conflict between the state of Israel and the Hezbollah Organization in Southern Lebanon is only an extension, and continuation, of all the other conflicts and wars of the past 58 years between Israel and the Arab states. All of this is a reaction from the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, that was decided by a few nations which lacked the vision to foresee the consequences and the problems that one day were inevitable from the decisions they had taken, that were against the will of the Arab nations. The consequences of the decision taken by those nations to create the state of Israel is the reason why today we have over 4 million Palestinian refugees displaced in other countries. And hundreds of thousands more in refugee camps because of the wars that took place between Israel and the Arab states.

58

Second . The Israeli leaders refused to negotiate with the Hezbollah Organization that was asking for the release of prisoners, in exchange for one Israeli soldier captured at the beginning of the present conflict. They are forgetting the history of four of their Prime Ministers that were also former leaders of organizations that used terrorist tactics. They were, David Ben Gurion, Yitzak Shamir, Menachem Begin, and Ariel Sharon now in a coma in an Israeli hospital.

Third. Politicians in Israel often bring foreword their propaganda to show the world, that before Israeli jet fighters unload their deadly destructive cargo of bombs, guided missiles, and even some type of ammunition that are banned by the Geneva Convention, announced that before their planes bomb enemy territory they drop leaflets to warn civilians to leave the area.Can we expect the Hezbollah Organization to do the same as the good-hearted Israelis, if they don’t have any planes ? The Israeli message to show their humanitarian behavior is short lived, and is instantly contradicted by the results from those bombing missions that are carried out by destroying roads, bridges, railway-lines, harbors and airports. How can civilians escape ? Beside the bombings of ambulances, Red Cross trucks, medical supplies and food relief convoys, or anything that moves on wheels. Do you still believe in the good old Jewish Santa Claus ? The only way the Lebanese civilians would have a chance to survive the Israeli onslaught and be able to escape alive would be, if God would come to their rescue by creating a path of safety just like when he separated the waters of the sea to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

Fourth .Israel’s reaction against the Hezbollah fighting force estimated to be at about 800 men, referring to the information from the newspaper ( La Presse the 22, of July this year 2006 ), and that are equipped with light firearms, grenades, and small Katyusha rockets. The world has witnessed on TV, the reaction of Israel’s military might considered to be the fourth most powerful in the world, that after the third week of conflict with Hezbollah fighters, the small Lebanese nation has received from the Israeli Air Force over 3.000 plane sorties that unloaded their deadly cargo of bombs. Beside the attacks of Apache helicopters equipped with rapid fire Gulling guns and rockets. Lebanon has been pounded daily by missiles and cannons from warships, ground cannons, and shelling by tanks. This included the Israeli commandos and foot soldiers, advancing with the latest and best American made equipment. All of this military might has specially destroyed everything that could permit civilians to escape. All of this was considered to be a measured response by George W. Bush, and Tony Blair with our Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The only thing that Israel didn’t use up to now is the Atomic Bomb. But it does not mean that they are not thinking about it, or that they will not use it in the near future, RIGHT ? I was wondering what would stop Israel from using the Atomic Bomb to settle the conflict once and for all, and use the same argument as the Americans did with Japan, by saying , that they dropped the two Atomic Bombs to end the war sooner and save lives on both sides. And at the same time, scare the hell out of any one that dares to challenge their power and domination.

59Fifth . The Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert said, that the Hezbollah Organization has taken hostage the people of Lebanon. Some of us could also think like Ehud Olmert, but many others might think instead that Israel has taken hostage the six billion people of the world because of her powerful Jewish lobby in the United States, controlling finance, the News-Media, top government positions. This is not to mention the control of nearly all the economies of the world by making the rules that are most favorable to themselves, of course.Beside this there is Hollywood, that they control and continue to brain wash people with unrealistic expectation etc… etc…. The whole world is standing still while the Lebanese people are being massacred for the sixth time since 1978, by the invading Israeli disproportioned response and awesome military push button computerized technology.

Sixth . The leaders of Israel have accused the Hezbollah fighters of hiding in civilian populated areas to fight the Israeli soldiers. But the reality is, that before the creation of the state of Israel, the Jewish fighters were also hiding and fighting the Arabs in populated civilian areas. This is nothing new in the history of warfare, all nations during war have attacked the cities of the enemy and killed more civilians than soldiers. Example, during the Second World War 15 million soldiers died and almost twice as many civilians. Therefore, anyone that has read a bit more history than those Israeli leaders, and U.S. President George W. Bush who has been called a moron by his own people, will not be fooled by the excuses and nonsense of those Israeli leaders and the moron president of the most powerful country in the world. Right ?

Seventh .

The argument Israel uses to justify her attack on Lebanon for the capture of one of her soldiers, by saying that she has the right to defend herself against the Hezbollah fighters, is in fact not a problem in itself. The problem arises when it comes to the measured response issue, that is only accepted by three leaders of the Western world, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Stephen Harper. Can 200 countries of the United Nations that disagreed with Israel’s measured response be wrong , and only three be right ?

Eight .The world has been watching for the past month the monstrous and terrifying Israeli firepower against the Lebanese nation. It seems that everyone has been hypnotized and paralyzed, by the spectacle that is being shown every day on TV, with explosions in city centers of fireballs so huge that only a nuclear bomb could be worse. It is a miracle that more people have not been killed from all of this. The distraction has been so overwhelming to see all of this on TVs, daily news, that no-one has taken a moment to reflect and ask himself the most basic question. If Israel uses the argument of having the right to defend herself, how could it be that no leader of any nation, or representative of a humanitarian organization, or a critic of conscious behavior, including writers, journalists, strategic planners etc… etc…, not have reacted to Israel’s argument by saying that the Lebanese people also have the right to defend themselves. Instead, the Lebanese military establishment did not react to Israel’s monstrous onslaught of the worst kind.

60

I believe that the first time in history that a nation that has been attacked by another nation did not responded militarily is the present case with Lebanon after been attacked by Israel.

Ninth .The history of the Jews show that they have been hated, and in many cases persecuted by nearly every other nationality, and they always had problems living in harmony with the rest of the world. They also claim that nobody loves them, that is probably the reason why they always had to keep moving around the world. The sixth of August this year, I participated in a march to end the fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Hezbollah Fighters. In this march I noticed seven religious members of the NETUREY KARTA Orthodox Jewish group, who had come from New York City to show solidarity with the Lebanese, and denounced the state of Israel and Zionism. They were carrying a banner with the writing : “ Judaism condemns Israel and the atrocities she has committed in the name of the TORAH. ” The people in the crowd applauded them for having had the courage to do so.

PEACEFUL RABBIS ?After the 1973 war, the highly-respected Lubavitcher Rabbi ( New York ) deplored the failure to conquer Damascus. He also warned against abandoning any of the conquered territories. Another American Rabbi explained that the religious law empowers Israel to “ dispossess ” the Arabs of the conquered territories : “ As long as the war which initiated the conquest was conducted under instructions from the Israeli government, who

halachicly ( by religious law ) possesses the same powers as the biblical king , all territories captured as a result of this war belongs to Israel. ” As for “ the argument that by not surrendering the territories, we might be heightening the possibility of a future war, ” this is “ not valid ” under religious law which “ indicates that, on the contrary, we must start a war to prevent even the possibility of permanent settlement nearer our borders than heretofore. ” After Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, a group of leading Rabbis and religious authorities in Israel and the U.S. warned the government that it is “ forbidden ” to return any territories of the Land of Israel, and the Supreme Rabbinical Council of Israel later reiterated this judgment, citing biblical obligations and religious law. The chief Rabbis also gave their endorsement to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, declaring that it conformed to the Halachic ( religious ) law and that participation in the war “ in all its aspects ” is a religious duty.

Such pronouncements are by no means novel, and since 1973 at least, they have been taken seriously in significant circles. In the mass-circulation journal Yediot Ahronot in 1974, Menahem Barash write with much admiration about the teachings of Rabbi Moshe Ben-Zion Ushpizai of Ramat-Gan, who used biblical texts and traditional commentary to explain how Israel should deal with the Palestinians, “ a plague already written in the Bible. ” “ With a sharp scalpel and convincing logic ” the Rabbi uses the writings of the “ greatest sages ” to elucidate the commandments, still binding today, as to how to “ inherit the land ” that was promised by God to Abraham. We must follow the doctrines of Joshua, he explains, referring to the genocidal texts that appear in the

61

book of Joshua and elsewhere. “ The biblical commandment is to conquer the land of Israel in its detailed borders, to take possession of it and to settle it. ” It is “ forbidden ” to “ abandon it to strangers ” ( Gentiles ). “ There is no place in this land for the people of Israel and for other nations alongside it. The practical meaning of ( the commandment to ) possess the land is the expulsion of the peoples who live in it ” and who try to prevent the Jews of the world from “ settling in our land. ”It is “ a holy war, commanded in the Bible, ” and it must be fought against Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians “ or any other people in the world ” who seek to block the divine commandment. There can be no compromises, no peace treaties, no negotiations with “ the peoples who inhabit the land. ” “ You shall destroy them, you shall enter into no covenant with them, you shall not pity them, you shall not intermarry with them, ” the divine law dictates. Whoever stands in our way must be annihilated, the Rabbi continues with his “ convincing logic, ” citing numerous traditional authorities. All of this is reported quite seriously, and with much respect. After the Beirut massacres of September 1982 there was a renewed outpouring of militant support for the war in religious circles. The influential Gush Emunim group, which spearheads West Bank settlement, published a statement praising Begin, Sharon, and Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, describing the war as a “ great act of sanctification of God’s name. ” The statement also spoke of “ the return of the territory of the tribes of Naftali and Asher to the boundaries of Israel, ” and of Israel’s “ responsibility to act to the limits of its ability to destroy the foundations of evil in the entire world. ” Two months before, Rabbi Elazar Valdman of Gush Emunim wrote in the journal Nekudah of the religious West Bank settlers :

“ We will certainly establish order in the Middle East and in the world. And if we do not take this responsibility upon ourselves, we are sinners, not just towards ourselves but

towards the entire world. For who can establish order in the world ? All of those western leaders of weak character ? ” “ According to Gush Emunim, we must conquer not only Syria and Turkey but with the blood of our children we must become the guardian of the entire world. ”

“ Gush Emunim Rabbis publicly incite to kill Arab civilians. ”

----------------------------------------------------------------------ABOUT PEACEFUL RABBIS ?

FROM THE BOOK

FATEFUL TRIANGLE APDATED EDITION

THE UNITED STATES, ISRAEL & THE PALESTINIANS

NOAM CHOMSKYFOREWORD BY - EDWARD W. SAID

PAGE - 151 - 153 - 154 - 155

62

Flavio’s comment : In reference to the above texts about ( Peaceful Rabbis ? ) One does not have to wonder much longer to comprehend how difficult it will be to achieve peace in the Middle East, after having read the content of the fundamentalist extremist religious beliefs forwarded by some of the Rabbis. Almost everyone is aware of the considered extremist regime of Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And in more than one occasion, the media reported that Ahmadinejad threaded to destroy the state of Israel. Could it be possible that Ahmadinejad read some of the same texts such as I have read, about those Fundamentalist extremist Rabbis ?

Let us refer to the above text where it mentions, “ There is no place in this land for the people of Israel and for other nations alongside it. It is “ a holy war, commanded in the Bible, ” and it must be fought against Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians “ or any other people in the world ” who seek to block the divine commandment. There can be no compromises, no peace treaties, no negotiations with “ the people who inhabit the land. ” “ You shall destroy them, you shall not pity them, ” the divine law dictates. “ Whoever stands in our way must be annihilated. ”I suggest you the reader to sit down for a moment and take a deep breath. Let us assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was crazy enough to have said what the media reported, about destroying the state of Israel. Could it be possible that if he really meant it, and that he is a fundamentalist extremist religious believer as much as those

Jewish Rabbis, and, George W. Bush, when he mentioned the Crusades. Threatening the nations of the world, by saying , “ Either you are with us, or you are against us. ” Does it make Ahmadinejad less democratic and more dangerous if we assume he is aware of the above information and more ? In particular, if he has taken seriously those threats by those Rabbis and George W. Bush, when they have also publicly stated that they will use preemptive war when they assume their national interests are in jeopardy. And that they will destroy terrorism even though their enemies know that they themselves made use of terrorism more than anyone else ? The message could not be more specific and threatening , the fact, that the United States has soldiers stationed in over 120 countries of the world. I was wondering if Russia or China had soldiers in over 120 countries of the world, if we would feel as comfortable in accepting their policy as it was mentioned by George W. Bush, “ Either you are with us, or you are against us. ”

We could also assume what Ahmadinejad might be thinking , that the way to scare Israel and the United states from imposing their famous ideology, such as, “ You do it our way, or you take the highway, ” is to develop the Atomic Bomb. He could use the same argument as the Americans and the Israelis do, when they claim, that when you possess the Atomic Bomb the enemy thinks twice before attacking your country. They also claim that it is a deterrent to prevent wars. That said, the world knows that Ahmadinejad is not as dangerous as Israel and the U.S. portrays him to be. Because, if one day Iran dares to use the Atomic bomb against Israel or the U.S., it will receive many more than it will deliver.

63

FROM THE BOOKSUPER PATRIOTISM

BYMICHAEL PARENTI

PAGE - 58 - 67

Former Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, with Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, describing the war as a “ great act of sanctification of God’s name. ” Reminds me of George W. Bush when he uses the same logic by saying , “ God is with us. ” On June 27, 2003, President Bush announced : “ God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam Hussein, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. ” God told me ? He instructed me ? Does it not become a cause for concern that the US president, sounding like an Old Testament prophet, is justifying his war policy by claiming to be in direct communication with the Almighty ? It is a worrisome chain of command. On another occasion Bush voiced his determination to “ rid the world of evil ” and “ evildoers ” even if it meant repeatedly resorting to war. It is laudable when a leader wants to help make the world a better place but somewhat disquieting when the man in the Oval Office feels he has a divine mandate to reshape the world through violent means. In 2003 President George W. Bush announced that the United States was unique in that it was doing God’s work on earth, bringing God’s gift of liberty to “ every human being in the world. ” The Old Testament itself, with its asseveration that the Israelites were God’s Chosen People, doing Jehovah’s bidding , serving as his exemplary acolytes here on earth as they leveled whole cities of heathens and non-believers. Indeed, there is no bloodier compendium of nationalistic carnage and messianic atrocity than the Old Testament.

Flavio’s comment :Referring to the above text about President George W. Bush receiving direct orders from God to attack al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein, as well as being determined to solve the problem in the Middle East, and rid the world of evildoers. He also said that he was doing God’s work on earth, bringing God’s gift of liberty to “ every human being in the world. ” It is too bad that George W. Bush was not President of the United States during the 17th century, that he could have liberated from his own country millions of Africans slaves ? Instead of having waited almost 200 years before it happened. And now he has the opportunity to also liberate one billion and 300 million Chinese from communism ? He probably didn’t receive the order from God yet ? At the moment Bush might be waiting for God’s signal to attack Iran first ? At least the Devil has been very busy lately in receiving all those souls from the four latest wars. The Bosnia war, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war of 1991 and 2003. He might be thinking, thanks to George W. Bush business has never been so good in hell.

64

THE VATICAN AND THE JEWSFROM THE BOOK

BOUTROS BOUTROS - GHALISHIMON PERES

BYANDRÉ VERSAILLE

PAGE - 81

Shimon Peres former Prime Minister of Israel and Nobel Prize for peace commented about the Vatican lacking compassion towards Jews that were persecuted during the Second World War. And that it also remained neutral and indifferent to their tragedy and suffering. That is unacceptable he said.The second point Peres forwarded was, that it had taken the Vatican 50 years before it recognized the State of Israel, instead of having done so in 1948.

Flavio’s comment :One cannot be to surprised that the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still refuses to recognize the State of Israel. The reason could be that he might be thinking about the Vatican taking so long to do so, and, he is probably asking himself the question, why can I not take 50 years to recognize the State of Israel just like the Vatican ?

ISRAEL AND TORTUREFROM THE BOOK - FATEFUL TRIANGLE BY - NOAM CHOMSKY - PAGE - Vii - XViii

Amnesty International published an assessment of the human rights situation since Oslo as the Wye Memorandum was signed. AI estimates 1600 Palestinians routinely arrested by Israeli military forces every year, half “ systematically tortured. ” AI notes once again, as other major human rights organizations regularly have, that Israel is alone in having “ effectively legalized the use of torture ” ( with Supreme Court approval ), determining that in pursuit of Israel’s perceived security needs “ all international rules of conduct could be broken. ” Noam Chomsky’s major claim is that Israel and the United States – especially the latter – are rejectionists opposed to peace, whereas the Arabs, including the PLO, have for years been trying to accommodate themselves to the reality of Israel. Chomsky supports his case by comparing the history of the Palestinian - Israeli conflict – so profoundly inhuman, cynical, and deliberately cruel to the Palestinian people.

65

Flavio’s comment :Are you surprise to read that Israel is alone in having legalized the use of torture with Supreme Court approval ? You probably never expected that behavior from the chosen people of God. You shouldn’t be too surprised either, if one day the same chosen people might use the first atomic bomb against some of the Arab states. If the Israelis believe that all international rules of conduct signed since Oslo could be broken, why can they not do so for the atomic bomb, considering that experts estimate that Israel possesses over 300 of them. And considering their claim to be the chosen people of God with exclusive rights ? Beside, believing as George W. Bush did when he referred to the use of preemptive war to prevent the enemy from attacking first. And also, referring to the two Atomic bombs dropped by the United States over two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War. When the United States argument was, to use the Atomic bomb to end the war sooner so it will save many lives. Therefore, Israel might be thinking with the same logic as the U.S. did. And probably might use the Atomic Bomb to end once and for all the so many wars and conflicts between Arabs and Jews that have being going on since 1948. And, at the same time save many lives ?

HATRED SO DEEP Israeli writer Amos Oz in a series of articles in Danvar, based on interviews, refers to a recent American immigrant from a religious family in New York tell him that she hopes for a war or a “ terrible disaster to the Jews abroad ” so that “ they shall be persecuted ” and come to Israel. There will never be peace, she says :

“ The hatred the Gentiles feel towards the Jews is eternal. There never was peace between us and them except when they totally beat us or when we shall totally beat them. Maybe if they will give someone like Ariel Sharon the chance to kill off as many of them as possible, destroy their countries, until the Arabs will understand that we did them a favor in letting them remain alive… We are powerful now and power should talk. The Gentiles only understand the language of power. ”

A recent immigrant from the U.S. with degrees from Yeshiva and Columbia Universities, now teaching social science at Bar Ilan University, adds his contribution. “ Western culture is not for us, ” he explains, “ The Torah is far more modern than western culture, ” giving a person “ freedom without permissiveness. ” “ The ways of God are great ” and “ gradually all our opponents will understand that they are mistaken. ”

As for the Arabs, they are “ a trial, ” but if we are “ strong and obstinate, it will be the beginning of salvation. All the difficulties are the pains of the coming of the Messiah…One must be totally blind not to see that ( the settlement in the occupied territories ) is the beginning of true salvation. ” An unidentified settler in a Moshav – a well-established farmer, educated, of western origins, apparently a person of some distinction who speaks with a sense of authority – takes a rather different stand. In his view, Israel should be “ a mad state, ” so that people “ will understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, ” quite capable of “ burning the oil fields ” or “ opening World War III just like that, ” with nuclear weapons if necessary. Then “ they will act carefully around us so not to anger the wounded animal. ” Essentially, Richard Nixon’s “ madman theory. ” The Lebanon war was fine, but didn’t go far enough ( “ it’s a pity we didn’t wipe that

66

wasps nest completely off the ground, ” referring to Ain el-Hilweh ; “ we should have done it with our own delicate hands, ” “ can you call 500 Arabs a massacre ” ?). “ We shall open another similar war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough. ”

Flavio’s comment :Wow ! Let me sit down for a moment, the shock almost threw me of balance after reading the above comments of the hatred that some Jews have towards Arabs. In particularly the one that said, Maybe if they will give someone like Ariel Sharon the chance to kill off as many of them as possible, destroy their countries, until the Arabs will understand that we did them a favor in letting them remain alive… We are powerful now and power should talk . The Gentiles only understand the language of power. I was thinking about the Hezbollah Organization that has been criticized about their radical and aggressive policy to wanting to destroy the state of Israel. But after having read the above texts I can deduce that there are many Jews that think and believe no differently than the Hezbollah Organization. The reader has plenty of examples to compare after having read the previous 65 pages of my essay. He might even have second thoughts about the reason Hezbollah for being so radical with so much hatred to wanting the destruction of the state of Israel. After having read the responses of some of the Jewish top leaders in governments, military commanders, citizens, Rabbis etc…etc….One can acknowledge that there are many out there that would not hesitate to destroy the other if it was possible to do so. The difference is in the history, that shows that Jews were treated better by the Arabs than they were by the Europeans. The present problem and hatred between them only exploded after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The reality is, that there are over 4 million Palestinians outside their country because of the creation of the state of Israel, and hundreds of thousands living in refugee camps under inhumane conditions, and are waiting to have their own official state just like the Jews. It was promised to them by the United Nations but they are still waiting since 1948.

My question to you the reader, If you were a Palestinian and had your country taken away by the decision of a few nations, and were still living in refugee camps since 1948 because those nations never kept their promise. And after having read the content of my essay in reference to the answers of hate exposed by former Prime Ministers of Israel, Military commanders, citizens, Rabbis etc… etc…. And after the arrogance exposed by Jews since they have been supported economically and by U.S. military power, beside the constant refusal of Israel to negotiate with the Arabs. Would you react more peacefully than Palestinians ? Or would you become as mad as some of the Jews that answered they hate Arabs so much that their countries should be destroyed all- together.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is part of a text. An unidentified settler in a Moshav – well-established, educated, of western origins, apparently a person of some distinction who speaks with a sense of authority. In his view, Israel should be “ a mad state, ” so that people “ will understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, ” quite capable of “ burning the oil fields ” or “ opening World War III just like that, ” with nuclear weapons if necessary. Then “ they will act carefully around us so not to anger the wounded animal. ”

67

Flavio’s comment :I hope that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did read the above text from the book Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky - page 447. Therefore, before he decides to carry out his threat of wiping Israel off the map, he will think twice. Unless he thinks and believes that he better do it, because the world came so close to a nuclear world war with Russia, because of Israel’s behavior on three different occasions.

Another interesting case is, Rabbi Moshe Ben-Zion Ushpizai of Ramat-Gan, who said that, “ There is no place in this land for the people of Israel and for other nations alongside it. This is “ a holy war, commanded in the Bible, ” and must be fought against Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians “ or any other people in the world ” who seek to block the divine commandment. There can be no compromises, no peace treaties, no negotiations with “ the people who inhabit the land. ” “ you shall destroy them, you shall enter into no covenant with them, you shall not pity them, ” the divine law dictates. Whoever stands in our way must be annihilated. The influential Gush Emunim group, which spearheads West Bank settlement, published a statement, praising Begin, Sharon, and Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, describing war as a “ great act of sanctification of God’s name. ” Rabbi Elazar Valdman of Gush Emunim wrote in the journal Nekudah of the religious West Bank settlers : We will certainly establish order in the Middle East and the world. And if we do not take this responsibility upon ourselves, we are sinners, not just towards ourselves but towards the entire world. For who can establish order in the world ? All of those western leaders of weak character ? “ According to Gush Emunim , we must conquer not only Syria and Turkey but with the blood of our children we must become the guardian of the entire world.

“ Gush Emunim Rabbis publicly incite to kill Arab civilians. ”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flavio’s comment :This Rabbi Moshe Ben-Zion Ushpizai. Is a terrifying fundamentalist and an extremist. One can assume after reading the above terrifying comments he expressed, that if he had the position and power of the Prime Minister of Israel, he would have probably already wiped off the map more than one Arab nation. Referring to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is causing some momentary headaches to the Americans and Israelis with his defiance and opposition to their demands, now he has a supporter by the name of Osama Ben-Laden who the U.S. wants dead or alive. He has a 50 million dollar reward on his head. We can presume that the two sworn enemies of the United States and Israel, must have realized that they are not as bad and evil as Israel and the U.S. portray them to be. And that with all the available information in circulation and the Internet, they most likely have read the same information as I compiled in my essay. Could anyone pretend that Osama Ben-Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be less defiant and more docile after knowing and experiencing the behavior and aggressiveness of U.S. and Israel’s arrogant demands, in their foreign policy. This is threatening other nations of the world with undemocratic procedures, such as, “ Either you are with us, or you are against us. ” Or to be more specific, “ Either you do it our way, or you will be pushed over the cliff . ”

68

THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD

THE RISK OF SUPERPOWER CONFRONTATIONTHE DISASTER THREATENING THE PALASTINIANS AND ISRAEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The disaster threatening the Palestinians and Israel are evident enough. It also does not take a great deal of thought to perceive the risks to the United States, and in fact the entire world, from the unresolved Israel-Arab conflict. The world contains many trouble spots, but none pose such dangers of superpower confrontation as the Middle East, and of the many conflicts in this region. None approaches the Israel-Arab conflict – and at its heart, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - in the threat it poses of global, nuclear war. In comparison, the threat of a superpower confrontation in Europe, or elsewhere, seems slight. Sheer self-interest alone, apart from anything else, should make it a priority item for Americans or for anyone interested in survival to seek a resolution of this conflict. The question is a particularly urgent one for Americans to address in the light of the role of U.S. rejectionism in perpetuating the conflict and undermining the possibility for political settlement. The risk that a nuclear war might erupt from a Middle East conflict is nothing new. When Eisenhower sent U.S. forces to Lebanon in 1958, it was his judgment that there was a risk of “ general war with the Soviet Union ” ( Eisenhower’s words, in his memoirs ), an opinion shared by some of his advisers, for example, Loy Henderson, who felt that “ we should face the risk now as well as any time.” At the time of the 1967 war, the “ hotline ” between

Washington and Moscow was used for the first time. There was apparently another close call, one that is never listed in the records of the all-too numerous occasions when a nuclear war may have been imminent. When the U.S. Liberty ship was attacked by Israeli planes and torpedo boats during the June 1967 war, F-4 Phantom jets were dispatched from a Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier to defend the ship, “ authorized to use force including destruction if necessary ” ( Smith, quoting the official court of inquiry ), nuclear-armed and recalled only by a direct order from Secretary of Defense McNamara and the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, according to James Ennes. It was unclear at the time who the attackers were ; Ennes, who observed all of this as an officer on the Liberty, writes that the jets “ might have saved the ship, or they might have initiated the ultimate holocaust. ” In 1973, the U.S. called a strategic nuclear alert in the final stages of the October war. Reviewing this incident, Blechman and Hart concluded that “ there was a serious threat of military conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. ” This is, in fact, a typical example of how a nuclear war is likely to break out, sooner or later, possibly through inadvertence or mistaken judgment as to intent.

69

REPRESSION AND

RESISTANCE------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel has tried killing , beating, gassing , mass arrests, deportation, destruction of houses, curfews and other forms of harsh collective punishment. Nothing has succeeded in enforcing obedience or eliciting a violent response. The Palestinian uprising is a remarkable feat of collective self-discipline. It is quite different from the struggle of the Jews of Palestine for a Jewish state, with the murder of British officials, the assassination of UN mediator Folke Bernadotte, the hanging of British hostages, and many atrocities against Arab civilians. Yitzhak Shamir, Prime Minister at the time, and commander of the group that assassinated Bernadotte, lauded terror as a moral imperative : “ Neither Jewish

ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat, ” he wrote. “ First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play…in our war against the occupier.”

FROM THE BOOK

FATEFUL TRIANGLEBY

NOAM CHOMSKYPAGE - 485 - 486

70

ISRAELI LIESABOUT PREVENTING CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 1949, Israel has sought to remove the displaced Palestinian refugees from the border areas and to destroy their emerging political and military structure. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was a further stage in these efforts. Their general character over the years was indicated by Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur in an interview in the Israeli press after the 1978 invasion of Lebanon, which drove another quarter - million Arabs from their homes with heavy casualties. His remarks were accurately summarized by the noted Israeli military analyst Ze’ev Schiff : In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it…the importance of Gur’s remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously…the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilians ( from military ) targets…( but ) purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck . Gur said, that Palestinian women and children must be “ punished ” because they belong to the families of the terrorists ; they are like cockroaches that swarm on the ground.

FROM THE BOOK

FATEFUL TRIANGLETHE UNITED STATES, ISRAEL, & THE PALESTINIANS

BYNOAM CHOMSKY

FOREWORD BY - EDWARD W. SAIDPage - 181 - 239

SOUTH END PRESS CLASSICS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT BY - FLAVIO CODARIN

In reference to the above text, do you still believe in the Jewish Santa Claus ?

71

BENNY MORRISISRAELI HISTORIAN

Israelis like to believe, and tell the world, that they were running an “ enlightened ” or “ benign ” occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupation the world had seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupation, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation. True, the relative lack of resistance and civil disobedience over the years enable Israelis to maintain a façade of normalcy and implement their rule with a relatively small force.

FROM THE BOOK

FAILED STATESBY

NOAM CHOMSKYPAGE - 175

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALBERT EINSTEINLETTER

TO

CHAIM WEIZMANNOVEMBER 25, 1929

<< If we Jews are incapable to cohabit and reach a honest accord with the Arabs, than we haven’t learn anything since our two thousand years of suffering and we deserve all that will follow. >>

FROM THE BOOK

PALESTINE / ISRAËL : LA PAIX OU L’APARTHEIDBY

MARWAN BISHARAPAGE - 48

72

THE PALESTINIAN BELIEF

We will endure, we will suffer, and we willwin our independence by making it

impossible for the Israelis tomaintain their rule .

****************************************************

FLAVIO CODARINThe wall that Israel is building to keep terrorists from attacking her people, will be irrelevant in keeping the will of the Palestinians to achieve justice for the injustice committed by Israel and others responsible for their present situation. Hoping that the critical conflict will not lead into a nuclear Armageddon triggered by some extreme Israelis religious fanatics that are still waiting for the return of their Messiah to come and save them. Amen !

WILL IT BE LIKE IN MY DREAM ?Article in The Montreal Gazette Sept, 20, 2001

The desert, and a white linen sheet laid on the sand in front of me reaching straight all the way to the horizon, where a huge bright

yellow sun was illuminating the marching of thousands and thousands of people towards it, separated by that white linen sheet, and on the left side of the sheet they were Arabs, and on the right side they were Jews, on the linen sheet the inscriptions were written in black ink with the words ( TORAH SOME WILL SURVIVE ) then I awoke and didn’t know what happened, it was February 2, 1998.

FLAVIO CODARIN73

THE COMPILED INFORMATION IS

FROM THE BOOKTHEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT

BYPAUL FINDLEY

PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT ISRAEL’S LOBBY

PAGE - 25 - 26 - 27 - 32 - 36 - 37- 38 - 49 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 74 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 84 - 95 - 99 - 100 101- 119 - 137 - 138 - 141 - 142 - 144 - 145 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 161 - 164 - 186 - 187 - 239 - 240 - 241 - 242 - 244 - 272 273 - 274 - 290 - 295 - 296 - 297 - 298 - 300 - 301 - 304 - 305 - 307 - 308 - 313 - 314 - 315 - 316 - 317 - 318 - 319 - 321 328 - 330 - 331 - 332.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THE GAZETTE JULY 4, 2006THE GAZETTE JULY 14, 2006THE GAZETTE JULY 15, 2006THE GAZETTE JULY 20, 2006

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE BOOK POURQUOI BUSH VEUT LA GUERRE

BYRODRIGUE TEREMBLAY

PAGE - 50--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE BOOKARABS & ISRAEL

BYRON DAVID

PAGE - 23 - 52 - 103 - 104 - 108 - 109 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 115 - 117 - 118 - 123 - 125 - 128 - 133 - 136 - 138 - 139 - 144 153 - 154 -153 - 154 - 155 - 157 - 160 - 161 - 162 - 163 - 170 - 189 - 200 - 201.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FROM THE BOOK

FATEFUL TRIANGLEBY

NOAM CHOMSKYUPDATED EDITION

PAGE - Vii - XVii - XViii - XiX - 1 - 27 - 28 - 51 - 67 - 68 - 74 - 91 - 93 - 95 - 100 - 106 - 129 -130 - 131 - 133 -140 141 - 151- 153 - 154 - 155 - 157 - 159 - 164 - 165 - 166 - 181 - 189 - 192 - 194 - 203 - 210 - 214 - 215 - 217 - 218 - 220 221 - 224 - 225 - 226 - 228 - 229 - 230 - 231 - 232 - 234 - 235 - 236 - 239 - 240 - 246 - 247 - 282 - 300 - 312 - 313 - 354

384 - 441- 422 - 446 - 447 - 449 - 450 - 457 - 468 - 469 - 474 - 475 - 479 - 480 - 481 - 482 - 483 - 485 - 486 - 487 - 489 490 - 491- 494 - 497 - 498 - 529 - 548 - 549 - 550 - 551.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLAVIO CODARIN2006