Zionist Conspiracy

1. The New Anti-Semitism in UK:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=70EED457-452C-4AE0-A17E-D6969B43131C

2. CAIR's terrorism:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=278243F2-B793-4E3B-B1FE-8456C7AE040B

3. Lynching Israel in Europe:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=03A04B6E-7CFF-4973-8E0E-CFD4EBDC132B

4. The Ben Gurion University of California:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9071575D-E896-4C2D-967A-0CEB4B17EEDE

5. Jewish philistines:
http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_249104503.html

6. SUNY-Buffalo's malicious anti-Semitic pro-terror Pseudo-Academic James
Holstun, an English professor who uses his classroom to indoctrinate
students in Marxism and anti-Semitism:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2216

5. Two Anti-Semitic Professors Fail To Clean Up Their Act

BY IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 29, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/6148

Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt
of
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government burst onto the national scene in
March of 2006 with a Harvard "working paper" in which they wrote of the
"unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." They charged, "Were it not for the
Lobby's ability to manipulate the American political system, the
relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less
intimate
than it is today.... AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign
government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress.... manipulating the
media."

At the time, the paper was praised by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the
American white supremacist David Duke, while widely condemned by the
American Jewish community and a number of general interest publications,
including The New York Sun. Next week, the two professors will publish a
book-length expansion of their argument, "The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign
Policy" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 484 pages, $26).

In this latest iteration, the professors have tried to clean up their act
<
but only on the surface. The "Lobby" has been revised to the lowercase
"lobby." Gone in this new presentation is much of the inflammatory
rhetoric
< the verb "manipulate," the term "stranglehold," the accusation that
AIPAC
is a foreign agent rather than an American interest group. The new version
of this argument, with its stamp of approval from Farrar, Straus and
Giroux,
may be more acceptable for sale at a Barnes & Noble near you, for open
discourse in the New York Times, on National Public Radio, and at the
Council on Foreign Relations.

But from beneath the surface, try though the professors may have to
suppress
it, what Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt themselves define as anti-Semitism
manages to poke through. The professors write that "anti-Semitism indulges
in various forms of stereotyping and implies that Jews should be viewed
with
suspicion or contempt, while seeking to deny them the ability to
participate
fully and freely in all realms of society." They are at pains to emphasize
that "the lobby is defined not by ethnicity or religion but by a political
agenda." Then they proceed to jump in and do exactly what they say
anti-Semites do.

What are we to make of the professors' classification of the former
governor
of Vermont, Howard Dean, as a supporter of Israel in part on the basis
that
"Dean's wife is Jewish and his children were raised Jewish as well"? Or of
the assertion that "Christian Zionists exert less impact on U.S. Middle
East
policy than the other parts of the Israel lobby do," because the
Christians
"lack the financial power of the major pro-Israel Jewish groups, and they
do
not have the same media presence"?

Instead of the charge that the Jews or the "Lobby" are "manipulating" the
press, the new, cleaned-up, book version of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer
asserts that, "If the media were left to their own devices, they would not
serve up as consistent a diet of pro-Israel coverage and commentary." Left
unexplained is exactly whose devices the press has been left to, if not
their own.

Discussing Elliott Abrams, an aide to President Bush, they quote an
unremarkable passage from one of his books < "there can be no doubt that
Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart
from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish
to
be apart < except in Israel < from the rest of the population" < and
tutt-tutt, "This is a remarkable comment coming from an individual who
holds
a critically important position on Middle East policy in the U.S.
government."

Clinton administration aides who are American Jews come in for the same
treatment. The authors describe Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk by
approvingly
quoting a Palestinian Arab who protested "negotiating with two Israeli
teams
< one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag." The
professors
protest that they are using the term "dual loyalty" not in its "earlier,
anti-Semitic incarnation" but in "a neutral and nonpejorative fashion."
It's
an awfully fine distinction.

To those with time-in-grade on this beat, there are jarring notes. What's
with the notion that the Nazi Holocaust, as Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer
write, "killed nearly six million Jews"? Not six million, as some but not
all historians have found, but "nearly" six million, a distinction that,
without discussing it, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer seem strangely careful
to maintain.

They claim that anti-Semitic bigotry was widespread "until recently," but
minimize its current surge in Europe. Statistics are piled upon statistics
to dismiss the problem of anti-Semitism in France, with no mention of the
fact that France's ambassador in Great Britain called Israel a
"[expletive]
little country" or of the fact that the number of French Jews each year
who
are fleeing France for Israel has more than doubled in recent years
because
of the anti-Semitism. Of the anti-Semitism among European Muslims, the
authors assert that "some of it" is "provoked by Israel's behavior toward
the Palestinians." It's a textbook example of the error of blaming the
Jews
for anti-Semitism rather than the anti-Semites.

Genuine anti-Semites, such as the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan
Nasrallah, who in 2002 said of Jews, "If they all gather in Israel, it
will
save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," < a quote omitted by
the
professors < get stunningly favorable treatment in this book. Messrs. Walt
and Mearsheimer buy into the claim that Hezbollah's initial rocket attacks
on Israeli towns last summer were intended not to kill Jews, but to divert
Israeli attention from a kidnapping raid on Israeli soldiers. Sheik
Nasrallah preached, "death to America" and "each of us lives his days and
nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah. The
most honorable death is to be killed." These are but two more quotes
omitted
by the professors, who write that "it is impossible to make that case that
the United States supported Israel" against Hezbollah "because it was the
morally correct policy choice." They may think Israel had no moral high
ground against Hezbollah < they clearly do think that < but to claim that
such a case is "impossible to make" overstates it.

If Hezbollah is practically benign, in the view of Messrs. Walt and
Mearsheimer, so too are Israel and America's other enemies. "Tehran has
made
several attempts in recent years to improve relations with Washington and
settle outstanding differences, but Israel and its American supporters
have
been able to stymie any d.tente between Iran and the United States," they
write. "Absent the lobby, there might already be a peace treaty between
Israel and Syria." Israel's existence, they write, "is not in danger at
present." Saudi Arabia, they claim, has offered to sign a peace treaty
with
Israel. "Remarkably, Iran has even offered to put its nuclear program up
for
negotiation and offered to work out a modus vivendi with Israel," they
write. Israel's supporters in America doubtless wish the professors were
right, but know they are not.

Also apparent, even in this newly polished presentation, is the shakiness
of
Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt's grip on the facts. They claim that
terrorist
attacks "do relatively little damage to Israel's economy." What of the
fact
that, amid a terrorism surge, foreign tourism to Israel declined to
718,000
in 2002 from 2.7 million visitors in 2000? They claim that "the Arabs were
not attempting to destroy Israel" in the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973,
dismissing the assertions of Arab leaders to the contrary as "largely
rhetoric designed to appease their publics." The implication of the
qualifier "largely" in that sentence, undermining as it does their own
claim, seems largely to have escaped the professors.

The authors get a good ride out of the qualifier "largely" elsewhere in
the
book, too. "Unlike virtually every other country, Israel is largely immune
from criticism on Capitol Hill," the professors write. The professors go
on
to name a long list of lawmakers who have criticized Israel, the country's
supposed immunity notwithstanding < Paul Findley, Lincoln Chafee, Charles
Hagel, Earl Hilliard, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Roger Jepson,
Charles Percy, Nick Rahall. Others, such as David Bonior, are omitted.

New to the book version is the claim that the Israel lobby is damaging not
only American interests but also Israel's interests, a claim the authors
repeat < with a straight face < again and again. Their concern for
Israel's
interests is touching, but it's a safe bet that the American Jewish
leadership and the Israeli voters and elected officials have a more
reliable
judgment of what is in Israel's interests than do these two professors.

The professors have their own view of American Jews, reporting with a tone
of some exasperation that many of them "still believe that anti-Semitism
is
rife." That view is sure to be confirmed after reading this book.

But one need not pass judgment on the motivations of Messrs. Walt and
Mearsheimer to reject their conclusions. One can even assess, as does
David
Remnick, writing in this week's New Yorker, that, "Mearsheimer and Walt
are
not anti-Semites or racists," while still finding fault, as Mr. Remnick
does, with their unrelentingly negative depiction of Israel and
mystifyingly
rosy depiction of Israel's enemies.

The professors blame the Israel lobby in America for nearly everything,
from
the failure of peace to break out between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs
to the failure of peace to break out between America, Iran, and Syria. "In
fact, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it
has
long been so supportive of Israel," they write. It's all too neat < the
Israel lobby as an all-purpose scapegoat, a catch-all to blame for
everything from the Iraq War to al Qaeda. As Mr. Remnick put it,
"Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the
Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family
construction
business."

It's not a useful argument for Middle East policymakers, but it is an
illuminating one for those concerned about the state of both the American
publishing industry and higher education. The authors conclude by noting
ecstatically that "In November 2006, twenty-five peace researchers in
Germany called for questioning the Ospecial relationship' between Germany
and Israel,' because of Israel's actions against the Palestinians." That
relationship is about to be eroded further by the publication of this book
by the German company Holtzbrinck, through its imprint Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.

That these authors could propound these views from prominent perches at
respected American universities is a sign of a decline in standards in
American higher education. During World War II, Harvard and the University
of Chicago threw themselves into the effort to defeat the Nazis. In the
current war, at least two professors are calling not for a defeat of the
Islamist terrorists but for appeasing them at Israel's expense. This book
is
long but it offers not a scintilla of evidence that doing that would
advance
either America's security or the cause of freedom.

6. Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby: What's so nefarious about
Jews exercising their right to speech?
By JEFF ROBBINS
September 7, 2007 Wall Street Journal
A crop of Israel's critics -- most prominently Jimmy Carter and now
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy" -- have managed something of a feat: They express no
concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure
by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in
the American political process; meanwhile, they inoculate themselves
against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pre-emptively predicting that "the
Jewish lobby" will accuse them of it.
Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, in particular, have been heralded by
Israel's critics for their "courage" in attacking American Jews, who have
allegedly "strangled" criticism of Israel. Their case seems one part
laughable, and one part eyebrow-raising.
An anecdote from my own experience with the anti-Israel lobby may shed
some light on the absurdity of the Walt-Mearsheimer offensive. Not long
after Sept. 11, 2001, I received a call from a major defense contractor
asking for a favor. I was serving as president of the Boston chapter of
the World Affairs Council, a national organization that debates foreign
policy, and the defense contractor was one of the Council's principal
sponsors.
The Saudi Arabian government was sponsoring a national public relations
campaign to cultivate American public opinion, and was sending Saudi
emissaries around the country to make the case that Saudi Arabia was a
tolerant, moderate nation worthy of American support. Would the Council
organize a forum of Boston's community leaders so that the Saudis could
make their case?
While this was patently no more than a Saudi lobbying effort, we organized
the forum, and it was well-attended by precisely the slice of Boston's
political and corporate elite that the Saudis and their defense contractor
benefactor had hoped for. The Saudis maintained that their Kingdom should
be regarded as a promoter of Middle East peace, and that the abundant
evidence that Saudi Arabia was in fact promoting a virulent brand of
extremist Islam should be discounted.
Saudi Arabia paid for the trip of its emissaries to Boston, for the
Washington, D.C.-based public relations and lobbying company which
organized the trip, and for the Boston public relations and lobbying
company that handled the Boston part of the visit. And it drew upon the
resources and relationships of the defense contractor, which sells
hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, to
support and orchestrate its public relations effort.
The billions in petrodollars Arab states spend in the U.S. for defense,
construction, engineering and consulting contracts position them nicely to
win friends in high places, and friends are what they have. That is true
all over the world, is true in this country, and has been true for quite
some time. As U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted 60 years ago,
"The oil of Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the world's great prizes." His
successor, Edward Stettinius, opposed the creation of a Jewish state in
the Middle East, stating "It would seriously prejudice our ability to
afford protection to American interests, economic and commercial . . .
throughout the area."
The Saudis and their allies have not been shy about supplementing their
considerable leverage in the U.S. by targeting expenditures to affect the
debate over Middle East policy by funding think tanks, Middle East studies
programs, advocacy groups, community centers and other institutions.
To take one obvious example, just last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin
Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for
programs in Islamic studies. Prince Alwaleed, chairman of a Riyadh-based
conglomerate, is the fellow whose $10 million donation to the Twin Towers
Fund following the Sept. 11 attacks was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani after the Saudi Prince suggested that the U.S. "re-examine its
policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the
Palestinians."
Georgetown and Harvard had no apparent qualms about accepting Prince
Alwaleed's money. The director of Georgetown's newly-renamed Prince
Alwaleed bin Talal Center rejected any suggestion that the Saudi magnate
was attempting to use Saudi oil wealth to influence American policy in the
Middle East. "There is nothing wrong with [Prince Alwaleed] expressing his
opinion on American foreign policy," he said. "Clearly, it was done in a
constructive way."
In other words, for those who accept the Arab line on the Israel-Arab
conflict -- namely, that it is the product of Israeli intransigence in
some form or another -- the increasing proliferation of Middle East-funded
enterprises all across the country aimed at advancing the Arab view of the
conflict constitute "nothing wrong." Nor are those hewing to the
anti-Israel line troubled by the way in which the massive Islamic bloc of
nations, by dint both of their number and their economic leverage over the
rest of the world, are able to guarantee an incessantly anti-Israel agenda
at the United Nations and other international fora.
Although the aggressive deployment of petrodollars and oil-based influence
from foreign sources aimed at advancing a pro-Arab line constitutes
"nothing wrong" as far as Israel's critics are concerned, a new political
fashion holds that there is something very wrong indeed about American
Jews and other American backers of Israel expressing their support for
Israel, and urging their political leaders to join them in that support.
Our major newspapers and networks, with correspondents in Israel able to
take advantage of an Israeli political system that is a free-for-all and
an astonishingly vibrant and self-critical Israeli press, report daily on
every twist and turn of the conflict and are very frequently critical of
Israel. As for American campuses, most objective observers would have
little difficulty concluding that far from being criticism-free, they are
in fact dominated by critics of Israel. Clearly, as strangleholds on
criticism go, whatever stranglehold the pro-Israel community has on debate
in the U.S. is a very loose one indeed.
If the charge that American Jews are able to stifle criticism of Israel is
simply silly, the leveling of the charge that there is something nefarious
about Jews urging support for the Jewish state raises questions about
whether Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have descended into a certain
ugliness. And the tactic of trying to neutralize those questions by loudly
predicting that they will be asked, however clever a tactic it may be,
does not neutralize them.
It is apparently the authors' position that, even in the face of the
overwhelming leverage of an Arab world swimming in petrodollars, with a
lock on the U.N. and an unlimited ability to pay for pro-Arab public
relations, American Jews are obliged to stay silent. In essence, Messrs.
Walt and Mearsheimer have repackaged the "the-Jews-run-the-country" stuff
which has long been the bread and butter of anti-Semites.
Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer deny that they are anti-Semitic, and that is
certainly good news. But where they are apparently content with foreign
oil money being used to advance a pro-Arab position on the Middle East,
but devote themselves to criticizing American Jews for lobbying their
public officials in support of the Jewish state, one may legitimately
wonder what phrase would apply. Surely, one's denial that he is
anti-Semitic, while welcome, is hardly dispositive; after all, the marked
increase in anti-Semitism around the world is well-documented, and yet one
rarely hears anyone actually announce that they are anti-Semitic, or that
their views are anti-Semitic.
But if anti-Semitism is too harsh a term, and if the word "bigoted" is
also taken off the table, perhaps one can be forgiven for concluding that
"anti-Jewish bias" fits the bill here. After all, where there is nothing
wrong with foreign money from Arab countries advancing a pro-Arab agenda
in Messrs. Walt's and Mearsheimer's world -- but there is something very
wrong with American citizens who are Jewish exercising their civic right
to speak out on behalf of Israel and taking issue with the pro-Arab agenda
-- even the most vehement disclaimers of any bias against Jews lack a
certain credibility.
The potency of the Middle East-funded anti-Israel lobby around the world
and in the U.S. is difficult to ignore. Yet, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer
and others who adhere to an anti-Israel line ignore it. In and of itself,
this is not surprising. When at the same time they portray American Jews'
efforts to make the case for Israel as morally suspect, however, they open
themselves up to reasonable charges of something far more troublesome than
mere hypocrisy, and that is anti-Jewish bias, by whatever name.
Mr. Robbins, a U.S. Delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission during
the Clinton administration, is an attorney at Mintz, Levin in Boston.