Tuesday, February 03, 2009

The Neocons' Latest Conspiracy Theory


As I've said on many occasions, when it comes to conspiracy theories, the neocons are in a league of their own. In 1999, they peddled the fiction that Yugoslav forces were committing 'genocide' in Kosovo. Four years later, they peddled the lie that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed WMD. (whatever happened to them, I wonder?). Now in 2009, the neocon conspiracy theory is that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

Never mind that US intelligence agencies published a report claiming that Iran has no such programme, or that not a scrap of evidence exists to show that Iran is developing nuclear weapons- the neocons still continue peddle the theory.

Here's 'Mad' Melanie Phillips, writing on her Spectator blog

As was entirely predictable, the Iranian government has reacted with utter contempt to the exciting new approach of US President Obama towards resolving the crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme

Note that Ms Phillips talks of a 'crisis' regarding a country's non-existent nuclear weapons programme- the neocons, like their jack-booted predecessors, love to stoke up artifical international 'crises' every three years or so to get the wars they are so addicted to.

And in The Times, arch neo-con Daniel Finkelstein writes:
As Iran gets a nuclear weapon , as if Iran getting a nuclear weapon is as inevitable as night following day.

In the same way that neocons felt obliged to write of 'Iraq's WMD' in every article they penned in the lead up to the 2003 war, they now feel obliged to write of 'Iran's nuclear weapons programme' as a matter of fact, when it most clearly isn't.

Now there are conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories: Professor Cornelius Wacky-Backy's view that little green men made of cheese live on Mars might be silly, but it doesn't cost any lives. The neocons' conspiracy theories do - at the latest count 1m in Iraq.

Which is why it is so important that we should not allow their unsubstantiated claims regarding 'Iran's nuclear weapons programme' to go unchallenged.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

You didn't come anywhere near winning that Web Award. Get over it.

Anonymous said...

Roland Hulme said over page

"Hey, Ken - I just think 'Zionists' is a long dead term."

Has anyone told that to the Zionist Federation/s active in Europe and America? The power of their lobby is not singularly about the injustices meeted out to Arabs by the ethno-centric state they support, what about the vast financial abuses commited against countries in which they oporate - How many Americans do you think know about, much less support scams like this - below!


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21868.htm


By Robert Bryce

Editor's note: Generous support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

January 31, 2009 "Salon" Jan. 16, 2009--- Israel's current air and ground assault on the Gaza Strip has left about 1,000 Palestinians dead, including 400 women and children. Several thousand people have been wounded and dozens of buildings have been destroyed. An estimated 90,000 Gazans have abandoned their homes. Israel's campaign in Gaza, which began more than two weeks ago, has been denounced by the Red Cross, multiple Arab and European countries, and agencies from the United Nations. Demonstrations in Pakistan and elsewhere have been held to denounce America's support for Israel.
It's well known that the U.S. supplies the Israelis with much of their military hardware. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has provided about $53 billion in military aid to Israel. What's not well known is that since 2004, U.S. taxpayers have paid to supply over 500 million gallons of refined oil products -- worth about $1.1 billion –- to the Israeli military. While a handful of countries get motor fuel from the U.S., they receive only a fraction of the fuel that Israel does -- fuel now being used by Israeli fighter jets, helicopters and tanks to battle Hamas.

According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, between 2004 and 2007 the U.S. Defense Department gave $818 million worth of fuel to the Israeli military. The total amount was 479 million gallons, the equivalent of about 66 gallons per Israeli citizen. In 2008, an additional $280 million in fuel was given to the Israeli military, again at U.S. taxpayers' expense. The U.S. has even paid the cost of shipping the fuel from U.S. refineries to ports in Israel.

In 2008, the fuel shipped to Israel from U.S. refineries accounted for 2 percent of Israel's $13.3 billion defense budget. Publicly available data shows that about 2 percent of the U.S. Defense Department's budget is also spent on oil. A senior analyst at the Pentagon, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, says the Israel Defense Force's fuel use is most likely similar to that of the U.S. Defense Department. In other words, the Israeli military is spending about the same percentage of its defense budget on oil as the U.S. is. Therefore it's possible that the U.S. is providing most, or perhaps even all, of the Israeli military's fuel needs.

What's more, Israel does not need the U.S. handout. Its own recently privatized refineries, located at Haifa and Ashdod, could supply all of the fuel needed by the Israeli military. Those same refineries are now producing and selling jet fuel and other refined products on the open market. But rather than purchase lower-cost jet fuel from its own refineries, the Israeli military is using U.S. taxpayer money to buy and ship large quantities of fuel from U.S. refineries.

Nicki

Anonymous said...

The history of Zionist activism

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/07/jfk-was-enraged-at-zionist-control-through-crucial-campaign-contributions.html

"Back in the shtetl the two highest values in Jewish life were wealth and learning. Well I'm pitting the learning against the wealth here. I'm going to keep on my theme of Jewish wealth in politics, inasmuch as it distorts our policy in the Middle East.

Last year Seymour Hersh, god bless him, openly spoke of "Jewish money" when he criticized the push to attack Iran. And my correspondent Nim Chimpsky (I wish I knew who he was, but I trust him anyway) just sent me a selection from Hersh's 1991 book "The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy":

"... [Governor Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut said that in 1960,] 'I told Kennedy I was going to get in touch with Abe Feinberg, who I thought was a key Jew. I arranged a meeting [with Kennedy] in Feinberg's apartment in the Hotel Pierre and we invited all the leading Jews.' About twenty prominent businessmen and financiers showed up.

"... The group agreed on an initial contribution of $500,000 to the presidential campaign, with more to come.
'I called him [Kennedy] right away,' said Feinberg. 'His voice broke. He got emotional' with gratitude.

"Kennedy was anything but grateful the next morning in describing the session to Charles L. Bartlett, a newspaper columnist and close friend. He had driven to Bartlett's home in northwest Washington and dragged his friend on a walk, where he recounted a much different version of the meeting the night before. 'As an American citizen he was outraged,' Bartlett recalled, 'to have a Zionist group come to him and say: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy.'" Kennedy, as a presidential candidate, also resented the crudity with which he'd been approached. 'They wanted control,' he angrily told Bartlett.

"Bartlett further recalled Kennedy promising to himself that if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it"--a candidate's perennial need for money and resulting vulnerability to the demands of those who contributed. Kennedy, in fact, kept that promise before the end of his first year in office, appointing a bipartisan commission in October to recommend ways to broaden "the financial base of our presidential campaigns." In a statement that was far more heartfelt than the public or the press could perceive, he criticized the current method of financing campaigns as "highly undesirable" and "not healthy" because it made candidates "dependent on large financial contributions of those with special interests." Presidential elections, Kennedy declared, were "the supreme test of the democratic process" in the United States. (pages 96-97)



Nim adds: JFK wanted a nuclear-free near east with inspectors at Dimona and a resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem (which would be a policy based on American interests or perhaps even regional or international interests). I don't think his patrons liked those ideas much. they wanted a policy based on Israel's interests. and as they say, when you pay the piper, you call the tune.

To which I'd add: Israel got nukes. Nukes seem to have played a role in causing the '67 War. Now Iran wants nukes; and this time around the U.S. is contemplating military attacks. Maybe it's time to get nukes out of the Middle East? Isn't Dimona a bargaining chip?

As for the Pierre Hotel incident, here is Abba Eban writing (in "Dewey David Stone: Prototype of an American Zionist," published in an American Jewish Historical Society collection) on the same subject:

"[W]hen he became a presidential candidate in 1960, John F. Kennedy was again plagued by memories of his father's equivocal attitude on Nazism. Dewey [Stone, a leading Israel lobbyist] suggested that the candidate accept the invitation of the Zionist Organization of America to be the principal speaker at its convention. Kennedy presented his views with eloquence and passion and firmly dissociated himself from his father's war-time attitude. At a meeting arranged in the apartment of Abraham Feinberg at the Hotel Pierre in August 1960, Dewey Stone, with a group of influential Jewish leaders, interrogated Kennedy stringently on matters affecting Jews and Israel. It appeared that Kennedy made honest and candid responses to the questions asked of him....

"No historian would question the judgment that without the support of American Jewry, Israel's emergence out of vulnerability and weakness into sovereignty and successful resistance could not have been conceived."

"Reminds you of Obama and AIPAC, doesn't it? I wonder how secretly ticked off Obama is. Of course the only religious obeisance anyone mentions apropos of Kennedy is his speech to the Houston Protestant ministers in '60. Slowly but surely, knowledge of the Israel lobby is growing."

Similarites with Blair Govt and the practical public feather and tarring of Tam Dyal when he publicly warned Blair and the country, in the House?

Dan said...

Why do you lie about the death toll in Iraq? http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/04/bbc-iraqi-death-researcher-censured/

David Lindsay said...

Good for the Iranians, launching their own satellite. We in Britain rely on the EU, the US and Russia to do these things for us.

Neil Clark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Clark said...

thanks Nicki, for the very interesting and informative article, which should certainly give our U.S. readers food for thought.

first anonymous and 'dan'- it's always a sign that a post has hit the bullseye when the ad hominem attacks come in.

i don't lie, Dan, neocons do- and do it big-time, they lied over non-existent 'genocide' in Kosovo, they lied about non-existent Iraqi WMD. And now they're lying about Iran's non-existent 'nuclear weapons programme'.

It's widely accepted that at least 1m people have died in Iraq as a consequence of the illegal neocon instigated invasion- and I find it hilarious that you post a link to 'Harry's Place' that oh so impartial website on matters concerning the Iraq war, as 'evidence' of your case.

david: agreed.

Anonymous said...

With Yugoslavia they lied and got away with it because 'the left' went along with it, with Iraq they lied and 'the left' when along with and the same will happen again. Philipps is a fanatic and probably believes what she says she even once managed so admitt that Palestinians might suffer some hardship. In the case of the non existant genocide against Albanians people like Cohen, Kamm, and Aaronovitch are all smart enough to no the truth their just lairs.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neil;
The other Dan is not me. You will know what he stand for from the link he provided.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Neil, you've saved me an exasperated response to "Dan" over the objectivity and credibility of Harrys Place. But as Dan is such an avid fan of "fair and balanced" Harrys Place, I wonder if he would care to comment why, when that blog is screaming blue murder, as with well known Jewish commentators on other blogs, such as comment is free, over holocaust denial and errant popes, it/they say nothing over Israel's holocaust denial, nor does it/they mention Jewish lobbies and their holocaust denial or Israels basic agenda of blackmail toward Turkey regarding its genocide against Armneians - Stomach retching, I hope he'll agree.
On a further point, Dan will note that Abe Foxman is complying with Israeli policy (he is clearly quoted in Jerusalem Post, admitting this) - The ADL should there for without delay be registered as an agent of a foreign country.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304667096&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"An official with a leading American Jewish organization told the The Jerusalem Post on Monday that a deterioration in Israel-Turkey relations might prompt his group and others to reconsider Armenian efforts to win recognition of the century-old Turkish massacres as genocide."

"Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman - whose opposition to the Armenian genocide legislation in 2007 provoked widespread criticism - told the Post that as long as Israel maintained its diplomatic ties with Turkey, he saw no immediate reason to change his position on any future genocide resolutions."

Nicki

PJD said...

" Anonymous said...
You didn't come anywhere near winning that Web Award. Get over it."

He won it last year!

Anonymous said...

FYI:

Israeli commander cancels UK tour fearing arrest for war crimes
London, (IRNA): The deputy commander of Israeli ground forces during the recent Gaza massacres has cancelled 20 speaking engagements during a planned tour of Britain, according to the Jewish organisers of his secret visit.

Colonel Geva Rapp was understood to have fled back to Israel fearing a citizens’ arrest for war crimes during his visit to Britain which was aimed to defend the slaughter of more than 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza to members of the country’s estimated 270,000 Jewish community.

“Due to the negative security situation and increasing risk that was steadily brewing around Colonel Geva Rapps’ visit to the UK, our guest has asked us to cancel all further speaking engagements,” said Rabbi Naftali Schiff, executive director of Aish UK educational organisation.

The cancellation was revealed in an internal email obtained by councillors from all four parties on Birmingham City Council, who welcomed the decision after condemning his invitation to Britain’s second largest city as both “offensive and provocative.”

“In view of the massacre of innocent Palestinians in Gaza, including over 400 children, we feel this person should be charged with war crimes instead of being encouraged to travel freely in the UK,” the local councillors said in a statement.

The signatories, all from different wards in Birmingham, included Salma Yaqood from the Respect Party, James Hutchings from the Conservative, Tahir Ali from Labour and Tariq Khan from the Liberal Democrats.

The councillors said they have been very clear in their opposition to anything that would cause division between communities in the city but were “not prepared, however, to be silent in the face of the injustice being done to the Palestinian people.”

“Together we have promoted peaceful and non-violent protest, including a call upon the City Council for it to boycott Israeli goods and services until such time as Israel complies with international law,” their statement said.

Last Thursday night, protesters caused Rapp to cancel a speech at the offices of the Union of Jewish Students in central London, after blocking the public pathways and a main thoroughfare during rush-hour traffic after being tipped off about the visit.

Copies of internal emails seen by IRNA had emphasised that the invitation was “for the Jewish community and known supporters of Israel only.”

“Do not put forward anything connected with this on Facebook, do not forward this email invitation on to mass distribution lists. His presence should only be advertised via personal email/word of mouth within the Jewish community and/or friends of Israel. It should not be openly advertised to the general public,” it warned.

In September 2005, an Israeli major, Doron Almog, escaped arrest at Heathrow airport for war crimes linked to the mass destruction of Palestinian houses, when he refused to leave his El Al plane and immediately fled back to Tel Aviv.
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/israeli-commander-cancels-uk-tour.html

jock mctrousers said...

Nicki - your link didn't work. This one - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21868
Could you use Tiny URL? Just Google it - it turns long URLs into short ones that don't break in 'transmission'. It's immediately obvious how to use it. Here's the link http://tinyurl.com/

neil craig said...

There is a gap between something being a lie (as in genocide in Kosovo {well by the Serbs anyway} & WMDs) & something being unproven. Certainly Iran is much further away from nukes than the Americans have implied, on the other hand they have been refining material to a greater purity than needed for electricity & there is no particular reason to think that Iran, like many countries, wouldn't rather like a Bomb. There is considerable reason to think the world would be a more dangerous place if Iran did though, until it happens it will be unproven - call it a reasonable suspicion. You are treating this as a matter of black & white which it isn't.

And once again we see the anti-Semites out in force not because they particularly like Iran but because they hate Israel.

Anonymous said...

Jock,

sorry about that, use this one. Cheers, Nicki.

http://www.robertbryce.com/node/247

Mark said...

'Mad' Melanie Phillips is indeed best avoided when she comments (as she does at some length)on anything connected to the mid east.Something to do with 'thinking with the blood' no doubt.
When her atavistic emotions aren't engaged however she can still be rather good- as she was on the 'Moral Maze' last night, dissecting the ludicruous contribution thereon from uberGrauniad woman Jenny Bristow.

Paul D said...

Well, should we be blaming the local education authorities for not allowing schools to open and should Carol Thatcher have been treated more summarily than Jonathan Ross?

Off message you may say. Well, I thought this Post was about the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons and the neocons.

Instead, what do we find but yet more raving crazy anti Israeli stuff! You poor dears - no posts from mein host about Israel since the ceasefire and you're all clearly foaming at the mouth and needing to get stuff of your chests.

Maybe you lot think that the word neocon is synonymous with 'Zionist' and 'Jew'? Well, I hate to break it to you but it most certainly is NOT.

Neil Clark is concerned that I do not even whisper the possibility that anti Israeli comments and positions can ever amount to Jew hatred (i.e anti-semitism).

But the comments on this blog are really as bad as blogs such as Lenin's Tomb and Indymedia in its absolute obsession and hatred of everything to do with Israel. I did not think Neil Clark's position represented the far SWP type unthinking left but it seems otherwise.

I was going to post at length on some of the comments on the previous posts but thought why bother - life's too short. References to people like James Petras and Siegman like they are normal middle of the road academics putting forward an objective view of the middle east is worrying. Petras is on a par with Gilad Atzmon in believing that Israel is not only the cause of Palestinion woes but the woes of the whole world including the financial crisis etc etc. He even criticizes Noam Chomsky as being too lenient about Israel!! His website links to oddballs who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy (obviously caused by Mossad).

Oh dear, if you believe all that then no doubt you believe Princess Diana was murdered and that Liverpool have a realistic chance of winning a trophy this season.

Going back to message, can anyone really object if Iran is monitered? I don't think any more nations having a nuclear capability is a good thing. And really they do have a nutcase as their leader -Almond Dinnerjacket or whatever. There's nowt so dangerous as a populist demagogue (who happens to be a Holocaust denier as well).

Oh well, let's see if this comment will be published.

Anonymous said...

Paul D, so let's get this straight - It's alright for Olmert and other Israeli leaders to be persistant holocaust deniars (Armenian) but no one else. It's alright for Israel with far right nutcases like Lieberman and Feiglin who're so loony they even scare the beejeebies out of Netyanyahu - in a country, Israel, that already has a stockpile of WMD's who no one is monitoring.

Paul D said...

'Anonymous', it would assist if you provided a name.

I do not know about what the Israeli leaders think about the Armenian massacre. I do not know what all our European and American leaders think about it either.

I hold no brief for racists like Lieberman and Feiglin who are, as you say, right wing nutjobs and not representative of most Israelis.

I don't think there is a moral equivalence between Israel and Iran.

There is so much unthinking moral relitivism going on now in all aspects of society. Do you think for example that the nurse who was suspended for offering a prayer to a patient and was snitched on Stasi like by another nurse (not the patient) would have had any action taken against her if her religion was anything other than Christian?

Anonymous said...

Paul D says...

"I do not know about what the Israeli leaders think about the Armenian massacre. I do not know what all our European and American leaders think about it either."

Crap! It IS Israeli policy, it IS Israel Lobby policy, on behalf of Turkey (so long as they play ball) to lobby US Congress NOT to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust. They ARE holocaust deniers for a Turkish price. France wants deniers of the Armenian holocaust treated similarly to Jewish holocaust denial - not surprisingly, the Israel Lobby isn't keen on that. More double speak. Harrys place is inundated with BNP=fascists, ( weird, since BNP fiscal policies are left of centre, such as public ownership instead of grasping privateers, the likes of David Taube and his employers can't have that. Another problem with the BNP is that they dont support British young men dying for "Defence of (Israel) the Realm," unlike the Israel lobby. I might not be a BNP member but it's fun to compare the two since David Taube and pals keep muck raking under cover of being anti fascists - Where's the acknowledgement of Israeli or Jewish fascism, dont tell me only the goyim, white, black and palestinians can be pigeon holed in this way.
Leiberman's Yisrael Beteinu party, not a fringe party by any means, have overtaken Israel's Labour party, they want to make Arabs' lives in Israel so miserable that they leave. His current plan is to make every Arab sign a loyalty oath, a prelude to a little "ethnic cleansing" ?
What would happen if Europe targeted every Jew with the "loyalty" issue and lets face it, it's not like either Europe or America doesn't have a problem with Israel firsters and their priorities, is it. If a few brave Jews can talk about dual loyalties, about the "is it good for the Jews" issue, I don't see why non Jews can't. It isn't as if PNAC's wars for Israel or neocon economic hegemony aren't an issue for the rest of the world, is it?

Matt

Anonymous said...

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sentletsediakanyo/2009/01/30/jews-do-wield-immense-power-and-influence/

By Sentletse Diakanyo - SA Mail&Guardian

Jews do wield immense power and influence

In 2002 Mark Weber, a director of The Institute for Historical Review wrote an article about the powerful Jewish Lobby in the United States (US). What Weber articulates in his article is very relevant to the current brouhaha about the alleged comments made by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fatima Hajaig. As a result of those alleged comments, the Deputy Minister has now been vilified and accused of anti-Semitism, hate speech, bigotry and all manner of things that are intended to whip up the emotions of the Jewish community and social activists and inflate her comments beyond what they truly represented. In his article Weber beautifully outlines how Jewish money influences and controls the US Congress.

The Deputy Minister is alleged to have said: “They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes into power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else.”

It is important to examine whether there is any measure of truth to claims by detractors of the Deputy Minister that she had indeed been anti-Semitic. A common understanding of anti-Semitism would generally refer to prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, although the appropriate meaning is not limited to Jews. I would immediately dismiss as utter rubbish claims that the above comments by the Deputy Minister are prejudicial against and hostile towards Jews. Moreover, these comments have no relevance whatsoever to Jews in South Africa.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies is reported to have lodged a complaint against the Deputy Minister with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). Wendy Kahn, who is a director of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies, is also reported to have said that the alleged comments by the Deputy Minister were classic anti-Jewish stereotyping and conspiracy-theory mongering, which were typically used by those seeking to portray Jews as scheming, manipulative and disloyal to the countries in which they lived. In her tirade against the Deputy Minister, Kahn went further to state that, “the Jewish community is outraged by such a public display of bigotry by a senior government representative. As South African citizens, we cannot allow this kind of comment to be brought into this country”.

The action by the SA Jewish Board of Deputies is an abuse of such national institutions such as the SAHRC. The SAHRC has a constitutional mandate to promote the protection of human rights of citizens of South Africa. Unless the SA Jewish Board of Deputies regards those South African Jews they represent as Westerners, their much-reported tirade is misguided and appears to be a publicity-seeking stunt.

The temptation after reading newspaper headlines and listening to the SA Jewish Board of Deputies go off at a tangent would be to lambaste and condemn the Deputy Minister and opportunistically rally behind the Democratic Alliance’s Tony Leon who called for her head and demanded her to apologise to the US President Barack Obama. Tony Leon may perhaps plead ignorance to Obama’s speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference when he said, “Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security … I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran … As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30-billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade.”

Given this unequivocal support of Israel none of us should impose the Deputy Minister’s confidence on Obama’s administration, or any other before. The behaviour and over-reaction of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies is tantamount to fear mongering and a despicable attempt at playing victim to some invented threat to their dignity and human rights. The question we should all ask is whether or not Jews wield immense power and influence in the US. By answering this question we would arrive at an informed conclusion on whether these absurd attacks on the Deputy Minister are warranted instead of immediately dismissing them as I have.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a Jewish author and political science professor, in his book he published in 1993, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, said that, “Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganisations.”

Mark Weber also wrote that, “though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times … The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked.

Jews are only 2% of the nation’s population, yet comprise 11% of what this study defines as the nation’s elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25% of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17% of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organisations, and more than 15% of the top ranking civil servants.”

Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, both Jewish writers, agree with the assertion that Jews in the US wield disproportionate political power and validate the alleged comments by the Deputy Minister. In their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene, they say that “during the last three decades Jews (in the US) have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals … 20% of professors at the leading universities … 40% of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington … 59% of the directors, writers and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58% of directors, writers and producers in two or more prime time television series.”

Instead of condemning the Deputy Minister she should have been commended for her will to trounce the preservation of falsehoods and expose these self-evident yet unspoken and vexing truths about the influence and power of Jews in America. There is this fear to speak truth to power that is prevalent everywhere and so is the risk present of having one’s voice silenced with a nauseating anti-Semitism card. It is those of robust constitution who, regardless of the awful consequences of revealing these truths, rise above feeble others who allow suppression of their voices. Criticism of Jews has far too often triggered a backlash of unimaginable proportion, a sign of ingrained intolerance to robust and unflattering appraisal.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies should perhaps inform the rest of us, who struggle to see hate, anti-Jewish stereotyping and conspiracy-theory mongering in the alleged comments of the Deputy Minister, whether the US congress is not biased towards Israel; whether they disagree with Dr. Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Centre for Immigration Studies in the US when he says, “… we (Jews) will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress … power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel …”; and whether Hamas possesses the capacity to destroy Israel.

The Archbishop Desmond Tutu also lamented this intolerance to criticism that pervades a larger section of Jewish communities when he said, “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US] and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic.”

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies needs to get over themselves!

Robin

Anonymous said...

How interesting that Neil Clark rigidly censors any criticism of himself on this blog but is completely happy with the neo-Nazi material posted by anon at 9.21.

Neil Clark said...

last anonymous: Neil Clark does not 'rigidly censor criticism of himself' on this blog- just ask Roland Hulme and others who regularly post critical comments here.

If a comment appears then don't assume that I agree with it, we have a wide range of views and opinions on here- you say a comment posted earlier is 'neonazi'- can you expand a bit more?

Neil Clark said...

ps last annoymous-
if you feel that 'robin' is putting forward 'neonazi' material, why don't you challenge him directly- here through the comments- instead of attacking me?

Anonymous said...

Hi, Robin - they used scab labour to break the SA union's boycott of unloading Israeli produce.

Annon at 1:26. that article is written by Sentletse Diakanyo, a Black South African with his own blog and published in the South African Mail & Guardian as specified by "Robin."
Neil Clark is admired and respected for his evenhanded moderation (and his backbone) - Why should he moderate work from a Black South African, because he has the impudence to tell the SA board of deputies to "get over themselves" as well as a few other home truths?
Hunting down thought crime?
You're a tosser for having a go at Neil Clark, trying to bully him to delete anyone you don't like. I'd think by now Neil Clark's got the tea-shirt for being attacked by creeps with your agenda, and he's still standing.

Thanks for sharing that, Robin, I'll be looking at Sentletse Diakanyo's other work from now on.

Nicki

Anonymous said...

Mark Weber is a leading neo-Nazi and the Institute for Historical Review is a Holocaust denial group.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/ihr.shtml

Neil Clark said...

nicky: thanks for your kind words.

last anonymous: thanks for that info. I had never heard of Mark Weber before or the 'International Historical Review'- neonazis and holocaust denial are not my thing.

Perhaps you could explain how your IP address happens to match up with 'robin's?

Nice little smear trick, eh? Post a comment quoting- among others a neonazi/holocaust denier and then attack the blog host- knowing full well he simply hasn't the time to check all the people referred to in comments to see if they're neonazis/holocaust deniers.