The Zionists and Torture in Iraq


moghrabi
#1
The Zionists and Torture in Iraq

Seymour Hersh and the Missing Zionist-Israeli Connection

By James Petras

Al-Jazeerah, August 17, 2004



An Exposé of an Exposé:

As I read Hersh s highly publicized and influential reports in the New Yorker Magazine on torture in US occupied Iraq (1), it became increasingly apparent that this was not a thoroughly researched exposé of the higher ups responsible for the policy of torture. Hersh s reportage was a selective account guided by selected question about selected officials. As one reads through Hersh s version of events with increasing incredulity it is clear that Hersh hangs his whole argument and exposé of US officials involved in the use of torture on one person Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - (important to be sure) and not on the other top Defense officials who were extremely influential and responsible for war policy, establishing intelligence agencies and co-coordinating strategy and tactics during the occupation. Rumsfeld was part of an elite, which sanctioned and promoted torture. Throughout his exposé Hersh deliberately omits the role of the Zionists (Wolfowitz, Feith numbers 2 and 3 in the Pentagon) who supported and promoted the war, torture-interrogation and particularly Israeli experts who led seminars teaching the US Military Intelligence their torture-interrogation techniques of Arab prisoners based on their half-century of practice.

In looking for documentary sources of torture interrogation Hersh relies on academic texts and 20 year old CIA manuals, not Israeli practice widely disseminated by the Mossad and Shin Bet advisers presently involved in torture in neighboring Palestine and Iraq today.

Hersh is presented in the mass media as an iconoclastic, investigative journalist, a role which gives his reportages and exposés a great deal of credibility. Yet it was Seymour Hersh who publicly defended torture of suspects and their family members as a method of interrogation, citing the Israeli examples in the wake of September 11, justifying torture in the same way as the Pentagon now justifies the torture of Iraqi suspects. Instead of citing an obscure professor at the University of Chicago, Hersh should have cited the influential tract defending torture by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (a fellow Zionist) widely read by the civilian militarists who run the Pentagon, and direct the chain of command leading to interrogation through torture.

Hersch s account fails to provide a political context in the Pentagon and in the Middle East for the systematic use of torture. To understand the issue of the US practice of torture and violent abuse of Iraqi prisoners and civilians requires an examination of the ideological demonization of the Iraqi population the Arabs and the US unconditional political and military support for the state of Israel, the principal long-term large-scale practitioner of torture against Arabs. The most vitriolic systematic denigration of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East is found in the writings an speeches of influential US-based Zionist ideologues, like the Pipes (father and son), the Kristols (senior and junior), the Kagans, Cohens, Goldhagens and others. The first step toward justifying torture is to dehumanize the victim, to label them as untermensch (congenitally violent savages). The Zionists in the US were merely following the pronouncements of their ideological mentors in Israel who not infrequently proclaimed that the only thing the Arab understands is force (Sharon, Golda Meier, Dayan, Rabin etc&). The Zionist ideologues in the Pentagon were influential in arousing hatred of Arabs in several ways. First in their defense of Israel they deliberately distorted the nature of Israel s colonial war, blaming the Palestinian victims for the systematic violence which Israel inflicted on them. The ideologues defended every Israeli violent action: the massacre in Jenin, new Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the murderous assault on Rafah, the killing of UN aid workers and peace activists, the monstrous wall ghettoizing a whole people, the mass murder of hundreds of Palestinians and destructions of thousands of homes in Gaza. Israeli violence against Palestinians made a deep impression on US Zionists who generalized and deepened their animus to Arab Muslims throughout the Middle East, but particularly in Iraq where they were in a position to implement their policies.

The Zionists and Torture in Iraq

The Pentagon s main source of intelligence and propaganda for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in part derived from the Office of Specials Plans (OSP) and Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group established by ultra-Zionist Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense (third in the Pentagon hierarchy) with strong support from Wolfowitz, Abrams and Rumsfeld. Feith put fellow Zionist, Abram Shulsky in charge of OSP. The Special Group bypassed normal CIA and military intelligence agencies and secured its own intelligence prior to the war and was involved in securing intelligence during the first stages of the occupation (before it was dismantled). As the Iraqi resistance increased its effectiveness and the US justification for the war (weapons of mass destruction) was proven to be a total fabrication of the Special Group, the top echelon of the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the Zionists grew desperate they collectively passed the orders to intensify and extend torture to all Iraqi suspects in all the prisons. It is a gross simplification to say that the line of command was limited to Rumsfeld, when Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams were also intimately involved in everyday policies prosecuting the war, defending the occupation and controlling intelligence.

Even more than Rumsfeld, the Zionist zealots in the Pentagon were the most ardent promoters of introducing Israeli methods of torturing and humiliating Arab suspects, lauding Israeli successes in dealing with the Arabs . They, not military intelligence, promoted the use of Israeli experts in interrogation; they encouraged Israeli led seminars in urban warfare and interrogation techniques for the US military intelligence officers and private contractors.

Nothing about the responsibility of the Pentagon Zionists in the torture of Iraqis appears in Hersh s expose . The glaring omissions are deliberate as they are obvious form a systematic pattern and serve the purpose of exonerating the Pentagon Zionists and Israel and hanging the entire responsibility for war crimes on Rumsfeld.

A Close Look at Hersh s Method

A close reading of Hersh s series of articles in the New Yorker reveals his premises and political perspectives, none of which have anything to do with democratic values or concern with human rights.

Hersh s principal concern is that Rumsfeld s blanket order to use torture disrupted the operations of an elite group made up of professional commandos involved in a secret special access program designed to murder, kidnap, torture terror suspects throughout the world. In other words by involving thousands of everyday US soldiers (referred to by one of Hersh s sources as hillbillies ) as torturers in Iraq Rumsfeld was endangering the operation of professional killers throughout the world. Hersh s second major concern was that the discovery of the torture would hurt America s (sic) prospects in the war on terror in other words a tactic he attributed (solely and wrongfully) to Rumsfeld was endangering the US empire-building capacity. Hersh s empire-centric view refuses to recognize the elementary rights of self-determination and international law. Hersh s third apparent concern is with Rumsfeld s bypassing the CIA and other intelligence agencies and attempt to monopolize intelligence. This is a bit ingenuous. Wolfowitz and Feith set up the special intelluigence agency that fed Rumsfeld the fabricated intelligence, they promoted Chalabi (known throughout Washington intelligence circles as totally unreliable) as an impeccable source of inside information , in Saddams non-existent weapons of mass destruction knowing in advance that they were passing phony data . As Wolfowitz latter cynically admitted the decision to launch the US invasion over banned weapons was because it was the only issue they could agree upon.

Hersh is not stupid, he knows what everyone else in Washington and out of government knows: the Zionists in the Pentagon were pushing for war with Iraq before 9/11 (even before they took office in Washington and were working with the Israeli state) and were intent on having the US destroy Iraq, at any price including the loss of American lives, budget busting deficits, imperiling oil interests and jeopardizing US global imperial interests.

They launched the invasion bypassing the military central command by deliberately falsifying the response of the conquered Iraqi people ( they will welcome us as liberators Wolfowitz and Perle) and intent on destroying civil and state structures (the so-called de-Baathification purges) in order to forever undermine Iraq s capacity to challenge Israel s domination of the Middle East.

None of Hersh s questions explore these well known facts about who is responsible for the atrocities against Iraqis. He didn t have to cite unnamed intelligence or Pentagon sources General Anthony Zinni and many non-Zionists insiders, as well as the CIA and Central Command knew about the Zionist promoters, plans and moreover knew the role Feith played in pushing for harsher interrogation techniques. But Hersh ignored these questions, those Zionists and their ideological supporters and advisers who did everything possible to undermine any Iraqi economic recovery and capacity to run their own education, health and electoral systems. De-Baathification was meant to turn Iraq into a backward tribal, divided desert country run by their protégé Chalabi, the only candidate who would recognize Israel, supply it with oil and support Mid-East integration under Israeli hegemony. The Zionist Pentagonistas succeeded in securing the war, they succeeded in destroying basic Iraqi social services, they destroyed the state (courts, military, civil services). However in their blind subservience to Israel they overlooked the fact that the disbanded professional soldiers and purged civil leaders and professionals would become part of an experienced armed resistance, that Iraq would become ungovernable, that US rule would crumble, that the US would become bogged down in a politically lost war, that its puppet regime would have neither legitimacy nor popular support. The Zionist did what they thought was best for Israel, even if it provoked greater opposition world-wide, including in the US, where a majority have turned against the occupation by May 2004. Only the Israeli transmission belt, AIPAC would cheer Bush and his continuation of the occupation and pledge allegiance to the Israeli war against Palestinians. When their self-serving prediction of an Iraqi welcoming committee turned into a valiant popular anti-colonial war, Feith and his underlings called for greater use of more forceful interrogation methods Rumsfeld and Feith encouraged Israeli type torture to humiliate the Arabs . Meanwhile Kagan s call to bomb the Arab street was tried and failed to intimidate the Iraqi resistance.

Hersh s exposé of Rumsfeld as the only top culprit turns up at a convenient moment: when US policy has failed and most knowledgeable officials are moving closer to identifying the role of the Pentagon Zionists. It was clever by half: Rumsfeld was universally despised in Congress, among the professional military and a host of others for his policies and arrogant public face. Even in exposing Rumsfeld however Hersh is careful to do so in a fashion that allows his Zionist colleagues to continue in office unscathed.

Hersh justifies some of Rumsfeld s acts of illegal terror by describing legalistic obstacles to eliminating terrorists. Hersh s support for Rumsfeld s resort to unaccountable commandos engaging in assassination, kidnapping and torture of suspects around the world is in effect a way to condone those tactics after Rumsfeld leaves office. If Rumsfeld resigns, torture will continue under colleagues Feith and Wolfowitz. Hersh drags in a fifth level functionary working under Feith, Stephan Cambone, who he tells us was deeply involved in the torture of prisoners more involved than his Zionist superiors? We might ask the peerless investigatory journalist: How is it that Hersh blames those above above (Rumsfeld) and those below (Cambone) but never focuses on Feith and Wolfowitz who designed and directed policy?

In setting up Cambone for the exposé, Hersh profiles Cambome in terms that fit with greater pertinence the Zionists: He advocated war with Iraq (following Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and Abrams); he disdained the CIA who the Pentagon Zionists viewed as too cautious ; he attacked the CIA for not finding WMD. Since Cambone functioned under Wolfowitz and Feith he was simply repeating what his bosses wanted to hear and perhaps that s why they entrusted him with the relevant dirty tasks of extracting intelligence via torture.

Hersh tries to link Cambone with the extension of the torture practiced selectively by the Special Agency Program. SAP was already operative before Cambone took office and its operations were under the direction of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams. Hersh s dating of the torture in August 2003 with Cambone and Major General Miller (from Guantanamo) assignment is false. It started earlier under the SAP and with Israeli trained interrogators. Moreover the Pentagon headed by the same three (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith) ordered Miller s use of torture on suspects at Guantanamo who moved him to Iraq as a reward for exemplary work. Hersh does not explore Miller s links with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith before going to Iraq. He simply aborts the analysis looks at the middle and lower levels of power: Cambone, Miller, interrogators, and enlisted soldiers. Out of this framework Hersh comes up with a detailed piece of selective investigatory journalism. Hersh exposes some but covers up for those most actively involved in invoking the war and directing it in a way that served Israeli interests. The cost in US lives and the degradation of young US servicemen forced to assume the role of torturers is of little concern to the Pentagon Zionists. Even after all the exposés of torture, killings and rapes, major Zionist ideologues like Kristol, Krauthammer, Rubin, Perle, Kagan and Frum have launched attacks on Bush for backing off from the war.

The Pentagon s Zionists are under attack. In the face of the US debacle in Iraq, the anti-Zionist coalition found in the State Department, the Military, the CIA and elsewhere have launched a counter-offensive. Marine General Anthony Zinni, Senator Fritz Hollings and other prominent political, diplomatic and military leaders have openly identified the role of the Pentagon Zionists in launching and directing the war to favor Israel. The most recent and visible move was the marginalization of the pro-Israel Chalabi the protégé of Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams. The raid on his house and the carting off of his records, ostensibly to investigate financial irregularities is a symbolic setback. So is the US abstention in the Security Council on Israel s rape of Rafah much to the chagrin of the Israel First crowd at the AIPAC convention. In response all the major Jewish organizations and publications from the Forward, Anti-Defamation League, AJC and others have denounced the critics of the Pentagon Zionists.

Hersh attempts to head off the anti-Zionist headhunting coalition by focusing on the two Goyim Rumsfeld and Cambone has been to no avail. The knives are drawn. Because of Zionist power in and out of the government, the anti-Zionist coalition and their supporters use code words, the most common of which is neo-conservative , which everyone now knows means Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and other Zionists in and out of the government. AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and other Israel Firsters sensing the danger to their co-thinkers have turned to labeling critics of the neo-conservative militarists anti-Semites and arousing Congress members, the media and their propaganda machine into silencing the coalition into submission..

But the Coalition is gaining influence Bush is insisting on handing over symbolic power to Iraqi Shias in a subtle game of cooption promoted by the State Department. Already the Zionists led by Kagan and Kristol have all but called Bush a traitor and coward for retreating.

The photos of torture, which have discredited the war policy, threaten to isolate the Zionist zealots. Faced with the indignation of the whole civilized world at the war crimes, the progressive Zionist apologists, like Hersh, take to isolating blame on Cambone and Rumsfeld and minimizing the responsibility to a few soldiers in a cell block , as did Senator Lieberman while the AIPAC elite cheer Bush on with the war ignoring the muck and blood of torture.

Rumsfeld has shrewdly tied his future to his Zionist partners in the Pentagon and outside, counting on riding on their coat tails and reaping the support of the powerful Jewish lobby and their leaders in the Israeli state, who stand behind them. He has few other influential allies.

Conclusion

In the final analysis even if Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Rubin, Libby and the current crop of Zionist Pentagonistas are forced to resign it will only be a temporary setback. The Zionist political organizations remain intact, their influence over Congress remains overwhelming and they have pledges from both major presidential candidates that Israel s cause is America s cause (Bush and Kerry). The Zionist juggernaut grinds on, securing sanctions against Syria and calling for the bombing of Iran s supposed nuclear facilities. If you can t find a real threat to the US maybe the next crop of Zionists in power will cook up another consensual pretext . Holbrooke and Sandy Berger can tutor the US on multi-lateral wars of aggression.

Meantime among those who still deny Zionist power in US foreign policy, one only has to read the accounts of the AIPAC conference in Washington in May 2004. At a time when Israel was killing children in the streets of Rafah and destroying hundreds of homes under the horrified eyes of the entire civilized world, when an indignant UN Security Council finally rose to its feet and unanimously condemned Israel, US Congressional leaders and the two major Presidential candidates pledged unconditional support to Israel, evoking the bloodthirsty cheers of investment brokers, dentists, doctors, lawyers the cream of the cream of American Jewish society. The cause of Israel is the cause of America rings out from the mouth of every candidate as the Israelis bulldoze homes and snipers shoot small girls on their way to buy candy. Its almost as if Sharon wanted to demonstrate the power of the Zionists in the US, timing the vile destruction of Rafah to coincide with the AIPAC convention and the disgusting appearance of the spineless American politicians supporting ongoing crimes against humanity. Not one voice was raised in even meek protest. To those who claim that the Zionist are just one of a number of influential lobbies try explaining the unconditional support for Israel s genocide of the Palestinian people by the most powerful politicians in the US.

It is almost a perverse pleasure to watch Sharon smear the muck and gore of Rafah on the groveling faces of US politicians they deserve each other. But for those of us who support a democratic anti-imperialist foreign policy this is one of the most humiliating moments in US history. Something we won t read in the exposés of Hersh or the erudite Zionist treatises in defense of endless wars.

(1) Seymour Hersh, Torture at Abu Ghraib: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far does responsibility go?, New Yorker, May 10, 2004; The Gray Zone: How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib, New Yorker, May 25, 2004, and Mixed Messages: Why the government didn t know what it knew, New Yorker, June 3, 2004.
 
moghrabi
#2
Sorry for posting the whole article as I do not have a link to it. It was emailed to me.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#3
So if I understand it correctly, a Jew is automatically a Zionist, and Zionist = bad? And the source is Al Jazeera?

(...)

No further comment.
 
Jillyvn
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

So if I understand it correctly, a Jew is automatically a Zionist, and Zionist = bad? And the source is Al Jazeera?

(...)

No further comment.

Lol. I don't have the kind of restraint.

I admit, despite my best efforts at self education and a few courses at university, I remain woefully ignorant in my understanding of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. However, I have studied the origin and rise of anti-Semitism extensively. I find this relatively new emergence of vitriolic diatribes against "Zionists" highly disturbing. It's the same old anti-Semitism dressed up in fancy new clothes to match a post-Israel world. Let me say, straight off, I don't necessarily agree with Israel's reaction to the Palestinians. I find a certian irony in their erection of the wall (Ghetto anyone?), and I can't be the first to have noticed this. However, it would be incredibly ignorant to disregard the recent surge in anti-Semitism that has gone hand in hand with the rise of fundamentalism and anti-Arab sentiment. When will we learn that a religious/ethnic group is not a homogenous, indistinguishable whole? To this end, I ask the question that isn't asked in the article posted.

What is a Zionist?

This sounds like a relatively simple question. It is not. Because, in our current world climate, to be Jewish is to be identified by those predisposed to prejudice to be a Zionist. There is a grey area here that the vast majority of people miss, in the same way that Palestinian can be a dirty word to a Jewish person.

Let me make my point clear. Support for the state of Israel does not automatically mean you support every single action the state undertakes. Not all Jewish people support Israel. Judaism and Zionism are two very different things. Zionism is the new buzz word for Jewish, and it is used to denegrate a people who have been stigmatized for millenia.

/ Rant
 
Rick van Opbergen
#5
If I may add something to your post (which I couldn't agree with more Jillyvn): it also depends on what the definition of Zionist is in the Western and Arab world (media). Personally, I do not take it as something bad when an Israeli is proud of his country (Israel). However, an Israeli colonist on the West Bank who believes that Arabs should be killed, I consider to be a bad Zionist. My question: when talking about the word Zionist in for example Arab media, is a Zionist similar to an Israeli, or do they mean with Zionist only those Israelis (or Jews in the diaspora) who are actively preaching extremist ideas about (for example) Arabs, thinking it's a right thing to occupy more land in the Middle East etc.?
 
moghrabi
#6
A Zionist in an Arab eye is a Jew or Israeli who is actively preaching extremist ideas about Arabs and thinking it THE RIGHT THING to occupy more Arab land.
 
Jillyvn
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

A Zionist is an Arab eye is a Jew or Israeli who is actively preaching extremist ideas about Arabs and thinking it THE RIGHT THING to occupy more Arab land.

Moghrabi,

Forgive a newbie to the forum. You seem to have a lot of of insight and input into this situation. Are you living in Israel right now? Feel free to ignore my question if it is too personal. I find what you have to say thus far very interesting.
 
moghrabi
#8
No, I live in Canada. But I have a lot to say about Israel and its actions if you are up to listening to me.

Thank you for your nice words.
 
Jillyvn
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

No, I live in Canada. But I have a lot to say about Israel and its actions if you are up to listening to me.

Thank you for your nice words.

Thanks for the answer Moghrabi! I'm really interested in your input in this area, as I feel I have a lot to learn from both sides! And you seem very intelligent... I look forward to your input. Feel free to send me to any links you think I might find interesting. I'm always willing to learn.
 
moghrabi
#10
Thank you for your nice words. The best way to learn more on this topic is to read my earlier posts. We had a gentleman here by the name of Researchok. He was my adversary. We fought, called each other names and so on to prove each others point of view. He was Pro-Israel. I am not. I never support any tyranny, be it suicide bombers or mass killing by an army of innocent civilians.

If I go and punch you in the face in your own home, Should you come to my town and burn it all. NOOOOO. That is collective punishment which is against the Geneva convention. Targeted killings is also illegal.

I'll post a lot more on this subject and we can discuss them as they come. I appreciate your interest in this matter.
 
Jillyvn
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

Thank you for your nice words. The best way to learn more on this topic is to read my earlier posts. We had a gentleman here by the name of Researchok. He was my adversary. We fought, called each other names and so on to prove each others point of view. He was Pro-Israel. I am not. I never support any tyranny, be it suicide bombers or mass killing by an army of innocent civilians.

If I go and punch you in the face in your own home, Should you come to my town and burn it all. NOOOOO. That is collective punishment which is against the Geneva convention. Targeted killings is also illegal.

I'll post a lot more on this subject and we can discuss them as they come. I appreciate your interest in this matter.

It looks like you and I are up late tonight, surfing the forum! I'll browse through your previous posts as you suggested. Quick question (which you may have addressed previously -again, I calim newbie status):

Do you think there has been a recent rise in anti-semitism that has concided with Israel's attacks on the Palestinian people receiving much more critical media attention within the last couple of years?
 
moghrabi
#12
I do not call it anti-semitic. It is anti-Zionism. I have a lot of friends who are Jews and they are wonderful people.

There is a rise in anti-Zionism that coincided with the Intifada II. The response of Israel to the Intifada is against all international laws. The Palestinian people are fighting for their rights. People around the world are seeing this response to the intifada and now they understand the injustice.

Let me go back to 1967. Jordan lost the West Bank. Egypt lost Gaza and Sinai desert. Syria lost the Golan Heights. Now under the Camp David peace accord, Israel returned the Sinai desert to Egypt and Egypt gave the Pals Gaza. The same with Jordan. They gave the West Bank to the Pals.

Now the Pals are asking for the land given to them by Arab countries and yet they can't have it all. It is not even the part of Palestine the Pals had prior to 1948. Under UN resolutions, The Gaza strip and the West Bank must be give to the Pals to declare it as their own country. But Israel insists in building settlements on them.

How do we not see the injustice? if we can't, then we must be very blind.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#13
Do you really think it's all anti-Zionism that has surfaced after the start of the Second Intifada?
 
moghrabi
#14
I do not doubt that there are people out there who are anti-semitic. However, the rise in media attention after Intifada II is anti-Zionism. There seems to be a misuse of the term anti-Semitic nowadays and we have to be careful which term to use.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Reverend Blair
#15
What do you think about Christian Zionism, Moghrabi? There are a lot of Christians who want to see Israel made whole (according to their definitions, not mine) to bring on the End Times so they can float up to heaven in their earthly bodies and hang around naked. (and they say I've got some odd ideas )

Many members of the Bush cabinet belong to sects of Christianity that hold this belief. How much of an impact do you think that has on US/Israeli relations and policies?
 
Rick van Opbergen
#16
Well, I agree with you moghrabi that on the one hand, anti-Zionism has grown after the beginning of the Second Intifada. However, at least in Europe, the beginning of the Second Intifada and the dramatic rise of anti-Semitic incidents are closely knit, especially in countries like my own country (the Netherlands), as well as in France, Belgium and Germany.
 
Reverend Blair
#17
There is no doubt that applies in Canada as well, Rick.

With all that's been going on our Islamic population became a little more militant, especially regarding Israel. The bad ones came out of the woodwork. So did all those white, Christian guys who hate Jews, Arabs (generally pronounced Ay-rabs), Indians (meaning North American natives), Pakis (Indians from India, Pakistanis, anybody with that skin colour/accent) and blacks (Hey, at least they don't use the "n" word anymore...at least not in public).

From what I see and hear what's really made a comeback is racism. It was hovering silently under the surface and now it's okay again.
 
moghrabi
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

Well, I agree with you moghrabi that on the one hand, anti-Zionism has grown after the beginning of the Second Intifada. However, at least in Europe, the beginning of the Second Intifada and the dramatic rise of anti-Semitic incidents are closely knit, especially in countries like my own country (the Netherlands), as well as in France, Belgium and Germany.

In Europe there was and still is anti Semitics. Now, the people who always hated Jews in Europe have a window of opportunity to express their hatred. They use their so-called support of the Pals for their own hate Agenda.

Now Arabs do not hate Jews. Please understand what I am saying because for a Muslim to hate a person of the book is a sin. However they hate the Zionist part of Judaism. Their treatment of Arabs. The way they always cry "mommy" if a UN resolution is put against them. The way they think that they are above any other people.

What distinguish anti-semitism from Arab anti-Zionism is and I'll give you one example.

62 UN resolutions against Israel vetoed by the US. Israel does not even care what the UN says. four or five resolutions against Iraq and look what happened in Iraq. The Arabs look at this as double-standard. They see it as Israel is an expansionist country that does not obey any international law and it is not even punished for it. If a country such as Iraq , Iran, Syria etc just think of nuclear weapon, they are warned and then bang, while Israel is the 5th largest nuclear power in the world.

Another point is if you remember in 1980, Israel unilaterally flew over Iraq and bombed its nuclear reactors. What gives Israel this right and why nothing is done about it.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

Now Arabs do not hate Jews.

In general, this is obviously true. However, anti-Semitism does exist in the Arab world. And I do not mean anti-Zionism with that.

I do agree with you that Israel has so far ignored all those UN-resolutions, and that something should be done about it.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#20
PS: click on "Arab world" in my previous post, it's a link.
 
moghrabi
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Rick van Opbergen

PS: click on "Arab world" in my previous post, it's a link.

Sorry but your link is absolutley ridiculous. MEMRI is a zionist website. Here is something about it:

Overview

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) states that it “explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.” MEMRI, founded in 1998 as a 501 (c)3 organization, says that its purpose is “to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.” With branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center, MEMRI’s research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian. (1)

The main subjects of its research and translations are the following: jihad and terrorism, U.S. and Middle East, reform in the Arab and Muslim world, Arab-Israeli conflict, inter-Arab relations, economic studies, and Arab anti-Semitism.(2) MEMRI’s slogan, “Bridging the Language Gap Between the Middle East and the West,” does not convey the center’s stridently Zionist and anti-Arab political bias. Until recently MEMRI was more forthcoming about its political orientation in its self-description and staff profiles on its website. Currently it has no information about its staff, board of directors, or funding on its website. Three weeks after September 11, 2001, MEMRI also deleted the following sentence from its “mission statement” on its “About Us” page: “In its research, the institute puts emphasis on the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel.” (3) (4)

The two founders, Meyrav Wurmser and Yigal Carmon, are right-wing Zionists. Carmon is the longtime president, while Wurmer left her position as executive director at MEMRI in early 2002 to direct the Center of Middle East Studies at the Hudson Institute. (2) Steven Stalinsky has been MEMRI’s executive director since Wurmser’s departure. Oliver Revell serves without compensation as a member of MEMRI’s board of directors, together with Carmon and Stalinsky. In 2001 MEMRI operated on a budget approaching $1.8 million. (5) Its staff has increased dramatically since its founding in February 1998, from six to more than thirty. (6)

As an indirect result of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the subsequent “war on terrorism” by the Bush administration, MEMRI has gained public prominence as a source of news and analysis about the Muslim world. Its translated articles and commentary by its own staff are routinely cited in national media in the United States, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. Analysis by MEMRI staff and officers is frequently published by right-wing and neoconservative media outlets such as National Review, Fox News, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard. It is also a media outlet of choice for such right-wing and Zionist organizations the Center for Security Policy, Middle East Forum, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Both critics and supporters of MEMRI note its increasing influence in shaping perceptions of the Middle East. Its translations and reports are distributed without charge, according to MEMRI, to “congresspersons, congressional staff, policy makers, journalists, academics, and interested parties.” (6)

Origins, History, and Influence

To understand the political mission, it is helpful to examine the politics and origins of its cofounders Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser. Carmon is a reserve colonel in the Israeli Defense Forces, having served in the IDF/Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988. In that capacity, Carmon, who was born in Romania, was Acting Hear of the Civil Administration in the West Bank from 1977 to 1982. He served as counterterrorism adviser to premiers Shamir and Menachem Begin from 1988 to 1993. In 1991 and 1992 Carmon was a senior member of the Israeli Delegation to peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington. (4)

Wurmser, an Israeli-born analyst of Middle East affairs, received her Ph.D. from George Washington University in Washington, D.C. where she wrote on Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement. (4) According to Arab Media Watch, Jabotinsky “brokered the marriage between Zionism and fascism.” (3) Wurmser, who has taught at Johns Hopkins University and the United States Naval Academy, and her husband David Wurmser are central figures in the right-wing’s web of Middle East policy institutes. According to the Hudson Institute, “Through her work at MEMRI [she] helped to educate policymakers about the Palestinian Authority two-track approach to 'negotiating peace' with Israel: calling for peace in the English press and with western policymakers while inciting hatred and violence through official Arab language media." (7) Before joining the Bush II administration as a State Department policy adviser under John Bolton, her husband David Wurmser was an AEI scholar and associate of the Middle East Forum (MEF).

Numerous current or former MEMRI staff are Israelis, including Yotham Feldner, MEMRI’s director of media analysis. (6) Like Carmon, Feldner worked in military intelligence while serving with the Israeli Defense Forces. Another MEMRI staff member, Aluma Solnik, also worked in military intelligence before joining MEMRI. Other MEMRI staff come to the organization from various Zionist and Israeli organizations, including the World Zionist Organization.

According to one profile of MEMRI, the institute is “one of the few sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian; it thus provides a view into Arab and Iranian media that is often otherwise unavailable to English speakers that are not literate in those languages. The technical accuracy of its translations is rarely disputed. However, the extent to which its selection is contextual or representative of Arab/Iranian media is very often disputed, particularly in view of its ties with Israel.” (6)

MEMRI, which describes itself as “objective and independent,” has gained a reputation for cherry-picking the most virulent, anti-Israel and anti-U.S. reports and commentary from the Arab media. ( (9) (10)

A former CIA counterintelligence official, Vincent Cannistraro, said that “they [MEMRI} are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud…. They simply don't present the whole picture.” (9) In an article titled “Selective MEMRI,” Brian Whitaker of the Guardian (London) observed: “Evidence from MEMRI's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status.” (11) Ali Abunimah, vice-president of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, cautions that there are sounder voices in the Arab and Muslim communities who try to challenge these kinds of statements, and that some of the language about Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. and Israeli press is equally vile. Yet, he added, that “a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment is indeed mixed with anti-Semitic rhetoric imported from the West.” (12)

Although critics are more concerned with the selectivity of MEMRI’s translations rather than their accuracy, instances of MEMRI’s political bias affecting the accuracy of its translations have on occasion been cited. The Guardian’s Brian Whitaker took MEMRI’s president to task for mistranslating a question that included an implied criticism of Israel. The question was "How do you deal with the Jews who are besieging al-Aqsa and are scattered around it?" But MEMRI translated this as: "How do you feel about the Jews?" (13)

At the same time that MEMRI circulates the most inflammatory comments found in the Arab media, its pro-Israel and pro-Likud positions are equally evident. Carmon says that MEMRI is eager to highlight the role of the “good guys” in the Middle East--the democrats, or near democrats; the liberals, or near liberals--anyone who evinces the slightest interest in reform. According to an adulatory report on MEMRI in the right-wing magazine National Review, “Independence and objectivity are matters of pride here. Staffers work virtually around the clock, with an almost missionary spirit, feeling that their work is vital, that their moment is now.” (14)
Funding

MEMRI states that it does not accept government funding and that it relies on 250 private donors. (14) Among these private donors is the right-wing Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, which gave MEMRI $100,000 in the 1999-2000 period. (15) Another foundation that supports MEMRI is the Ronald & Mary Ann Lachman Foundation.


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/memri.php
 
moghrabi
#22
I hope this gives you some ideas about your link.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#23
moghrabi: the fact that MEMRI was found by two right-wing Zionists, does not take away that their articles concerning anti-Semitism do have references to their sources (which aren't necessarily "Zionist"). I don't care what the motivations are of these guys, as long as they can back their claims. Now, not all of their references have a link to a certain website - and you can doubt those articles. Other references do have (a) link(s) to their sources.

You can claim that this website shows anti-Semitism out of context, as your website claims "[MEMRI] has gained a reputation for cherry-picking the most virulent, anti-Israel and anti-US reports and commentary from the Arab media". However, even with their cherry-picking, any (credible) source of anti-Semitism reported in the Arab media sweeps away your claim (to which I reacted) that anti-Semitism is unknown in the Arab world; that it is anti-Zionism instead.

Now, in contrary to MEMRI, I did not claim that - as they put it - anti-Semitism is virulent or widely spread among the Arab world.
 
moghrabi
#24
well I put my 2 cents worth about anti-semite and anti-zionism. MEMRI website is known for the spreading of false information about the ME. So we have to find a neutral source (which is about impossible) to prove out points.

Thank you for your great input.
 
Rick van Opbergen
#25
OK, I accept that it would be best to find a credible source. Which will probably mean that any Israeli or Jewish source will be viewed as "not credible", not moghrabi? While it's logical that they are the majority of sources, as they are the ones targeted.

Now, I did search, and I did come up with a source like this, from a Spanish online newspaper. But before I go on, I do want to know what you consider to be unbiased, credible sources .
 
peapod
#26
I remember those days morgrabi, I remember fight night! thats when things were exciting around the homestead, and american voice was around for me to abuse. But I do have to say you do have one thing wrong there morghagi, researchok never did call you names, go back and check. The man knew his stuff, after all that what he did for a living, And secret: he was winning.
I figure the only one who could really take him on was haggis mcbagpipe. Us old timers can recall their dueling wits, they had the rhythm...of course I would follow like a yapping puppy. Wait now, I think the reverend could a few others as well
give him a run for the money...I am talking debating here.

I think it was that barbara song streisand playing on the radio "memories" that sparked that little outburst down memory lane. Hey but you newbies can go and read the debates for yourself.
 
moghrabi
#27
Thanks for your input peapod. If you read the threads carefully, he was the one who called me anti-semite. But that is history.

I never debate to win. I like to expose the truth and stir some kind of energy into the forum.
 
peapod
#28
Yes I agree, its very hard to know where the truth is.
 

Similar Threads

11
71