THE 50th ARTICLE IN THIS SERIES OF ARTICLES TO EXPOSE THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY, THE MOST NOTORIOUS ZIONIST IMPOSTOR IN THE USA

by Benjamin Merhav



It is now well over 2 years since I began this series. I actually never intended it to be a series of articles, much less publishing 50 of them for over 2 years, but the continued intransigence of Noam Chomsky in his false pretences, his continued masquerade as the champion of peace and justice, and the influence of his zionist cabal on the Left, compelled me to keep doing this very necessary job which others have refused to do.

It all began in early 2005 when someone, within a small private circle of peace activists, quoted an article by Israel Shamir, a Russian immigrant in Israel, which very mildly criticised Noam Chomsky's pro-zionist views. Reading it I then contributed to the small forum by supporting the criticism, adding that it helps to expose the treachery of Noam Chomsky. Those couple of lines of mine brought on me the wrath of Jennifer Loewenstein, a crony of Noam Chomsky, who was one of that small circle. She swiftly reacted by a reply to my brief note, pouring on me a torrent of abuse for having accused Chomsky of treachery. It prompted me to immediately write the first article in my series : More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky.

As I did not have then an internet site of my own, I tried unsuccessfully to get it published by Left websites. Then a friend of Mary Rizzo recommended her blog to me, and I sent her the article. To my horror, she decided without consulting me to change the title of my article into : "About Noam Chomsky - Reflections
From Benjamin Merhav", so as to take the sting out of the article. I then demanded of her to immediately delete my article from her blog, but she refused, and she keeps it there to this day. From then on I became determined to publish on my own site a series of articles under the original title, so as to smash once and for all the wall of lies and pretences built by Noam Chomsky and by his zionist cabal to the detriment of the Left and to the detriment of Palestinians and other oppressed people.

Noam Chomsky's articles and books serve as very dangerous traps for genuine anti-imperialists and for many peace and justice activists. As I pointed out many times in this series, Noam Chomsky is a wealthy bourgois, and a dishonest zionist intellectual in the USA. He is a zionist impostor masquerading as the "guru of the Left".

At the same time he has been a loyal supporter of the USA ruling class, despite his writings to the contrary. The mere fact that he chose MIT as his academic work place for over half a century testifies to that. As is well known - and as Chomsky himself has admitted - the MIT is financed by the Pentagon, and it serves as the brain centre for the USA military-industrial complex. MIT bosses love Chomsky, as do the top brass of the West Point miltary academy, rather than consider him hostile. They are all essential, very essential to USA imperialism,
therefore a great danger to the entire humanity.

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 49)

by Benjamin Merhav



Having quoted a couple of articles ,which expose Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn (a Chomsky crony) dishonesty, in article 40, the first post on this blog, I have pointed out that Noam Chomsky supports the USA rulers' cover up of both the assassination of Presiden J.F. Kennedy in 1963 and the 9/11 events of 2001. I have also pointed out the involvement of the zionist Gestapo in both events, a factor which leads back again to Chomsky, namely, to ask again the inevitable question : is Chomsky's loyalty to zionism so strong in his mind that it supersedes even his loyalty to the USA rulers, or are the two options compatible, perhaps ?



The 44th post on this blog deals with Chomsky's support for the JFK assassination cover-up. Now is the time to draw the necessary conclusions regarding Chomsky's support for the official 9/11 cover-up. The following article emailed to me today by "Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences)" sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu ,adds one more very important evidence of a scientific expert to the long list of experts which proved beyond doubt that the official 9/11 story is false. Yet Noam Chomsky continues to stick to it.



Here is the article :





Prior to his 13 years of service at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Dr. Hirschhorn was Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison from 1965 - 1978. He has a Bachelors and Masters degree in Metallurgical Engineering and a PhD in Materials Engineering. Dr. Hirschhorn is one of 200 engineers and architects who have publicly criticized the official account of 9/11.



Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11

By Alan Miller

OpEdNews

Sept. 5,2007

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_former_congressional.htm



Analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers...The general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition... Horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of the fear of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy."

In an online editorial yesterday, Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), called for a new investigation of 9/11. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building no. 7.Dr. Hirschhorn is a nationally recognized engineer who has testified before Congress more than 50 times on technology, science, and environmental issues. In addition to his work for the OTA, Dr. Hirschhorn also served as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.Dr. Hirschhorn admitted to his own personal growing skepticism about the official WTC story. He wrote : analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers. He noted the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

Dr. Hirschhorn endorsed the efforts of a new group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to launch a new, honest and comprehensive investigation that considers all the evidence and which examines the possibility of controlled demolition.Dr. Hirschhorn issued a challenge to supporters of the official account of 9/11, if those that believe the official 9/11 story - especially elected officials - trust their views, then let them support a serious effort to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable.He concluded, "horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of the fear of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy."The full text of Dr. Hirschhorn's statement can be found at http://blogcritics.org/

Prior to his 13 years of service at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Dr. Hirschhorn was Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison from 1965 - 1978. He has a Bachelors and Masters degree in Metallurgical Engineering and a PhD in Materials Engineering. He has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations. He currently is a Member of the Board of Directors of the National Foundation for Environmental Education and a Member of the Board of Directors of Sustainability Now! He is the author of more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and book chapters on environmental science and technology.Dr. Hirschhorn is one of 200 engineers and architects who have publicly criticized the official account of 9/11. Statements and short bios of many of the others can be found at PatriotsQuestion911.com .

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 48), by Benjamin Merhav

For a zionist to admit that Israel is an apartheid state is no more than making a honest statement, namely, admitting the truth, the reality. From then on the options are obvious : chose to remain a racist by supporting the zionist apartheid regime, or oppose racism and therefore oppose that regime. Noam Chomsky has chosen to continue his support for that regime, thereby has chosen to remain racist , yet he refuses to admit that he is ! Furthermore, he is much more supportive of zionist racism than some Israeli zionists are.

Thus, for example, Danny Rubinstein, Haaretz editor for Arab affairs, has now admitted that Israel is an apartheid state, whereas Noam Chomsky still refuses to do so. Moreover, although a loyal zionist like Noam Chomsky, Danny Rubinstein is against the apartheid wall no matter where it would have been built, but Chomsky supports an apartheid wall had it been built on the Green Line.

The following cuttings from the Israeli zionist press report the recent statements by Danny Rubinstein. I got them today by email from Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences). They read :

Ha'aretz editor: Israel is an apartheid state

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103912.html

Ha'aretz editor slams Israel at U.N. conference
08/30/2007

The Arab affairs editor for the Israeli newsaper Ha'aretz, Danny
Rubinstein, told participants at a United Nations conference in Brussels
Thursday that Israel is an apartheid state.

"Today Israel is an apartheid state with different status for different
communities," Rubinstein said, according to observers at the event,
which is being held at the European Parlaiment. Observers also quoted
Rubenstein, a prominent columnist and member of the newsaper's editorial
board, as saying: "Hamas won the election of the international community
and Israel cannot ignore that." Rubinstein was one of the few Israelis speaking among a
sea of Palestinian activists at a United Nations conference entitled "International
Conference of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestine Peace."
......................................
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444320,00.html

Zionist Federation cancels Haaretz journalist
Columnist Danny Rubinstein reportedly likens Israel to apartheid South Africa
Yaakov Lappin 08.31.07 Israel News

The Zionist Federation of Great Britain has cancelled a scheduled appearance by Haaretz
columnist Danny Rubinstein, after he reportedly likened Israel to apartheid South Africa
during a UN conference in Brussels on Thursday.

According to a UN report, Rubinstein said that "Israel today was an apartheid State with
four different Palestinian groups: those in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and
Israeli Palestinians, each of which had a different status."

The report quoted Rubinstein as condemning the security fence, saying that "even if the wall followed strictly the line of the pre-1967 border, it would still not be justified.The two peoples needed cooperation rather than walls because they must be neighbors."

On Friday, the Zionist Federation released a press release, saying "Rubinstein's
participation in this weekend's Zionist Federation conference in London has been cancelled by
mutual agreement."

"The ZF regularly holds meetings where a wide variety of views are expressed, and while
there is no question that Rubinstein has every right to express his views about Israel, it
was mutually agreed that his participation in the Zionist Federation conference became
untenable," the statement said.

Andrew Balcombe, Chairman of the ZF, said: "Criticism of Israeli policy is acceptable.
However, by using the word 'apartheid' in a UN conference held at the European Parliament,
Danny Rubinstein encourages the demonisation of Israel and the Jewish people. I believe
he was naïve to attend the UN conference."

Ynetnews was unable to reach Rubinstein for comment.

Adam Mouchtar, Director of Bnei Brith's European Union Affairs Office, attended the conference, and said he was "surprised and disappointed" by Rubinstein's comments. Earlier, he told Ynetnews: "This is a conference of Israel-haters," adding that delegates were clearly guided by a single agenda: "To prove that Israel is a racist apartheid state, and therefore Israel should be boycotted internationally, as South Africa was."

Rubinstein was also slammed for his comments by the Geneva-based UN Watch organization,headed by Hillel Neuer, which said in a statement, "That a leading Israeli journalist -presented by the UN as a member of the Haaretz editorial board - would participate and grant legitimacy to a Soviet-era enterprise born out of the 'Zionism is Racism' canard, whose sole aim is to assault Israel morally, legally and financially, was disturbing enough. But that he would full-throatedly join the jackals, calling Israel an 'apartheid state,'is a scandal."

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 47)
by Benjamin Merhav


The latest interviewer of Noam Chomsky begins his interview (see text below, as published by counterpunch.com on August 3, 2007) quoting from Chomsky's speech to MIT students in 1969. Noam Chomsky had been holding a teaching position at MIT for some 14 years by then, and he would continue to work for that Pentagon financed institution until very recently,for well over half a century of dedicated work. He sure has been well acquainted with this academic center of the USA's industrial-military complex. In fact, he had admitted that much himself in the quote, when he told his student audience :

"...in fact, you’re invited and encouraged to enter it. The community of technical intelligentsia, and weapons designers, and counterinsurgency experts, and pragmatic planners of an American empire is one that you have a great deal of inducement to become associated with. The inducements, in fact, are very real; their rewards in power, and affluence, and prestige and authority are quite significant."

So not only did he participate in that "community" of "weapons designers, and counterinsurgency experts, and pragmatic planners of an American empire", he also encouraged students to join it too ! He certainly could have discouraged them if he wanted to do so, and he could have condemned the militaristic role of the MIT instead, but he didn't then, and he still does not now !

It is a matter of honesty, first and foremost, and Noam Chomsky is a dishonest man. He had to be so all his life, and he still is now, because he has been all his life a loyal zionist, yet he has been masquerading at the same time as a champion of peace and justice, and as anti-imperialist guru of the Left.

Note, for example, the following question and answer during this interview :

"...do you think it’s worth ‘speaking truth’ to the professional scholars?

I’m always uneasy about the concept of "speaking truth," as if we somehow know the truth and only have to enlighten others who have not risen to our elevated level. The search for truth is a cooperative, unending endeavor. We can, and should, engage in it to the extent we can and encourage others to do so as well, seeking to free ourselves from constraints imposed by coercive institutions, dogma, irrationality, excessive conformity and lack of initiative and imagination, and numerous other obstacles."

Yes, of course, he must feel uneasy to tell the truth, or he would risk exposing his dishonesty and his false claims ,as the "anti-imperialist" guru. Telling the truth should make people relaxed not uneasy, as honest people are, and it matters not if they or their audience are "professional scholars" or just ordinary people. However, Noam Chomsky did not have much trouble in overcoming his "uneasiness" in deceiving his listeners and readers. His method in writing and in his speech has been to interlace the truth with his zionist loyalty in such a way as to avoid detection, thus making his books,articles and speeches veritable traps for his trusting readers and listeners. A good example of his method is provided by Chomsky during this interview as follows.

Masquerading a champion of human morality this wealthy and dishonest zionist quotes the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals to show that George W. Bush, the USA President, has been perpetrating crimes like the punished leaders of the Hitler regime in Fascist Germany. This is true, of course, except that Noam Chomsky has never demanded publicly that President Bush be put on trial and be punished as a war criminal, much less did he demand the punishment of the zionist war criminals - the heads of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel and - for their war crimes and crimes against humanity ! In fact, he is not opposed to the zionist apartheid regime ; instead he is opposed to any sanctions against it, and he is opposed to the legitimate return of the Palestinian refugees too !

Here is the text of the interview :

An Interview with Noam Chomsky
On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals
By GABRIEL MATTHEW SCHIVONE

Schivone: In 1969, addressing a community of mostly students during a public forum at the steps of MIT, you said: “This particular community is a very relevant one to consider at a place like MIT because, of course, you’re all free to enter this community -- in fact, you’re invited and encouraged to enter it. The community of technical intelligentsia, and weapons designers, and counterinsurgency experts, and pragmatic planners of an American empire is one that you have a great deal of inducement to become associated with. The inducements, in fact, are very real; their rewards in power, and affluence, and prestige and authority are quite significant.”

Let’s start off talking about the significance of these inducements, on both a university and societal level. How crucial is it that students understand the function of this highly technocratic social order of the academic community?

CHOMSKY: How important it is, to an individual, depends on what that individual’s goals in life are. If the goals are to enrich yourself, gain privilege, do technically interesting work -- in brief, if the goals are self-satisfaction -- then these questions are of no particular relevance. If you care about the consequences of your actions, what’s happening in the world, what the future will be like for your grandchildren and so on, then they’re very crucial. So, it’s a question of what choices people make.

What makes students a natural audience to speak to? And do you think it’s worth ‘speaking truth’ to the professional scholars?

I’m always uneasy about the concept of “speaking truth,” as if we somehow know the truth and only have to enlighten others who have not risen to our elevated level. The search for truth is a cooperative, unending endeavor. We can, and should, engage in it to the extent we can and encourage others to do so as well, seeking to free ourselves from constraints imposed by coercive institutions, dogma, irrationality, excessive conformity and lack of initiative and imagination, and numerous other obstacles.As for possibilities, they are limited only by will and choice.Students are at a stage of their lives where these choices are most urgent and compelling, and when they also enjoy unusual, if not unique, freedom and opportunity to explore the choices available, to evaluate them, and to pursue them.

What is it about the privileges within university education and academic scholarship which correlate with a greater responsibility for catastrophic atrocities such as the Vietnam War or those in the Middle East in which the United States is now involved?

There are really some moral truisms. One of them is that opportunity confers responsibility. If you have very limited opportunities, then you have limited responsibility for what you do. If you have substantial opportunity you have greater responsibility for what you do. I mean, that’s kind of elementary, I don’t know how it can be discussed.

And the people who we call ‘intellectuals’ are just those who happen to have substantial opportunity. They have privilege, they have resources, they have training. In our society, they have a high degree of freedom -- not a hundred percent, but quite a lot -- and that gives them a range of choices that they can pursue with a fair degree of freedom, and that hence simply confers responsibility for the predictable consequences of the choices they make.

From where may we trace the development of this strong coterie of technical experts in the schools, and elsewhere, sometimes referred to as a ‘bought’ or ‘secular priesthood’?

It really goes back to the latter-part of the nineteenth century, when there was substantial discussion -- not just in the United States but in Europe, too -- of what was then sometimes called ‘a new class’ of scientific intellectuals. In that period of time there was a level of knowledge and technical expertise accumulating that allowed a kind of managerial class of educated, trained people to have a greater share in decision-making and planning. It was thought that they were a new class displacing the aristocracy, the owners, political leaders and so on, and they could have a larger role -- and of course they liked that idea.
Out of this group developed an ideology of technocratic planning. In industry it was called ‘scientific management’. It developed in intellectual life with a concept of what was called a ‘responsible class’ of technocratic, serious intellectuals who could solve the world’s problems rationally, and would have to be protected from the ‘vulgar masses’ who might interfere with them. And, it goes right up until the present.

Just how realistic this is, is another question, but for the class of technical intellectuals, it’s a very attractive conception that, ‘We are the rational, intelligent people, and management and decision-making should be in our hands.’Actually, as I’ve pointed out in some of the things I’ve written, it’s very close to Bolshevism. And, in fact, if you put side-by-side, say, statements by people like Robert McNamara and V.I. Lenin, they’re strikingly similar. In both cases there’s a conception of a vanguard of rational planners who know the direction that society ought to go and can make efficient decisions, and have to be allowed to do so without interference from, what one of them, Walter Lippmann, called the ‘meddlesome and ignorant outsiders’ , namely, the population, who just get in the way.

It’s not an entirely new conception: it’s just a new category of people. Two hundred years ago you didn’t have an easily identifiable class of technical intellectuals, just generally educated people. But as scientific and technical progress increased there were people who felt they can appropriate it and become the proper managers of the society, in every domain. That, as I said, goes from scientific management in industry, to social and political control.

There are periods in history, for example, during the Kennedy years, when these ideas really flourished. There were, as they called themselves, ‘the best and the brightest.’ The ‘smart guys’ who could run everything if only they were allowed to; who could do things scientifically without people getting in their way.

It’s a pretty constant strain, and understandable. And it underlies the fear and dislike of democracy that runs through elite culture always, and very dramatically right now. It often correlates closely with posturing about love of democracy. As any reader of Orwell would expect, these two things tend to correlate. The more you hate democracy, the more you talk about how wonderful it is and how much you’re dedicated to it. It’s one of the clearer expressions of the visceral fear and dislike of democracy, and of allowing, again, going back to Lippmann, the ‘ignorant and meddlesome outsiders’ to get in our way. They have to be distracted and marginalized somehow while we can take care of the serious questions.

Now, that’s the basic strain. And you find it all the time, but increasingly in the modern period when, at least, claims to expertise become somewhat more plausible. Whether they’re authentic or not is, again, a different question. But, the claims to expertise are very striking. So, economists tell you, ‘We know how to run the economy’; the political scientists tell you, ‘We know how to run the world, and you keep out of it because you don’t have special knowledge and training.’

When you look at it, the claims tend to erode pretty quickly. It’s not quantum physics; there is, at least, a pretense, and sometimes, some justification for the claims. But, what matters for human life is, typically, well within the reach of the concerned person who is willing to undertake some effort.

Given the self-proclaimed notion that this new class is entitled to decision-making, how close are they to actual policy, then?

My feeling is that they’re nowhere near as powerful as they think they are. So, when, say, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about the technocratic elite which is taking over the running of society -- or when McNamara wrote about it, or others -- there’s a lot of illusion there. Meaning, they can gain positions of authority and decision-making when they act in the interests of those who really own and run the society. You can have people that are just as competent, or more competent, and who have conceptions of social and economic order that run counter to, say, corporate power, and they’re not going to be in the planning sectors.
So, to get into those planning sectors you first of all have to conform to the interests of the real concentrations of power.
And, again, there are a lot of illusions about this -- in the media, too. Tom Wicker is a famous example, one of the ‘left commentators’ of the New York Times. He would get very angry when critics would tell him he’s conforming to power interests and that he’s keeping within the doctrinal framework of the media, which goes back to their corporate structure and so on. And he would answer, very angrily -- and correctly -- that nobody tells him what to say. He wrote anything he wanted -- which is absolutely true. But, if he wasn’t writing the things he did he wouldn’t have a column in the New York Times.
That’s the kind of thing that is very hard to perceive.

People do not want,or often are not able, to perceive that they are conforming to external authority. They feel themselves to be very free, and indeed they are, as long as they conform. But power lies elsewhere. That’s as old as history in the modern period. It’s often very explicit.
Adam Smith, for example, discussing England, quite interestingly pointed out that the merchants and manufacturers, the economic forces of his day, are the ‘principal architects of policy’, and they make sure that their own interests are ‘most peculiarly attended to’, no matter how grievous the effect on others, including the people in England. And that’s a good principle of statecraft, and social and economic planning, which runs pretty much to the present. When you get people with management and decision-making skills, they can enter into that system and they can make the actual decisions within a framework that’s set within the real concentrations of power. And now it’s not the merchants and manufacturers of Adam Smith’s day, it’s the multinational corporations, financial institutions, and so on.
But, stray too far beyond their concerns and you won’t be the decision-maker.
It’s not a mechanical phenomenon, but it’s overwhelmingly true that the people who make it to decision-making positions (that is, what they think of as decision-making positions) are those who conform to the basic framework of the people who fundamentally own and run the society.

That’s why you have a certain choice of technocratic managers and not some other choice of people equally or better capable of carrying out policies but have different ideas.
What about degrees of responsibility and shared burdens of guilt on an individual level? What can we learn about how those in positions of power or authority often view themselves?
You almost never find anyone, whether it’s in a weapons plant, or planning agency, or in corporate management, or almost anywhere, who says, ‘I’m really a bad guy, and I just want to do things that benefit myself and my friends.’

Almost invariably you get noble rhetoric like: ‘We’re working for the benefit of the people.’ The corporate executive who is slaving for the benefit of the workers and community; the friendly banker who just wants to help everybody start their business; the political leader who’s trying to bring freedom and justice to the world--and they probably all believe it. I’m not suggesting that they’re lying. There’s an array of routine justifications for whatever you’re doing. And it’s easy to believe them. It’s very hard to look into the mirror and say, ‘Yeah, that guy looking at me is a vicious criminal.’ It’s much easier to say, ‘That guy looking at me is really very benign, self-sacrificing, and he has to do these things because it’s for the benefit of everyone.’

Or you get respected moralists like Reinhold Niebuhr, who was once called ‘the theologian of the establishment’. And the reason is because he presented a framework which, essentially, justified just about anything they wanted to do. His thesis is dressed up in long words and so on (it’s what you do if you’re an intellectual). But, what it came down to is that, ‘Even if you try to do good, evil’s going to come out of it; that’s the paradox of grace’. And that’s wonderful for war criminals. ‘We try to do good but evil necessarily comes out of it.’ And it’s influential. So, I don’t think that people in decision-making positions are lying when they describe themselves as benevolent. Or people working on more advanced nuclear weapons. Ask them what they’re doing, they’ll say: ‘We’re trying to preserve the peace of the world.’ People who are devising military strategies that are massacring people, they’ll say, ‘Well, that’s the cost you have to pay for freedom and justice’, and so on.

But, we don’t take those sentiments seriously when we hear them from enemies, say, from Stalinist commissars. They’ll give you the same answers. But, we don’t take that seriously because they can know what they’re doing if they choose to. If they choose not to, that’s their choice. If they choose to believe self-satisfying propaganda, that’s their choice. But, it doesn’t change the moral responsibility. We understand that perfectly well with regard to others. It’s very hard to apply the same reasoning to ourselves.In fact, maybe the most elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you want to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush, since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards that we applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, he’d be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? It’s not even discussable. Because, we don’t apply to ourselves the principles we apply to others.

There’s a lot of talk about ‘terror’ and how awful it is. Whose terror? Our terror against them? I mean, is that considered reprehensible? No, it’s considered highly moral; it’s considered self-defense, and so on. Now, their terror against us, that’s awful, and terrible, and so on.
But, to try to rise to the level of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just enter in the domain of moral discourse is very difficult. Because, that means accepting the principle of universality. And you can experiment for yourself and see how often that’s accepted, either in personal or political life. Very rarely.

What about criminal responsibility and intellectuals?

Nuremberg is an interesting precedent.
The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. Of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until today Nuremberg is, I think, the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was very seriously flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed, and it was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing, the Nazi war criminals were being tried for crimes that had not yet been declared to be crimes. So, it was ex post facto. ‘We’re now declaring these things you did to be crimes.’ That is already questionable.

Secondly, the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality. In other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they did it and we didn’t do it.So, for example, the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a crime. The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on -- those aren’t crimes. Why? Because we did them. So, therefore, it’s not a crime. In fact, Nazi war criminals who were charged were able to escape prosecution when they could show that the Americans and the British did the same thing they did. Admiral Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all kinds of war crimes, called in the defense a high official in the British admiralty and, I think, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, who testified that, ‘Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we did.’ And, therefore, they weren’t sentenced for these crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And that’s the way it ran through. Now, that’s a very serious flaw. Nevertheless, of all the tribunals, that’s the most serious one.

When Chief Justice Jackson, chief counsel for the prosecution, spoke to the tribunal and explained to them the importance of what they were doing, he said, to paraphrase, that: ‘We are handing these defendants a poisoned chalice, and if we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same punishments, otherwise this whole trial is a farce.’ Well, you can look at the history from then on, and we’ve sipped from the poisoned chalice many times, but it’s never been considered a crime. So, that means we are saying that trial was a farce.

Interestingly, in Jackson’s opening statement he claimed that the prosecution did not wish to incriminate the whole German for the crimes they committed, but only the “planners and designers” of those crimes, “the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness … of this terrible war.”

That’s correct. And that’s another principle which we flatly reject. So, at Nuremberg, we weren’t trying the people who threw Jews into crematoria; we were trying the leaders. When we ever have a trial for crimes it’s of some low-level person like a torturer from Abu Ghraib, not the people who were setting up the framework from which they operate. And we certainly don’t try political leaders for the crime of aggression. That’s out of the question.

The invasion of Iraq was about as clear-cut a case of aggression than you can imagine. In fact, by the Nuremberg principles, if you read them carefully, the U.S. war against Nicaragua was a crime of aggression for which Ronald Reagan should have been tried. But, it’s inconceivable; you can’t even mention it in the West. And the reason is our radical denial of the most elementary moral truisms. We just flatly reject them. We don’t even think we reject them, and that’s even worse than rejecting them outright.

If we were able to say to ourselves, ‘Look, we are totally immoral, we don’t accept elementary moral principles,’ that would be a kind of respectable position in a certain way. But, when we sink to the level where we cannot even perceive that we’re violating elementary moral principles and international law, that’s pretty bad. But, that’s the nature of the intellectual culture--not just in the United States--but in powerful societies everywhere.

You mentioned Doenitz escaping culpability for his crimes.


Two who didn’t escape punishment and were among the most severely punished at Nuremberg were Julius Streicher, an editor of a major newspaper, and -- lso an interesting example -- Dr. Wolfram Sievers of the Ahnenerbe Society’s Institute of Military Scientific Research, whose own crimes were traced back to the University of Strasbourg. Not the typical people prosecuted for international war crimes, it seems, given their civilian professions.
Yes; and there’s a justification for that, namely, those defendants could understand what they were doing. They could understand the consequences of the work that they were carrying out. But, of course, if we were to accept this awful principle of universality, that would have a pretty long reach, to journalists, university researchers, and so on.

Let me quote for you the mission statement of the Army Research Office. This “premier extramural” research agency of the Army is grounded upon “developing and exploiting innovative advances to insure the Nation’s technological superiority.” It executes this mission “through conduct of an aggressive basic science research program on behalf of the Army so that cutting-edge scientific discoveries and the general store of scientific knowledge will be optimally used to develop and improve weapons systems that establish land-force dominance.”

This is a Pentagon office, and they’re doing their job. In our system, the military is under civilian control. Civilians assign a certain task to the military: their job is to obey, and carry the role out, otherwise you quit. That’s what it means to have a military under civilian control. So, you can’t really blame them for their mission statement.
They’re doing what they’re told to do by the civilian authorities. The civilian authorities are the culpable ones. If we don’t like those policies (and I don’t, and you don’t), then we go back to those civilians who designed the framework and gave the orders.
You can, as the Nuremberg precedents indicated, be charged with obeying illegal orders, but that’s often a stretch. If a person is in a position of military command, they are sworn, in fact, to obey civilian orders, even if they don’t like them. If you say they’re really just criminal orders, then, yes, they can reject them, and get into trouble and so on. But, this is just carrying out the function that they’re ordered to carry out. So, we go straight back to the civilian authority and then to the general intellectual culture, which regards this as proper and legitimate. And now we’re back to universities, newspapers, the centers of the doctrinal system.

It’s just the forthright honesty of the mission statement which I think is also very striking.

Well, it’s like going to an armory and finding out they’re making better guns. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Their orders are, ‘Make this gun work better.’ and so they’re doing it. And, if they’re honest, they’ll say, ‘Yes, that’s what we’re doing; that’s what the civilian authorities told us to do.’
At some point, people have to ask, ‘Do I want to make a better gun?’ That’s where the Nuremberg issues arise. But, you really can’t blame people very severely for carrying out the orders that they’re told to carry out when there’s nothing in the culture that tells them there’s anything wrong with it. I mean, you have to be kind of like a moral hero to perceive it, to break out of the cultural framework and say, ‘Look, what I’m doing is wrong.’ Like somebody who deserts from the army because they think the war is wrong. That’s not the place to assign guilt, I think. Just as at Nuremberg. As I said, they didn’t try the SS guards who threw people into crematoria, at Nuremberg. They might have been tried elsewhere, but not at Nuremberg.

But, in this case, the results of the ARO’s mission statement in harvesting scholarly work for better weapons design, it’s professors, scholars, researchers, scientific designers, etc., who have these choices to do intellectual work and to be so used for such ends, and who aren’t acting necessarily from direct orders but are acting more out of free will.

It’s free will, but don’t forget that there’s a general intellectual culture that raises no objection to this.Let’s take the Iraq war. There’s libraries of material arguing about the war, debating it, asking ‘What should we do?’, this and that, and the other thing. Now, try to find a sentence somewhere that says that ‘carrying out a war of aggression is the supreme international crime, which differs from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows’ (paraphrasing from Nuremberg). Try to find that somewhere. I mean, you can find it. I’ve written about it, and you can find a couple other dozen people who have written about it in the world. But, is it part of the intellectual culture? Can you find it in a newspaper, or in a journal; in Congress; any public discourse; anything that’s part of the general exchange of knowledge and ideas? I mean, do students study it in school? Do they have courses where they teach students that ‘to carry out a war of aggression is the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows’?
So, for example, if sectarian warfare is a horrible atrocity, as it is, who’s responsible? By the principles of Nuremberg, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice -- they’re responsible for sectarian warfare because they carried out the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows. Try and find somebody who points that out. You can’t. Because, our dominant intellectual culture accepts as legitimate our crushing anybody we like.
Take Iran. Both political parties and practically the whole press accept it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that ‘all options are on the table’, presumably including nuclear weapons, to quote Hilary Clinton and everyone else. ‘All options are on the table’ means we threaten war. Well, there’s something called the U.N. Charter, which outlaws ‘the threat or use of force’ in international affairs. Does anybody care? Actually, I saw one op-ed somewhere by Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist close to the government, who pointed out that threats are serious violations of international law. But that’s so rare that when you find it it’s like finding a diamond in a pile of hay. It’s not part of the culture. We’re allowed to threaten anyone we want--and to attack anyone we want. And, when a person grows up and acts in a culture like that, they’re culpable in a sense, but the culpability is much broader.
I was just reading a couple days ago a review of a new book by Steven Miles, a medical doctor and bioethicist, who ran through 35,000 pages of documents he got from the Freedom of Information Act on the torture in Abu Ghraib. And the question that concerned him is, ‘What were the doctors doing during all of this?’ All through those torture sessions there were doctors, nurses, behavioral scientists and others who were organizing them. What were they doing when this torture was going on? Well, you go through the detailed record and it turns out that they were designing and improving it. Just like Nazi doctors.
Robert Jay Lifton did a big study on Nazi doctors. He points out in connection with the Nazi doctors that, in a way, it’s not those individual doctors who had the final guilt, it was a culture and a society which accepted torture and criminal activities as legitimate. The same is true with the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Just to focus on them as if they’re somehow terrible people is just a serious mistake. They’re coming out of a culture that regards this as legitimate. Maybe there are some excesses you don’t really do but torture in interrogation is considered legitimate.
There’s a big debate now on, ‘Who’s an enemy combatant?’; a big technical debate. Suppose we invade another country and we capture somebody who’s defending the country against our invasion: what do you mean to call them an ‘enemy combatant’? If some country invaded the United States and let’s say you were captured throwing a rock at one of the soldiers, would it be legitimate to send you to the equivalent of Guantanamo, and then have a debate about whether you’re a ‘lawful’ or ‘unlawful’ combatant? The whole discussion is kind of, like, off in outer space somewhere. But, in a culture which accepts that we own and rule the world, it’s reasonable.
But, also, we should go back to the roots of the intellectual or moral culture, not just to the individuals directly involved.

At my school, the University of Arizona, there are courses in bioethics -- required ones, in fact, to hard scientific undergraduates (I took one, out of interest)-- which mostly just discuss scenarios in terms of ‘slippery slopes’ and hypothetical questions within certain bounds. There are l none at all in the social sciences or humanities. Do you think there should be? Would that be beneficial?

If they were honest, yes. If they’re honest they’d be talking about what we’re talking about, and doing case studies. There’s no point pontificating about high minded principles. That’s easy. Nazi doctors could do that, too. Let’s take a look at the cases and ask how the principles apply - to Vietnam; to El Salvador; to Iraq; to Palestine -- just run through the cases and see how the principles apply to our own actions. That’s what is of prime importance, and what is least discussed.

As a note to end on, There seems to be some very serious aberrations and defects in our society and our level of culture. How, in your view, might they be corrected and a new level of culture be established, say, one in which torture isn’t accepted? (After all, slavery and child labor were each accepted for a long period of time and now are not.)

Your examples give the answer to the question, the only answer that has ever been known. Slavery and child labor didn’t become unacceptable by magic. It took hard, dedicated, courageous work by lots of people. The same is true of torture, which was once completely routine.If I remember correctly, the renowned Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie wrote somewhere that prisons began to proliferate in Norway in the early 19th century. They weren’t much needed before, when the punishment for robbery could be driving a stake through the hand of the accused. Now it’s perhaps the most civilized country on earth.There has been a gradual codification of constraints against torture, and they have had some effect, though only limited, even before the Bush regression to savagery. Alfred McCoy’s work reviews that ugly history. Still, there is improvement, and there can be more if enough people are willing to undertake the efforts that led to large-scale rejection of slavery and child labor--still far from complete.

More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky ( article 46 )
by Benjamin Merhav

As I have indicated earlier in this series, Noam Chomsky has been a zionist all his life, as well as a supporter of USA imperialism. This correlation between his more obvious zionist loyalty and his well hidden support for the USA ruling class has come to the fore in recents months with his downplay and ridicule of the Mearsheimer and Walt paper ,which exposed the zionist lobby's influence in Washington. Yet ,Noam Chomsky continues to masquerade as "champion of peace and justice", and as "anti-imperialist guru of the Left", thus misleading many people into trusting his books and articles which are no more than traps for the unwary.

The following article was emailed to me today by "Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences)" . Although it has no mention of Noam Chomsky it is a one more eye opener, to see what is happening in the "most free country in the world", and be aware of the dangerous role of the zionist lobby in Washington on behalf of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.

"30 Jun 2007 12:37:31 -0400
From: "Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences)"


Paul Findley: Subservience To Israel, from the sinking of the
Liberty to now
June 8, 2007

In the greatest service of his long public life, former President Jimmy
Carter warns of the grave consequences of America's phenomenal
subservience to Israel. In his latest book and recent lectures, he
focuses on how Israel's cruel occupation, made possible by massive and
unconditional U.S. support, has subjected the Palestinian people to
terrible suffering for forty long years. Beyond that grave human
tragedy, candid observers must cite U.S. complicity in Israeli
lawlessness as the major factor that prompted the horror of 9/11 and
lured America into launching three costly, wrong-headed, and failing
wars, - Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror.

The linkage is easily identified.

America's support of Israel's brutality was the main motivation for
9/11. It was the ultimate expression of Arab fury over America's
double standard that routinely ignores Israeli violations of Arab human
rights. Nine-eleven would not have happened if any U.S. president in
the last forty years had refused to finance Israel's humiliation and
destruction of Palestine. Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst now a
consultant to CBS News, recently told a congressional committee that
"our unqualified support of Israel" was the main reason for 9/11.
Marine General Anthony Zinni, President George W. Bush's first special
envoy to the Middle East, has stated that the United States invaded Iraq
for Israel and oil. Osama bin Laden repeatedly said it was payback for
U.S. support of Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians and other
Arabs and for U.S. complicity in 1982 when Israeli forces used
U.S.-donated munitions to massacre over 18,000 innocent Arabs in Lebanon.

The U.S. acts of war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror were President
Bush's retaliation for 9/11. Israel-and only Israel-urged the United
States to invade Iraq. Israel's lobby in Washington pushed hard and
prevailed. To our foreign critics, these wars focus on killing people
outraged by our pro-Israel bias. Our government has done nothing to
redress the grievances of Israel's victims.

Despite this grim record, U.S. subservience to the wishes of Israel''s
leaders does not change. Unconditional aid to Israel keeps flowing, as
does Israel's savage treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs.
Moreover, the Bush administration is fully and openly pledged to do
whatever is necessary---even acts of war--to halt Iran's nuclear
program even if its projects are lawfully limited to peaceful purposes.

Israel is the only nation urging the United States to attack Iran.
The lobby is pushing hard again. If the U.S. assaults Iran it will be on
Israel's behalf.

Congress, like the rest of America, is totally devoid of debate on the
amazing role of this small nation in critical U.S. policy. Members are
fulsome in public praise of the Jewish state, but no politician mentions
the illegal behavior of Israel or the staggering burden it imposes on
our country.

How did Israel gain this influence?

It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967, the U.S.
commander-in-chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the
crew of a U.S. navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the
ship was under deadly assault by Israel's air and sea forces. The
Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war
against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire
crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would
outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to
join Israel's battle against Arabs.

The scheme almost worked. It failed because, despite the
carefully-planned multi-pronged assault, the Liberty crew managed to
broadcast an SOS over a makeshift antenna. When the appeal reached U.S.
aircraft carriers nearby, the commanders immediately launched fighter
planes to defend the ship. Informed of the launch, President Johnson
ordered the rescue planes to turn back immediately.

For the first time in history, forces of the U.S. Navy were denied the
right to defend a Navy ship under attack. Johnson said, "I don't care
if the ship sinks, I am not going to embarrass an ally." Those were his
exact words, heard by Navy personnel listening to radio relays. The
ally Johnson refused to embarrass was Israel. To him, saving Israel
from embarrassment was more important than saving the lives of the
Liberty crew.

The day yielded infamy, - deceit, lies and cover-up at the highest level.
When the SOS reached the top military commanders in Israel, they
immediately canceled the assault, claiming it was a case of
mistaken identity. At the White House, Johnson accepted
Israel's claim, even though he knew it was a lie. Then Johnson
magnified the day's infamy by ordering a cover-up of the truth.
Liberty survivors were sworn to secrecy. Even those in hospital beds
and badly wounded were threatened with court martial if they told anyone
what actually happened. The cover-up has been continued by every
administration since Johnson's.

It proved to be a fateful turning point in Israel's power over U.S.
foreign policy. The Liberty experience convinced Israeli officials that
they could get by with literally anything---even the murder of U.S.
sailors--in their manipulation of the U.S. government. Financial aid to
Israel began to pour like a river, all of it with no stings attached.
According to The Christian Science Monitor, this outpouring has now cost
U.S. taxpayers over $1.4 trillion.

Costs go far beyond money.

Thousands of American families are blighted forever, with America's
once high moral standing in shambles. Because of its unqualified
support of Israel, Washington is hated worldwide as never before.
The principal source of Israel's influence is the fear it seems to
instill in every sector of our society. The most effective instrument
of intimidation employed by its lobby is the reckless accusation of
anti-Semitism, often leveled at anyone criticizing any aspect of Israeli
behavior. Several organizations, fundamentalist Christian as well as
Jewish, lobby for Israel, but the principal one is the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]. I can personally certify that for
many years it has cast a blanket of fear over Capitol Hill and blocked
any semblance of unfettered discussion.

I unintentionally contributed to that fear in 1985 when my book, They
Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, was
published. It reports in detail the efficiency of Israel's U.S. lobby,
its history and tactics. Most of the text arose from my personal
experience as AIPAC''s prime target during my last five years as a
Member of Congress. It also details the lobby's important role in
the defeat of Senators Charles Percy and Adlai Stevenson, and U.S. Rep.
Paul "Pete" McCloskey. In a rare burst of public candor about its
partisan activities, AIPAC claimed credit for defeating re-election bids
by myself in 1982 and Senator Percy in 1984.

My book became a bestseller. I hoped it would inspire public officials
and other citizens to revolt against the lobby's influence on U.S.
policy, but several of my former colleagues told me it had the opposite
effect. One said, "After what AIPAC did to you and Percy, I vote with
the lobby every time."

Israel's grip on America seems impervious. Two distinguished political
scientists, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen
Walt of Harvard, strode resolutely into the Middle East minefield a year
ago by co-authoring a paper on Israel's lobby. More recently,
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a book written by former President
Carter, revered worldwide for his effective work on international
conflict resolution, was published.

These brave statements should have produced a groundswell of public
protest demanding America's liberation from Israel. Although the
professors and Carter have pursued the lecture circuit, no tide of
outrage has developed. With few exceptions, America's major editors,
producers, commentators, academics and politicians have given these
courageous initiatives the silent treatment. Democratic leaders on
Capitol Hill simply said, "Carter doesn't not speak for the Democratic
Party."

Nationwide, the lobby's influence is pervasive, sustained and deep, a
phenomenon unprecedented in U.S. history. Because of that power, the
"other" Israel is almost never discussed openly and candidly any place
in America, even in private conversation. It is impossible to explain
the silence except as a reflection of profound fear.

The situation is highly dangerous. America has already paid a towering
price for our subservience to Israel, and great additional burdens seem
inevitable. If the United States is involved in acts of war against
Iran, anti-American protest will rise to new heights, especially
throughout the Islamic world. It will inevitably deepen the widely-held
belief among Muslims that America seeks to undermine Islam.

The outlook for reform is grim. Elected officials of both major
political parties in Washington seem hopelessly captured by Israel's
agents. So does every serious candidate for the presidency in 2008. A
senior U.S. Senator told me recently that Israel cannot expect to
experience true security until Palestinians are secure in an independent
state of their own, but he spoke off the record and has not made that
wise declaration in public.

All U.S. citizens must accept a measure of responsibility for Israel's
grip on America. Those of us who knew what was happening did not
protest with sufficient force and clarity. Those who did not know
should have taken their responsibility as citizens more seriously. They
should have informed themselves.

The scene is likely to improve only if U.S. elected officials are
criticized so forthrightly from home that they fear a constituent revolt
more than they fear Israel's lobby. This, of course, will not happen
until the countryside benefits from a rigorous and edifying public
debate about Israel's role in our national life."

(Emphasis added- B.M.)

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 45) by Benjamin Merhav


The following Jerusalem Post article was emailed to me by "Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences)" with his introduction. The Jerusalem Post is an Israeli zionist daily run by fanatical zionists, and I would never quote a zionist paper's poisonous propganda, unless it reveals/admits zionist crimes. This quoted article, however, goes even further to provide proof of the actual mechanism by which Israel's rulers/the zionist lobby in the USA dictate the present policies of USA imperialism, including those of the next USA President and his/her administration.

The name of Noam Chomsky is not mentioned in the quoted article, and yet it provides irrefutable evidence of his loyalty to both the zionist apartheid regime of Israel and to the USA ruling class.


Doesn't he insist that the USA is "the most free country in the world" ? Doesn't he ridicule the people who have warned of the dangerous influence by the zionist lobby ?
Doesn't he support the zionist apartheid regime of Israel to the point of rejecting the Palestinian demand for international sanctions (BDS) against that racist and fascist regime ? The answer is,of course ,yes he does to all the questions, as well as to many more similar questions which bedevil the minds of people who are misled by Chomsky's masquerade as an
anti-imperialist Left guru, and as a puported champion of peace and justice around the world.


Let it be clear without a shadow of a doubt that Noam Chomsky has been a loyal zionist all his life, and therefore - of necessity ! - also a loyal supporter of the USA ruling class.


It cannot be an accident nor coincidence that he chose the MIT, a Pentagon financed academic institution, as his work place for over half a century ! It cannot be a mere aberration that he never condemned or opposed zionism . He did not because he is a zionist, as he always has been. He accepts the fundamental tenet (and big lie!) of zionism, namely, that there is a "Jewish nation", and that its "homeland" is in Palestine. Which is why he supports the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and he opposes a democratic non-racist Palestine all over historic Palestine. Also, that same racist reasoning applies by him to the right to return of the Palestinian refugees which he opposes very vehemently !

In brief : Noam Chomsky is a zionist impostor, and he should be so considered by his devotees too !


"Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences)" :


Candidates Agree to Obey Summons from Jerusalem Post for Reports Every Two Weeks


Am I alone in thinking it peculiar that a newspaper in a foreign country should think it
both appropriate and possible to get all the leading candidates for the U.S. presidential
nominations of both parties to compete, on a biweekly basis and in writing, in displaying
the intensity of their allegiance to that foreign country and that all of these
candidates should deem it both appropriate and essential to their hopes of remaining a leading candidate that they should participate in this degrading exercise in competitive
obeisance?




Transmitted below is the first installment in the Great Group Grovel, as published in the
JERUSALEM POST.

WARNING: For those living in the United States, reading these pledges of allegiance to a
foreign country risks provoking hopeless depression and despair and/or an intense urge to
emigrate to saner shores. The first reaction, while eminently rational in the
circumstances, should be resisted. The second reaction should be seriously considered.
John Whitbeck (international lawyer)



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

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=4&blog_id=73&blog_post_id=11May242007

The Road to the White House: Israel-US ties
Jerusalem Post
May 24, 2007

In the run-up to the 2008 US presidential elections, The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
JPost.com has invited central presidential contenders to respond to questions on matters
of importance to Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world.

We will be sending out questions to the candidates every two weeks or so. We started out
with a relatively general inquiry about the importance they attach to the US's strategic
alliance with Israel and how, if elected, they would work to foster that alliance (see
below). The questions will get more specific as the campaign heats up.

The first question was sent to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama,
John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Sam Brownback.

The contenders are being invited to participate, and given as much space as they wish to
respond. We believe this platform offers a tremendous opportunity for the would-be
presidents to detail their positions on key issues for our millions of readers, potential
voters and supporters. And we are delighted that, from the outset, so many of the candidates
have found the time to participate, with carefully drafted, nuanced answers that offer
real insight into their thinking.

David Horowitz, Editor-In-Chief
Question #1
What's the importance of Israel as a strategic ally and how would your administration
manage ties between the two countries?
Contributors: (read it all or click on name to read post)
· Senator John McCain of Arizona (R)
· Senator Hillary Clinton of New York (D)
· Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (D)
· Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (R)
· Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D)
· Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (R)
The question was sent to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, John
Edwards, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Sam Brownback.
..................................................................
John McCain: Late last year, I had the opportunity to visit with the families of two
Israeli soldiers - Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser - who were captured last summer by
Hizbullah during a cross-border raid.
My visit with the loved ones of these brave and noble young men reminded me of the great
sacrifices the Israeli people have made to defend their sacred soil and win their
rightful status as a beacon of freedom and faith. To this day, Eldad and Ehud continue to be
held captive.
Indeed, Israel has never had the opportunity to take a holiday from history, for it has
been tested more, in less time, than any nation on Earth. The tests continue today in the
form of suicide bombers and rocket fire and in the existential threats issued routinely
by the Iranian president.
Long considered a dear friend to America, today Israel is our natural ally in what is a
titanic struggle against Islamic extremists - an enemy whose sinister nature I need not
explain to the people of Israel.
If elected President of the United States, I will strengthen America's bedrock commitment
to the security of the State of Israel.
First and foremost, we must continue to provide Israel with whatever military equipment
and technology required to retain Israel's qualitative military advantage and to defend
itself.

Just as important is the strengthening of our diplomatic ties. As President, I will
invite Israel to play a leading role in the League of Democracies that I have proposed - an
organization of like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace.
I would work to further isolate the enemies of Israel such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah
and I would never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to
its destruction.

Finally, Teheran's pursuit of nuclear weapons plainly poses an unacceptable risk to the
international community, and Israel above all others.
Recently, it was reported that the Iranian regime has begun enriching uranium at an
accelerated pace, which means we are that much closer to seeing Israel's security being placed
in grave jeopardy.
As President, I will pursue every option at my disposal to neutralize that threat. We
cannot and must not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. I will make sure the American
people understand that if we are to defeat the extremists that threaten our way of life,
Israel's security cannot be compromised.

Hillary Clinton: Israel is an important ally and strategic partner of the United States.
Our nations are united by shared values, a commitment to democracy, and a belief in the
dignity of men and women. We are also united by a common strategic interest in fighting
back against the forces of terrorism and nihilism.
Israel and the United States have worked together for years on national security
objectives, including developing innovative defense technologies. Today, as the United States
deals with issues of homeland security, we are also learning from Israel's experience in
preventing attacks and preparing emergency responses.

I believe the relationship between our countries should be that between allies, based on
mutual respect, appreciating our shared values and a shared commitment to national
security policies that reduce the danger of terrorist attacks on free and democratic nations
anywhere in the world.

Recognizing the very real challenges we face, I believe we must think rationally and
strategically - and jointly - about how our values and our beliefs can be translated into
effective action.
It is not enough for us to say the right things; we've got to be smart and tough enough
to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever.
It is with these principles in mind that my Administration would work to sustain, nourish,
and enhance the vital partnership between America and Israel.
...........................................................

Barack Obama: Israel is our most reliable ally and the only established democracy in the
Middle East. Israel's security and close US-Israel cooperation is the linchpin of so much
of what we want to achieve in the Middle East.
The United States and Israel share important interests - promoting a peaceful Middle
East, combating terrorism, and encouraging reform in the Arab and Muslim world. We share
adversaries - Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah. And we share deep economic, cultural,
academic, and scientific ties that benefit both our nations.
The special relationship between the United States and Israel requires an open and honest
dialogue, and strong personal ties, between our nations' leaders. As President, I would
maintain regular communication with the Israeli Prime Minister, and instruct members of my
administration to do the same at all levels.

I would continue and deepen the strategic dialogue between our nations' defense
establishments, insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel to ensure it can defend
itself, and expand cooperation on the development of the Arrow and other missile defense
systems.

Israel's security - which is of vital importance to the United States - can best be
guaranteed by reaching negotiated peace agreements with its neighbors. But Israel must have
credible partners with whom to negotiate.
As President, I would actively involve myself in the effort to strengthen moderate
Palestinians and others who can be such partners, and to make such negotiations successful,
while working to isolate and weaken those who seek Israel's destruction. But I would never
try to dictate to Israel what its security requires. The United States should never try to
drag Israel to, or block Israel from, the negotiating table.

Finally, I would pursue a comprehensive strategy - of direct engagement, increased
economic pressure through international and US sanctions, and keeping the military option on
the table - to keep Iran from achieving its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, which is a
danger we cannot tolerate.

Just last week, I introduced legislation to make it easier for states to divest their
pension funds from companies that support Iran's oil and gas industry. Israel does not have
the luxury of ignoring the Iranian president's genocidal threats, and neither should the
United States.
..........................................................

Mitt Romney: In January, I had the good fortune of traveling to Israel, a beautiful,
historic and diverse country with a people I respect and admire. America's friendship with
Israel is based on our common interests and common values.
Israel's democracy has flourished and its economy has prospered in spite of multiple wars
it has had to fight and the diplomatic and economic isolation by most of its neighbors.
Israel is a trusted friend and ally in an increasingly hostile region.
Israel stands on the front lines of the struggle against radical Islam's jihad, whose
goals are not confined to the Middle East. Indeed, Jihadism's goal of destroying Israel is
coupled with its desire to overthrow modern Muslim nations and replace them with a
caliphate, and to assault our security and our way of life on a global scale.
Among the many existential threats that Israel faces today, Iran poses the most serious.
Iran's leaders are determined to destroy Israel, dominate the region, and spread the
poison of fear and intolerance far beyond their borders.

I believe the United States, Europe and others can and should do more to exploit the
vulnerabilities of Iran's regime. To this end, I have outlined a strategy consisting of
economic sanctions, greater cooperation with modern Muslim states, a stronger military, and
support for progressive Muslim communities and leaders.

As President, I would put this strategy to work in defense of US interests, in defense of
Israel and for the sake of peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond.
My administration would also remain focused on stopping the financial and weapons flows
to Hamas and Hizbullah, insist that the Palestinians abandon terror and recognize Israel's
right to exist, and actively work towards a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict where Israelis and Palestinians can each live in security and dignity.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, these threats remind us once
again that we must never take Israel's security for granted and that the price of freedom is
perpetual vigilance.

As President, I will continue America's efforts to realize fully the vision articulated
in the aftermath of Israel's victory in 1967 by that great solider and statesman, Yitzhak
Rabin, for the right of the people of Israel to live in its own State free, independent,
in peace and tranquility.
.............................................................

Bill Richardson: I am firmly committed to one of the United States' closest and most
important allies - the State of Israel. Throughout my career, I've steadfastly supported
Israel, obtaining a consistently pro-Israel voting record in Congress and defending Israeli
interests as Ambassador to the United Nations.

As Governor of New Mexico, I'm proud that my state has invested heavily in Israel's
economy. We re-opened New Mexico's trade office with Israel and in 2005 generated $27.7
million in Israeli-New Mexican trade. We also invested $10 million in the form of Israel bonds.
This is the first bond purchase of its type in New Mexico's history.

While George Bush has sought to support Israel, his actions have made Israel less secure
in my view. Syria is stronger than ever. Iran's influence in the region has increased and
is now in a stronger position to procure nuclear weapons.
As President, I will:
· Re-engage the Middle East peace process; reinstate a Permanent Special Envoy to the
Middle East
· Ensure that the United States uses its all of its power within the United Nations to
protect Israel's sovereignty and national security
· Provide Israel with the assistance and support to ensure its safety and security
· Ensure that Iran doesn't obtain or develop nuclear weapons
· Strengthen Palestinian moderates and promote a two-state solution
· Spearhead a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa. For a
small fraction of the cost of the Iraq war, which has made us so many enemies, we could
coordinate a multinational effort to support and stabilize this volatile region and reduce
anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments throughout the entire area
· Pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other friends to reform their education
systems. It is unacceptable for any country to teach hatred of Israel

For the past fifty years, the United States and Israel have been linked by common values
and interests. I believe that our two nations also share a common future. Neither can
prosper without the safety and security of the other.

The challenges that confront us are formidable, but under my administration, the United
States will stand alongside Israel to protect the citizens of our two nations and work
towards a lasting peace in the Middle East. In the process, the special bond between our two
countries will only grow stronger.
......................................................................

Sam Brownback: I am tempted here to discuss all the reasons why I support Israel, to
thank the people of Israel for bringing the message of G-d into this world, and to explain my
commitment to a united Jerusalem that has always been, and should always remain, the
capital of the Jewish people. But I will limit my answer only to the importance of Israel as
a strategic ally of the United States.

The simple answer is to point out the strategic benefits of allying with the only
democracy in the Middle East. These benefits come in the form of economic opportunities,
military cooperation, and political stability - all of which are derived from a shared system of
values. But this is only part of the answer.
I submit that the United States and Israel share not only democratic values, but also a
common moral vision.

We are engaged in a great struggle against militant Islamo-fascism. Our enemies have many
targets - Western democracies, free societies, moderate Muslims - but if you listen to
our enemies' words and follow their actions, they single out America and Israel.
Why? Our two nations represent the greatest threat to the Islamo-fascists because, at our
core, we strive for goodness. We seek wisdom, compassion, and humility. We aspire for
moral excellence.

While campaigning I have said that if America ever loses its goodness, it will surely
lose its greatness. Herein we see the importance of Israel: that it remains good in the face
of darkness and hostility. America learns from Israel's example. We learn when the people
of Israel take great risks for peace, when Israeli response teams are first on the ground
in disaster sites around the world, and when Israel removes from danger thousands of
Ethiopian Jews and welcomes them into the country with open arms.

In my administration, I would center diplomatic ties with Israel on the fact that
Israel's existence is not only fully justified, but in fact it has enhanced the Middle East and
the world. My administration would continue to support a peace process, but only from
this perspective. Too often it seems that Israel is viewed by others as a burden - an
obstacle to stability that must be overcome.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To be sure, Israel has problems and
difficulties, and my support for any particular Israeli policy or government would not be
unconditional. However, my administration would always reaffirm that at its heart Israel is good, because of that, Israel can help America and the world be great."

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 44)
by Benjamin Merhav

As mentioned earlier in this series (see article 40, the first post on this blog), Noam Chomsky has been supporting the official cover-up for the assassination of J.F. Kennedy. It has got to do,possibly, with the zionist loyalty of Noam Chomsky, because the most likely conspirators-murderers of Kennedy were the chiefs of the zionist Gestapo.

As the rulers of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel were just beginning their secret nuclear bombs production at the Dimona pile in the early 60's, President Kennedy had then voiced his opposition to this new zionist adventure-crime. The other co-conspirators,namely, the CIA and the USA mafia hated the Kennedy brothers too, but did not have the vengeful urgency that the zionist Gestapo chiefs had.

Nothing and no one represented that crime more than Jack Ruby who murdered Lee Oswald so as to prevent the truth from emerging. Jack Ruby was a mafia man with connections to both the CIA and to the zionist Gestapo. He himself died shortly after, presumably, because he "knew too much" and was therefore too big a risk for the zionist Gestapo.

In article 40 I quote two articles which condemn Chomsky's support for the cover-up :

http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/rechom1.htm
Rethinking Chomsky ,by M.D. Morrissey.

The other one is :
http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm
JFK CONSPIRACY: THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND COWARDICE OF ALEXANDER COCKBURN AND NOAM CHOMSKY
by Michael Worsham.

Today, a third article was emailed to me by
"Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences)" . Although Noam Chomsky is not mentioned in it, the gist of it is similar to that of the above two articles. Here it is :

www.news.independent.co.uk
Doubt cast on JFK 'lone assassin' theory
by Andrew Buncombe in Washington
18 May 2007,


More than 40 years after he was fatally shot in
Dallas, researchers have added fresh fuel to the
speculation over who was involved in the assassination
of President John F Kennedy by claiming the original
bullet analysis was flawed and cannot rule out that a
second gunman was involved.

Using new scientific techniques not available to
previous researchers and analysing bullets from the
same batch purportedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald, the
team has argued that it cannot be assumed that Oswald
was the only assassin involved. While they do not
claim evidence to prove a second gunman participated,
they say the original fragments of the bullets
recovered from the scene of the shooting should be
re-examined.

"Given the significance and impact of the JFK
assassination, it is scientifically desirable for the
evidentiary fragments to be reanalysed," the
researchers write in the journal Annals of Applied
Statistics.

Kennedy, the 35th US president, was fatally shot as
his motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on
22 November 1963. The official Warren commission that
investigated the killing concluded the following year
that the president had been killed by two of three
shots fired by Oswald - his first shot having missed -
from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book
Depository.

The second shot - the so-called magic bullet - struck
Kennedy in the back and exited through his neck before
striking the Texas Governor John Connally, who was
travelling in the same limousine. The third shot hit
Kennedy in the head and killed him.

Despite the official conclusion that Oswald acted
alone, there has been endless speculation other gunmen
participated in the killing and that the authorities
sought to cover up their participation. Grainy
photographs and footage from a home movie, the
Zapruder film, are examined for other possible
assassins standing on the grassy knoll or else behind
the white picket fence - locations surrounding Dealey
Plaza that have entered conspiratorial lore.

The team arguing that five fragments of bullet
recovered from Dealey Plaza be re-examined include
William Tobin, the FBI's former chief metallurgy
analyst, who examined evidence from cases such as the
1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 bombing of TWA
Flight 800.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that after he
retired, Mr Tobin drew national attention by
questioning the FBI's methods of matching bullets to
suspects based on their lead content. As a result of
his questions, the bureau switched its methods.
The original analysis, based on lead content,
concluded the five fragments came from just two
bullets, traced to the same batch that Oswald bought.
Mr Tobin and his colleagues purchased bullets from the
same batch owned by Oswald - available on the internet
as collectors' items - and used new techniques to
analyse them. They found the science and statistical
assumptions used by the original examination to
conclude the fragments were from just two bullets was
wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the
assassination that match could have come from three or
more separate bullets," the researchers write. "If the
assassination fragments are derived from three or more
separate bullets than a second assassin is likely."

Conspiracists have received support from many areas,
not least Oswald's background as a visitor to the
Soviet Union and his interest in Cuba. The fact that
he himself was shot just days after the assassination
by a man with low-level links to the Mafia - and who
himself died soon afterwards from cancer - have only
added to speculation.

A 1979 report by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations concluded it was likely Oswald acted as
part of a conspiracy and that a second gunman is
likely to have fired at Kennedy but missed.
But for each point raised by the conspiracists, others
have been able to offer a rebuttal. Just last month,
former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi published an
exhaustive 2,792-page book, Reclaiming History, that
also concludes Oswald acted alone and seeks to knock
down most, if not all, the surviving conspiracies.

Despite this, polls show that a majority of Americans
still believe there was more to Kennedy's
assassination and the official version is not
complete. Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed,
another convincing study that concludes Oswald acted
alone, hits upon one reason why people cannot accept
that Oswald, armed with a $12 rifle, could be
responsible for such an epic event.

In the book he quotes the historian William
Manchester: "Those who desperately want to believe
that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy
have my sympathy. If you put the murdered President of
the United States on one side of the scale and that
wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it does not
balance. You want to add something weightier to
Oswald."

The conspiracy theories :

* Kennedy was killed by Cuban agents in retaliation
for the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961.
* Four gunmen killed Kennedy but Oswald was not among
them and knew nothing of the plot - a theory expounded
by Ron Rice, a member of staff at Dallas's Conspiracy
Museum.
* Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, who then became
President, arranged the assassination - a theory
outlined in a book by Barr McClellan, father of
President Bush's former spokesman Scott McClellan.
* A second gunman was involved in the killing, a
theory given even more oxygen by Oliver Stone's 1991
movie JFK which shows a puff of gunsmoke on the
plaza's grassy knoll. Norman Mailer has also posited
this theory.
* Kennedy's killing was organised by the Mafia because
of the increasing pressure put on them by his brother,
the attorney general, Robert Kennedy.
* Israel organised the killing to retaliate against
Kennedy's opposition to its nuclear weapons ambitions.

(Emphasis added - B.M.)