FREEDOM OF THOUGHT : PART TWO: ISRAEL LOBBY

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
In my article "Africans ands Crime" (O.T. 28th April, 2006) I raised the point as a legal hypothetical about whether it would be possible in principle to draft a statement expressing an "extremist" view (say Holocaust denial) which could successfully meet section 18 D defence of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is worthwhile to pursue this line of argument while considering the controversy generated by the publication in the London Review of Books 23/3/06 by two American academics. The authors are John Mearsheimer, professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of International Affairs at the Kenny School of Government at Harvard University. Their controversial paper is entitled "The Israel Lobby".
The thesis of these academics is that there is an "Israel lobby" that consists of a network of Jewish elites in journalism, the media, finance and the machinery of US government that is essentially controlling US Middle East policy. The lobby has convinced Americans that US interests and the interests of Israel are identical. Thus the US gives more military aid and direct economic assistance to Israel than any other nation. Since World War II Israel has received $US 140 billion (in 2004 dollar terms) in direct economic and military assistance. But, the authors argue, Israel is not of particular strategic importance to the United States. The authors say that "Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states."
The authors then state:
"The US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is closely associated with Israel, not the other way around." Rogue States in the Middle East "are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel." And: "The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these States. Israel's nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire." Worse, Israel "does not behave like a loyal ally… Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department Inspector-General called 'a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers'.
According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also 'conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally.'" Mearsheimer and Walt reject the idea that the Holocaust gives Israel a blank cheque to do what it likes in the Middle East and towards Palestinians. They quote a revealing passage by Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion told to Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress: "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country… We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see only one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
The authors say that the creation of Israel "involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority." Then a long litany of statistics are quoted; for example during the first intifada the Israeli Defence Forces encouraged troops to break the bones of Palestinian protesters with truncheons, and up to 29,900 children required medical treatment from such beatings.
The authors then go on to detail how the Israel lobby operates, being based upon Jewish power in the US. This material is of lesser importance for my essay. Nor do I wish to assess whether what the authors have said, which I have quoted is correct. I am not an expert on the Middle East history and cannot make an informative comment. As a civil libertarian my chief interest is freedom of speech. What I want to explore is whether two Australian academics could have said the same things which Mearsheimer and Walt have said and survive our "system". Keep in mind my remarks made in my article "Africans and Crime".
US comments on this paper by leading Jewish intellectuals have been that the paper is anti-Semitic and non-scholarly. Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, a leading defender of Israel has said that the paper is "trash" and could have been written by "some of the less intelligent members of Hamas." (The Weekend Australian 1-2/4/06 p.13) Professor Marvin Kalb of the Kennedy School said that the paper failed to meet basic academic standards, and contained among other things, factual errors. (The Australian 31/3/06, p.9) Democrat Congressman Jerrad Nadler said that the authors' thesis was "preposterous" and that the authors were saying that there were "Jewish conspirators under every bed and controlling every major American institution."
Jewish writer Eliot Cohen said in The Washington Post that the two authors were "anti-Semitic". (The Australian 6/4/06, p.1) According to this writer accusing Jews of "disloyalty, subversion or treachery… of participating in secret combinations that manipulated institutions and governments… is anti-Semitic."
Presumably even if true, this would be anti-Semitic. As well it is anti-Semitic to "systematically [select] everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically [suppress] any exculpatory information." This is a strange critical standard. It admits that there could in principle be unfair, ugly and wrong things done by this group, but vilifies critics who may state these "truths" without also balancing the view by giving exculpatory information. That seems to beg the question at issue in this debate. Mearsheimer and Walt appear to be saying there is no such exculpatory evidence. Why in any case can't an author attempt to balance a one-sided debate by giving a purely negative critique without attempting to dilute the point of the criticism by throwing in a few good deeds? Michael Ledeen in the National Review Online said that the academics should be "punished". He said, " "The Israel Lobby" should dissuade rational Harvard and Chicago donors from giving any further money to the Kennedy School or the Chicago political science department." (The Australian 6/4/06 p.1)
Is it True?
Let me see if I have got that right: punish two whole departments because of the sins of two academics? In any case, according to Ledeen it is in the "grand tradition of anti-Semitism" to say that the Israel lobby has manipulated American foreign policy. Okay, but does that mean that it is not true? Whom should I believe? Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic (The Australian 3/4/06, p.11) raises a number of questions about the factual accuracy of Mearsheimer and Walt's paper and concludes that the paper is "nonsense scholarship". He says: "Their paper is not research in any serious sense, although its academic paraphernalia are intended to lend it an undeserved seriousness." What then is "serious" research?
The Financial Times, surprisingly enough has come to the defence of these academics. "Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views." (The Australian 3/4/06, p.9) Columbia University's Mark Mazower, also writing in the Financial Times, observed that criticism of Israel is taboo in the US. To illustrate this absurdity he pointed out (The Australian 6/4/06, p.11) that the US Jewish watchdog, the Anti-Defamation League "last year levelled a similar charge at a faculty in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem." He went on to conclude: "There is something peculiarly Kafkaesque about the idea of an American Jewish watchdog monitoring Israel for anti-Semitism, yet once the mechanism and mindset exist, this is where the logic of vigilance leads: anti-Semitism may be found anywhere…"
Slaves to the System?
It seems inevitable then that if the two academics were Australians and published this paper in Australia they would be convicted under Australia's race hate laws. Like Professor Andrew Fraser their remarks would be found not to be balanced and proportionate. Their academic defence would fail because there would be any number of hostile academic expert critics happy to bury them. J.S. Mill argued in "On Liberty" that freedom of expression is our most fundamental liberty. Without it, we are no more than slaves, however much bread and circuses the system permits us to have.
These debates clearly show that we are slaves. So what are we going to do about it? As I have suggested it is about time that we pursued a "race-hate" case through to the High Court of Australia. Professor Andrew Fraser's case, as I have said in my previous paper, is an excellent test-case. Professor Fraser, a legally trained person, has refused to apologise and no doubt will next face the federal Court of Australia. The outcome is predictable. If this outcome occurs let us all encourage him to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

A 'SMART CARD' JOHN? BUT NOT AN ID CARD?

by Betty Luks:
When is a National ID Card not a National ID Card? That's when, my Orwellian students, your 'leader' says it's a "biometric access card".
Let there be no mistake, John Howard in obedience to his underling-bosses from the evil Mordorrean realm of the IMF and WB is testing the waters and has proposed a 'smart card' for those who will want access to Medicare, welfare and tax benefits by 2010.
The card would include a computer chip with biometric information and photograph, and is 'designed to reduce welfare and identity fraud, and protect against terrorists'.
(Oh! Our beloved leaders always have our welfare as their primary concern! Don't they. Why those naughty terrorists might attempt to gain access to the health and welfare systems and expect free treatment themselves! Why, they may even want a 'face' job.)

Who remembers the attempt by the Hawke Labor Government to introduce a national ID card in Australia in the mid-80s? At the time, such a system was fiercely opposed by the Liberal Party, including the now Prime Minister, John Howard, on the grounds of infringement of liberty.
Now Howard serves another master - and it is not the Australian people.
He is firmly entrenched within the globalist power structure and has completely changed his stance on ID cards and the accompanying biometric database recording control system.
He pontificates:
"You have to put that against the right all of us have to expect of our Government that it takes all reasonable measures to protect us against the behaviour of terrorists."
The proposed Australian ID card agenda is the identical twin of the British ID card agenda. The overall movement is global and it is one being implemented right under people's noses, piece by piece in a stealth, stepping stone like fashion. In addition to changing the rhetoric surrounding the card, the compulsory nature of it is also being coated in Orwellian doublespeak.
"It will not be compulsory to have the card," Howard is quoted as saying. But, "It will be necessary for everybody who needs a card to apply for one."
(Read anyone wanting access to the health system through Medicare, and/or jobless and on the dole, and/or pensioners receiving a pension - you are the first 'cab off the rank' in this imposition of a national identification system. If you don't submit to this Orwellian system - you don't eat and you don't get access to the health system!
Any number of upgrades could see the card used in all aspects of life in the two countries. The ID systems in Britain and Australia equate to lifelong surveillance and an end to life as a private citizen.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR REAL AUSSIES TO MOUNT A FIGHTBACK?
It is way past time Australians of all political persuasions put aside their differences and through their coming together and wisely targeting their massive political vote ensured John Howard is soundly trounced in the 2007 federal election.

Steve Watson of Infowars wrote, 27/4/06:
Plans are being considered by the Scottish Executive to issue ID cards storing details of every aspect of Citizens' lives. Hundreds of thousands of Scots have already been issued with the Citizens' National Entitlement Card - a microchipped card that carries the holder's name and photo. The cards are used to access free bus or coach travel, but there are plans to link them to a central database. This would give the Executive access to such details as people's travel movements, gym visits and reading habits. There are fears that the system could be expanded to include other information such as NHS records and benefits payments.
Scotland, a nation that fought for centuries for freedom and independence. Scotland, birthplace of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, two huge and heroic icons of Freedom, may now have every one of its citizens registered, monitored and controlled like prisoners - unless the Scots also unite and take a stand.

FAITH RESTORED

THE OLDNESS OF THE HUMAN RACE

THE FALL OF A RING BEARER

Writing in the 1990s (Behind the News) on the downfall and fate of one rich and powerful man named Robert Maxwell, that very wise political commentator, the late Ivor Benson, observed:
"A complete social and political history of the 20th century could be unfolded out of the personal drama of Robert Maxwell, alias Jan Ludvig Hoch. Everything was there: the ubiquitous Jew, eternally wheeling and dealing, the Soviet Union and its KGB, Israel and its Mossad, the Western judicial system showing signs of cracking under the strain, Socialism as a weapon of political deception and, most important of all, corruption in business and politics."
But, he insisted, all this was only part of the explanation; another part will be found inside the minds of those who so eagerly fell into step with Maxwell: their moral vulnerability. "The rich and powerful today are worshipped as dispensers of the good things of life," said Ivor Benson, "and attract people as a honey pot attracts bees. In other words, an appetite for material advantage tends to prevail over all those considerations. Powers of judgement are disabled and the sense of duty to the community submerged."

*The preference for money (i.e., the benefits and worldly power it brings) in terms of personal advancement, above all other considerations, is the root of all kinds of evil." New Testament.

AND OTHERS WERE TAKEN ON TO MOUNT DOOM

Reporter Stephen Pizzo, News for Real, 5/4/06 listed four American politicians he has watched rise to power, become corrupted and then watched them fall from grace.
He writes:
"It's a pattern now so familiar that even during the darkest days of the last decade, I never doubted that Tom DeLay, too, would eventually self-destruct just like the political supernovas that went before him. During the years I spent interviewing politicians, I left every single one of those interviews pondering a single question: Why on earth would any normal person lust for such an office? The answer to that question also explains why things are such a mess all the time. Herein lays the fatal flaw in modern democracy -- as a rule, "normal" people don't run for public office. Normal people understand the corrosive nature of achieving public figuredom. Normal people understand the dangers of flying close to the *klieg lights of fame. (*Klieg light: carbon arc lamp that emits an intense light used in producing films.)

Power corrupts… and absolute power?
It's so dangerous because it plays on the most superficial of human emotions. First comes fame and public adulation. Then the unquestioning allegiance of sycophantic hangers-on. Finally there's "specialness" … you are treated differently than everyone else. Better. Much better. At first, it's exhilarating. Then it's intoxicating. At first you appreciate it. Later you come to expect it. Because you are no longer like everyone else. You are special. Soon, the need to retain this special status dictates what you say, what you do, even what you claim to believe. (After all, if you were special, would you voluntarily go back to being ordinary?)
There's a term in Washington that such folks aspire to: player. If a political colleague tells you, "You're a player," that's high praise in D.C. I remember when I first heard that term. It was after a book I co-authored on the S&L (Savings and Loans…ed) scandal came out in 1989, and everyone on the Hill was reportedly reading it. A D.C. political consultant told me I was a player. It means you have pull. It means you can shape and influence events, make things happen. But players in national politics come in various sizes.
There are small players -- mostly first-term members of Congress. There are major players -- people like Ted Kennedy and Speaker Dennis Hastert -- who have been around a while and have accumulated chits. Then there are megaplayers.
These folks have figured out how to accumulate so much power that they scare the hell out of everyone else. They are to politics what mob bosses are to organized crime. They can make or they can break. Small players quake in their presence. Major players are jealous of megaplayers and plot and scowl at them -- but only behind their backs.

Tom DeLay was a megaplayer… Before DeLay, Democrats Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright and Republican Newt Gingrich were megaplayers. Each of them choked upon the ring of power. Each of them slipped it on for what they believed to be all the right reasons. None of them could take it off once they felt the rush. And it destroyed them.
I can always tell when a megaplayer has been corrupted by his power. They develop a relaxed swagger and a permanent, condescending smirk. When I see that smirk, I recall Euripides' warning: "Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first deprives of their senses."
Madness, in national politics, manifests itself as abuse of power, arrogance, a sense of entitlement, contempt for the rule of law and corruption. So, Tom DeLay is history. But even as I type these words, I can hear in my mind the rumble of feet as GOP (Grand Old Party, i.e., Republican…ed) Big Players frantically search for DeLay's dropped ring -- lusting after the very power that has corrupted and destroyed most of its most recent bearers."
Stephen Pizzo is the author of "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer prize. https://www.alternet.org/story/34472/

WHY DID TOM DELAY RESIGN?
According to The Washington Post DeLay's decision to resign may have more to do with the news that three days earlier his former deputy chief of staff, Tony C. Rudy, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges, telling federal prosecutors of a criminal enterprise being run out of DeLay's leadership offices.
Rudy's demise is only the latest of DeLay's top aides and associates facing legal issues -- many of whom are also powerful players in the GOP infrastructure. From a recent Ari Berman article in The Nation following DeLay's indictment for money laundering: "Three individuals, eight corporations and two political action committees (PACs) connected to DeLay have been indicted as a result of the probe.
In addition, the government's top procurement official, David Safavian, was arrested in September for obstructing a criminal investigation into uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a close DeLay ally. Abramoff himself is under criminal investigation for defrauding Indian tribes and was indicted for wire fraud in Florida in a separate case.
According to a Time interview…One of DeLay's proudest accomplishments, the K-Street Project, is essentially a campaign to, as John Nichols put it "formalize links between campaign giving, lobbying and legislating."

A more detailed explanation of his tactics:
In 1995, DeLay famously compiled a list of the 400 largest PACs, along with the amounts and percentages of money they had recently given to each party. Lobbyists were invited into DeLay's office and shown their place in "friendly" or "unfriendly" columns. ("If you want to play in our revolution," DeLay told the Washington Post, "you have to live by our rules.") Another was to oust Democrats from trade associations, what DeLay and Norquist dubbed "the K Street Strategy."
It's DeLay's House. DeLay's Republican D.C. machine.
They built and fortified it with the money he brought in. The great majority of them voted for the "DeLay Rule," custom-tailored for Majority Leader DeLay to avoid stepping down even after indictment. The current Republican membership of the House ethics committee was hand-picked to provide protection for DeLay, and the old membership was purged. He's their guy. Their rule rests on his machine. They can run, but they can't hide.
His political action committee had donated money to 241 out of 246 Republicans in the House, he installed a patsy as Speaker of the House, "but," writes The Nation's John Nichols, "DeLay's crudest dismantling of democracy will be little mentioned today, just as it was barely noted at the time that he brought the hammer down." DeLay's hooks, it turns out, weren't only in the pay-to-play system of legislating, they were an integral part of Bush's 2000 election "victory."
After responding to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to allow a recount that, "I hope this misguided ruling will be vigorously challenged," DeLay did just that. He sent operatives to Florida to create a phoney riot that cowed the canvassing board into stopping that recount, effectively sealing the victory for Bush.
Who better to explain the workings of this chapter of contemporary conservative D.C. politics than the New York Times' David Brooks: 'The real problem wasn't DeLay, it was DeLayism, the whole culture that merged K Street with the Hill and held that raising money is the most important way to contribute to the team.'
DeLay's resignation and cowardly flight is a major victory for all Americans, but DeLayism is alive and well."

Isn't it time Australians took a closer look at the lists of those who finance the mainline party machines in this country?
YES indeed!!! Men are tired to disgust with money politics.

WE TOLD YOU SO

by James Reed
Here is another one from the "we told you so department". A small article in The Australian (30/3/06, p.5) has the headline: "Unis seen as Entry Factories".
A study published in the Australian journal People and Place by Michael Baas says that Indian students often called Australian universities "PR factories" - permanent residency factories. Universities offered cheap courses geared to meeting migration requirements. The study found that Australian universities supported the PR model.
I have said before that universities have become - under the guiding hand of our traitorous governments - intellectual whores. Our heritage and a future for our children, has been abandoned in favour of making a few bucks. Bring on the day of judgement!