It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Harvard Study Finds Pro-Israel Lobby Influences U.S. Foreign Policy

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:37 PM

Can you clearify things please and respond to this:

Originally posted by Deep_Blue

What are you talking about? when did I cast blame? And When did I play the hypocrite?
I talked about political conspiracies.
I provided some political facts.
Where is the blame thing you are talking about?
And where is the Hypocrisy ?!!!!!!

You can't call me hypocrite and walk away .. I need clarification.

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Okay so I will take that your remarks for blaming me for being off topic, a zionist and trying to derail things was all empty banter and you didn't mean it.

Oh oh .. you are too sensitive because I told you that you are off topic

I said you have Pro-Israeli side not Zionist.

You did worse you called me hypocrite.

Either we sort things in order and fix the conflict between us. Or one of us should ignore the other .
From my Side :
I am sorry That I said "you Have Pro-Israeli side" I apologize for that. (But I still think you were Off-Topic)

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Deep_Blue]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Deep_Blue]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Deep_Blue]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
You can't call me hypocrite and walk away .. I need clarification.

Hypocritical in your rise to blame me for being off topic, then adding nothing in regards to Israeli lobby articles in your "self appointed moderator" posts. It was just more bash and trash talk complaining about the lack of Israeli lobby talk, and you doing nothing in setting an example to show different. Go look back on how many empty posts you spent trying to chastize me, and that's called being a hypocrite. There's 6 posts of nothing but complaints and probably another to follow that is nothing but complaints, which would make 7.

hypocrisy noun
pretending to be what you are not, or pretending to believe something that you do not

For someone who wants to talk about the Israeli lobby, you sure are making a habit of not talking about it while assuming the role of an off topic complainer. So who's going to listen to you and think you have any merit? Maybe you should start considering what it means to lead by example?

You are the one that has failed to see the parallels and similarities between the Israeli and Arab lobbies and that is your problem, not mine. I see connections in everything and I do not go off some egostistical tangent telling another member they are off topic cause I have my head in the sand.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you rather continue to complain while making a conscious choice to not comment on all the information I posted in between your condemnatory responses? Information that I posted that backs up my view that Arab agendas in relation to the Isreali lobby is not off topic, it called defining the topic by making comparisons i.e. how do you know what good is unless you have experienced bad.

So let's not play games, the real reason you went into your dictatorial rantings is cause you had nothing to stand on cept hate and you gave us all a classical example of the blame game to evade discussing the issues..

I said you have Pro-Israeli side not Zionist.

Pro-Israeli is synonymous with Zionist, let's not play semantical glibness too. In any event, I hold more apathy towards the Arab and fossil fuel lobby ever since I butted heads with them when trying to push ethanol use in the 80's. So more than likely I will side for the Israeli and I am ashamed what my Bavarian Christian relatives did to the jewish people. Karma still operates in this world and I hold myself partially responsible to correct past mistakes.

You have a reason to think Saudi Arabia monarchy is a better friend and ally than a democratic Israel? Did you forget how many hijackers were from Saudi Arabia when they crashed into the WTC and how they promote whabbism throught the world? I see no reason to side with the Arabs and I see no reason to listen to Israel if they want to instigate a war with Islam. The US chose to go to war against Iraq and it is we that are responsible for our own actions. Scapegoating won't solve our inner crisis, nor will you blaming me for your hypocrisy.

But I still think you were Off-Topic

Best get used to my macro and global view of things, I don't plan on changing it and jumping into a box just cause you desire it. Microcosmic and myopic thinking is fine for small scale management and day to day tasks, but I see everything is connected in some form or another (a hurricane springs from a butterfly's wings). You don't like it my wide open view, then that is your choice. I make a living by it, so don't knock it till to you try it.

Justin Raimondo, a Libertarian at large and non-zionist, writes up a good article.

The Lobby Strikes Back
Harvard study of Israeli lobby's influence costs the dean of the Kennedy School his job

"After finishing their magnum opus, I was left with just one question: Why would the omnipotent Israel lobby (which, they claim, works so successfully 'to stifle criticism of Israel') allow such a scurrilous piece of pseudo-scholarship to be published? Then I noticed that Walt occupies a professorship endowed by Robert and Renee Belfer, Jewish philanthropists who are also supporters of Israel. The only explanation, I surmise, is that Walt must himself be an agent of those crafty Israelites, employed to make the anti-Israel case so unconvincingly that he discredits it. 'The Lobby' works in mysterious ways."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Oh what a tangled pile of crap we weave, when it's all designed to deceive? Raimondo's article adds more probability that this topic was designed to drop the bomb on the Likud party and win the election for Kadima.


Let's not forget Israeli elections are on March 28th and the most effective psyops and propaganda is always released in a timely manner in order to the sway the fence sitters and solidfy party lines. AIPAC and the neo-conservatives support Netanyahu's Likud party over that of Sharon's Kadima party.

How do you think they will vote in light of the Harvard study and who is really wagging the dog?

Wonder how David KKK Duke feels about that? All powerful Israeli lobby implodes on part of itself so they can get back to a more moderate ideal for all parties concerned. Will Aramco and OPEC drop the price of oil to ease global tension?

You have something in regards to the topic this time?

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Hypocritical in your rise to blame me for being off topic, then adding nothing in regards to Israeli lobby articles.

Your Hypocrisy is apparent from your arrogance for not accepting to be called off-topic. you have no right to prevent me from disagreeing with you.

Stop being arrogant and stop claiming that you know-all. Your Global view huh.... my view is superior than yours.

I only posted 2 on-topic posts here, and the remaining posts were just to convince you to go back on-topic. So don't judge me ... and don't think that you know better than me.

You claim that I add nothing.. go and read my two posts in p4.

Just a note: I didn't claim that Saudi is better Ally to US !!! I only said that they had the influence but it way lower than the Israeli's. Also I was arguing that Comparing The Lazy Saudis with the Israeli Lobby is False Argument and serve specific agenda of keeping the discussion away from Israeli lobby.
Also I said:

I want the American people to be independent from Israeli , Arabs , chiness and any other group. It is time for the Americans to reject the influence of foreign lobbies especially the Israeli Lobby (Which is the most harmful one).
USA must have its unique personality and agenda, not the Israeli personality and Agenda.

Read carfuely before you use Blame games on me.

I am done with you.

The argument with you is useless. So lets move on shall we?.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Deep_Blue]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Deep_Blue]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Deep_Blue]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:52 AM
Why the Israeli lobby is the most harmful one?

The strength of the Israeli Lobby in USA has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. From 1990 to 2003 USA is going in war after war for the sake of defending the Israeli interests. The big misconception is that Israel and USA coincidently share the same interests.

Why did the USA invade Iraq?

If you remember the initial excuse was for WMD, the word “WMD” was heard from Bush and Blair hundred times before the war, after the war finished we discovered that it was a big lie.

So why did USA invade Iraq?

Let’s say it was part of the war against terrorism. But what Iraq has to do with 9/11.. nothing.

So why did USA invaded Iraq?

Lets say for oil.
Sounds like logical reason. But wait the costs of the war are huge numbers.

The cost of War against Iraq is : $251,329,003,293 !!!! wow

and counting .. check this to see the accumulating cost every second:
The War in Iraq Costs

No chance in hell that oil revenues will cover these costs. Also consider the instability of oil companies after USA leave Iraq. I really don't think the war was for oil.

So why did USA invade Iraq?

For protecting Israel, under the influence of the Israeli Lobby.
That explanation makes lot of sense:

First, the success of the Israeli Lobby is not only related to money and power, but has also religious roots. If you ask a fanatic Christian why defending Israel he will say God told US to. Now Bush is a religious fanatic, he killed 2 million Iraqis because God told him to !!

Second, The influence of The Israeli lobby depends on the president. They have great influence on candidates campaigns, they control the media, the have the money. So that any new president will not succeed if he didn't adopt the pro-Israeli views.

Third, The names of the countries that USA is attacking or preparing to attack make it clear that USA is going in war after war only for the sake of protecting Israel. I listed those names in a previous post , then I was blamed for adding nothing to the Topic !!
Countries in the black list are: Iraq, Lebanon(Hizbullah), Syria , Iran,..... aren't those countries the main enemies of Israel ?

The following express this better than I do:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Deep_BlueI only said that they had the influence but it way lower than the Israeli's.

Tell us how do you measure influence?
How much influence does it take to sway the UN?
Who makes the most profits off the US, Saudi Arabia or Israel?
How much influence does it take if 15 of your citizens blow up the WTC in order to keep the US from retaliating?

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
I really don't think the war was for oil.

How much of that $251,329,003,293 went into the pockets of US war profiteers, US arms dealers and US oil conglomerates?

Cheney and Halliburton Hold Title - Top Earners In Iraq

British firms make billions from Iraq war

Oil wars Pentagon's policy since 1999
A top-level United States policy document has emerged that explicitly confirms the Defence Department's readiness to fight an oil war.

According to the report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defence, "energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security".

Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged.

Although the policy does not forecast imminent US military conflict, it vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Yeah sure it's not about oil, while our executive branch is full of oilmen.
Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet

Bushco+G8+Oil Lobby+War Lobby+Israel Lobby+Arab Lobby++++
=Iraq Invasion

War is Wall Street with the gloves off, an economic stimulator
and you need oil to play war.

Iraq war began March 20, 2003 - Look at the Dow go!
How many trillions invested do you think that took to move the DJIA 3000+ points? Is that all Israeli lobby influence?

Hindsite is 20/20, greed can be blind,
you have pay to play and no risk = no reward

The Cost of Invading Iraq: Imponderables Meet Uncertainties
A Gallup poll this month found that 60 percent of Americans said they did not think it was worth going to war in Iraq, up from 29 percent at the start of the invasion in March 2003.

In the fog of war accounting, one thing is clear: all costs and benefits can be contested as wildly inaccurate ? in either direction.

Consider what the cost of containment would have been had the United States not gone to war. The University of Chicago study now says it is in "the range of $350 billion to $700 billion." This range is arguably grossly inflated because it counts virtually all of the American military forces in the Middle East as dedicated to containing Iraq.

The Chicago economists argue that anticipated improvements in Iraq's living standard, once the country stabilizes, tip the balance in favor of invasion over containment, which in their view had costs that were "in the same ballpark." They also argue that the number of Iraqi fatalities since the invasion is probably no greater than would have been the case under Mr. Hussein.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Well I find it highly ridiculous and illogical to not to include oil as part to the invasion equation.

No oil, no wars, no lobbies, no motor cars, not a single luxury,
like Robinson Crusoe it would be as pagan as it can be.

Uh oh, there goes the Israel lobby's funding!

Camera has a new article out. There's a lot more to this article than my snippet also. Mearsheimer is shown to contradict himself several times from his pro-Israel views he had 15 months ago. I smell psyops stew.

Will the real John Mearsheimer please stand up? -camera

It couldn’t be more striking then, to read Professor Mearsheimer stating in late December of 2004 almost exactly the opposite concerning the origins of the Iraq war. Interviewed on a website called American Amnesia, Prof. Mearsheimer stated clearly that administration officials went to war in good faith, expecting “in their heart of hearts” to find WMD and ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam:

A number of [Bush administration officials] who were in favor of the war believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was joined at the hip with Osama Bin Laden. At the same time, I think that they were aware that we had no hard evidence to support either one of those contentions; but in their heart of hearts they believed that both suppositions would be proven true once we were in Iraq and gained access to the evidence. I believe that people like Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, were shocked that we found no WMD and no evidence of cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden. I think that they expected to find that evidence.

So according to Mearsheimer, Wolfowitz and the other senior administration officials were actually acting in the interests of the United States rather than of Israel. The good professor continued:

What you often discovered when debating proponents of the war was that if they admitted that Saddam might not be an imminent threat, they would invariably fall back on the argument that this is actually the ideal time to attack him because he is not especially dangerous at the moment. Why wait until he is armed and a serious threat to the United States? Let's get him when he is weak and vulnerable.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Check this out, another Mearsheimer paper:" target="_blank" class="postlink">Letter Against Expulsion of the Palestinians

2.5 more years of Bush and no impeachment in site and still lots of more scapegoating to be had for our lack of accountability. Iran on the verge of developing nuclear arms, Iraq on the verge of civil war, and more terrorist attacks than ever before. Israel better rein in Bush, unless they are trying to influence their own suicide. Funny how jewish folks are typically Democrats too, just ask

More than one variable to this mess, and you can bank on that
... BYOO, bring your own oil.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:18 AM
Nop Oil will never pay back..

All of your theoritical analysis about oil will collapse when USA pull out off Iraq. After that Iraq will burn out , and stability will be gone for ever. Tell me how will Oil companies in Iraq pay to USA then.

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:27 AM
So cant we all just get along?

First off: i apologize, I think i introduced SA first... I didnt' mean for that to be off topic, but rather an even handed critism... (not showing any bias, or anti semitic angle)
I think we all agree that we beleive the report, and its insinuations... correct?
I think Regenmacher has progressed from securing the proof of the report, and convinced me, and others... (along with beachcomas and others posts)
to giving the whole issue some consideration for a true solution.

... and not a specific "picking on the israelis" solution either...

but something that works across the board, with ALL lobbies, and influence buyers, and sellers...
the Abromoff scandal illusrates clearly the need for reform... and even the various ways that influence is peddled off the books...

are any of us stupid enough to think that was a one time occurance...?
keeping that in mind, isn't it crazy to allow it to continue?

I dunno... I kinda thought that the thread proved its angle, almost unreservidly for now (until the rebuttal is issued)

but man... talk about swinging a big stick...
forcing (or intimidating) Harvard to print a rebuttal...

I wonder, who will be the other authors of the paper, since the head of academics seems to be more of a person to throw in for the "support" of whatever it states... rather than actually authoring it...

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:31 PM
I tend to agree with you LazarusTheLong, we have begun to digress from the original thread a bit. I think your comments on the perceived power of the pro-Israeli lobby, as illustrated by their retalliation on the authors and anyone else attempting to stand up for the study, are right on the mark. Notice how they have used the negative aura around David Duke to cast a pall over the study without even attacking the study directly. I am appalled at the audacity of the lobby, yet fascinated by their ability to get away with actions that would send other groups to the sidelines. I think it's almost criminal the way they had a Harvard school dean cashiered. Then again, I should not be surprised because one of the things the lobby does best is calculate the cost and influence of sheer greed.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Astronomer68]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:23 PM
Hypocrisy... my specialty, and I'm not about to allow anyone else to claim my title as the king thereof.

We all know this is a touchy subject and are hopefully all strapped into our seats with our crash helmets on. Remember, we already know there's a problem with threads like this one turning into flame wars.

Thus, any member who indulges in flaming in this thread is essentially "following the script".

I honestly don't think anyone here is setting out to deliberately shut down the thread, but if we digress into personal attacks, we'll be doing it nonetheless. So please, avoid the temptation to lay into one another.

For those who may have missed it, please review my first post to this thread, especially this part:

Originally posted by Majic
I will be following this thread closely, and will NOT tolerate personal attacks between members.

I wasn't kidding about that, but I'm not ready to hit the Warn button just yet.

Let's just simmer down, drop the personal vendettas, take a few deep breaths and remember why we're here.

Meanwhile, Back At The Topic...

Beachcoma started this thread about a specific topic, which I think is nicely summarized by

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

There it is: our topic.

It's normal and reasonable for members to swing wide of the topic in some respects in order to provide context, but I urge all contributors to this thread to not lose sight of where this all started.

Key Points

In the first post to this thread, Beachcoma suggested the following key points to consider:

Originally posted by Beachcoma

I have however perused through reports on the report so I have a rough idea of it's contents. Before I present to you some of the articles regarding this study, there are a couple of key points to consider:

  • The authors' claim that one of the main source of power of the Jewish lobby is the anti-Semitic blame game
  • The authors' "disagreement is not with America’s pro-Israel lobby but with the American people, who overwhelmingly support our relationship with Israel, and with Democrats and Republicans in successive administrations and Congress, who so strongly and consistently support the special relationship between the United States and Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East with whom we share all our common values."*

From these two key points, it is important that any criticism of this study NOT come from the 'anti-semitic angle'. Doing so will only play right into their hands.

In addition to these, I suggest (but am by no means mandating) discussion of the following assertions derived from the study to help keep the thread on topic:

1. U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest.

2. U.S. Middle East policy is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby.

3. The Israel lobby 'has a stranglehold' on the U.S. Congress.

4. The Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.

There are several others, and I encourage anyone who wants to bring them up to do so, but the idea is to remember what we're talking about.

If you find your posts beginning with the word "you", you're probably off-topic. Discussion of member opinions is fair game. Discussion of the source articles and the study are fair game. In fact, discussion of almost anything other than other members is fair game.

Discussion of other members is off-topic and attacking other members is a violation of the Terms And Conditions Of Use.

Please do not ignore my requests to stay on topic. :shk:

[edit on 3/31/2006 by Majic]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Nop Oil will never pay back..

All of your theoritical analysis about oil will collapse when USA pull out off Iraq. After that Iraq will burn out , and stability will be gone for ever. Tell me how will Oil companies in Iraq pay to USA then.

"We the people" might not recover the cost. To borrow the words Greenspan, the general public had too much "irrational exuburance" in this war. Protracted wars (see chart above) usually are a tax drain to enrich the miltary industrial complex, and the net for the war industry is many times over the tax burden. The economic effect trickles down on the economy, were as the poorest are usually the last to see any signs of war profits.

Number of billionaires surges -CNN
Rich-poor gap gaining attention -CS Monitor

The low and middle class taxpayer gets the shaft and the bill, while the rich get richer. War is big business and big profits, but not for the little guys who fund it and fight it. Mkes you wonder why they support it?

Investing in the war industry would of made you a nice sum of cash.

Here's the latest 2 years from Exxon, Halliburton and Lockheed Martin.
As you can see from the chart your investment would of gained 50%-150% andeven more if you would of invested at the start of the Iraq war. The war industry is making billions more than the cost shed by the low and middle income taxpayers.

The Perpetual War Portfolio

All these lobbies have an interest in promoting their agendas and getting in on the war profiteering action.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I am appalled at the audacity of the lobby, yet fascinated by their ability to get away with actions that would send other groups to the sidelines.

Same thing could be said in regards to the Bush administration and their amazing ability to skirt laws, lie, fabricate, and remain in power....strange days indeed.

Here's an article that actually takes on some dissection of Walt and Mearsheimer and isn't a smear assault.

Trying for the full Huntington -Drezner
"Shot through these papers are an awful lot of casual assertions that don't hold up to close scrutiny. … The authors assert that, 'If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran.' I'm pretty sure that there's more to U.S. opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons than the protection of Israel."

Two final thoughts. First, I'm surprised and disappointed that the article has gotten zero coverage from the mainstream media in the United States. I completely agree with Walt and Mearsheimer that this is a topic that needs more open debate.

Second, there's one non-event that keeps gnawing at me after reading the piece. If "The Lobby" is as powerful as Walt and Mearsheimer claim, why hasn't there been a bigger push in the United States for more fuel-efficient cars, alternative energy sources, and the like? After all, the only strategic resource that Israel's enemies possess is large quantities of oil. If "The Lobby" is so powerful and goal-directed, wouldn't they have an incentive to reduce the strategic value of their advesaries?

ANOTHER UPDATE: See this follow-up post on the Walt/Mearsheimer paper as well.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Here's Daniel Levy's thoughtful article, a former adviser to Israel's prime minister.
He makes the point Israel's lobby isn't even good for Israel.

So Pro-Israel that it Hurts -tmpcafe

"should serve as a wake-up call, on both sides of the ocean."

"Their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support (beyond, as the authors point out, the right to exist, which is anyway not in jeopardy). The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby 'stifles debate by intimidation' and at its most current when it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda."

"The Lobby even denies Israel a luxury that so many other countries benefit from: of having the excuse of external encouragement to do things that are domestically tricky but nationally necessary (remember Central Eastern European economic and democratic reform to gain EU entry in contrast with Israel's self-destructive settlement policy for continued U.S. aid)."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The howls shall continue from all directions and I am sure there will me more to come as the layers of the old corrupt lobbying onion are pulled off.

Wonder if Abramoff the super lobbyist is connected in all this?

Jack Abramoff -Wiki
Though raised in a secular Jewish family, at age 12 he decided to adopt more traditional religious observance and began to attend a Conservative synagogue on his own. His religious observance deepened when he attended Brandeis University, and over time he was attracted to the Orthodox communities where he lived.

Of Sharon, Arafat, Abramoff, and the media
Abramoff for example diverted money (”charity donations”) to Israeli settlers living illegally on Palestinian lands. His “customers” were told this money is intended for inner city poor Americans. Instead the money bought military hardware to help settlers terrorize native Palestinians.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:09 AM
….said the Spider to the Fly.
As mentioned in my last post I am going to discuss the scholarship of the premise article in this post. But before that I want to clarify my previous post.

The post on lobbies does NOT refer to the Israeli lobby but rather to the general functioning of lobbies, the framework of lobbies, the process of lobbying, the role of lobbies in passing legislation and the limits set upon lobbies. I have tried to present the workings of a lobby with fair perspective, to bring forward the "other" side that many are unaware of, especially with respect to the positives that lobbies have accomplished, take the case on international landmine legislation etc that has achieved fruition due to the effort of lobbies.

With regards to domestic lobbies that are pro-Israel, this is common knowledge but in my post I refer to the legislation that prevents foreign governments from entering into the domestic electoral process along with a case of such an occurrence. I have forgotten to mention one fact in my previous post, which is the abolition of soft money transfers to political parties by lobbies after the year 2002. The post is meant to give a foundation on understanding the needs and the workings of lobbies and their results in congress and the senate, which is essential to the proper understanding of the need and goals of any interest group, particularly the Israeli lobby.
The very nature of the pro-Israel sentiment would make classifying it as a mere 'interest group' to be inappropriate and misleading, as the nature of the sentiment does not revolve around any singular objective but rather deals with a holistic perspective that encompasses both domestic and Israeli issues. But which have a great influence on international policy particularly the Middle East as the domestic attitudes always tend to make their way into American foreign policy. It would be correct however to say that the level of support is indeed unique. But let us not pass judgement hastily on this; as the machinations of the biased few. Let us see it for what it truly is; which are the strong ideological, emotional, religious, sociological, political and economic ties that a large number of Americans have with the people of Israel. This isnt confined to the Jews exclusively but in fact applies more to the large percentage of non-Jews that are engaged in various relationships with the people of Israel. It is these people who through their extensive interaction have come to sympathize and support the Israeli cause and more importantly willing to exercising their 'influence' to work towards what they feel are their mutual interests. Then there are the religious groups that are have whole communities in thrall- considered vote banks! – that see Israel and its people in the biblical context. All these ‘domestic’ factors influence congressmen and senators in DC to treat Israel as much more than an ally. The lobbies only reinforce this picture in their minds, making American policy swing towards popular domestic mandate.


Satanic Scholarship
Well, I have read the entire report that makes up the premise for this thread and the ensuing enquiry into the pro-Israel lobby done here. All those who have taken the liberty to go through the report you would find that it is only 30 odd pages while the introduction and the extensive references and appendix of previous books, editorials, articles, etc comprises a good 40 pages making up the bulk of the study. To the initiated this study from a notable Harvard professor would certainly come as a shock not for the topics it broaches but rather to the utter and complete digression from the principles of scholarly study.
I have read numerous academic reports in the past, which I confess are mostly technical nonetheless conforming to the generally accepted standard of academic study, have yet to come across such a deliberate and devious attempt at scholarship!! Scholarship which sadly had been held great credibility prior to this disgraceful sham. This study reeks not only of prejudice but also of unethical intellectual subterfuge. The authors try to prey upon emotions and also cleverly employ a tactic of selective and incomplete dissemination of facts coupled with skewed opinion in order to beguile the reader into believing it to be the truth and in their best interests. It is in fact bullying him intellectually into accepting the author’s perspective without question or giving any giving any chance to objective analysis. There is not a shred of academic objectivity into the matter and nor are they bound by ethics of scholarship. In short, this study is but a ploy by the authors to beguile to uninitiated regarding Middle eastern history and Israeli politics. This isnt the first report/study that has come to show that the pro-Israel lobby has great influence as these authors would have you believe, nor is it the first attempt by scholars to editorialize fact and try to stir up controversy in order to garner attention.
I might sound to be extremely pro-Israel here but those who have actually read the study and know Israeli-Arab history can easily point out the blatant inaccuracies of the study not to mention the amount of deception used by the authors to deceive the reader. It is primarily this underhandedness in scholarship that I detest and what I find most repulsive here. I will

Here is some of what I talk about :

The United States also comes to Israel’s rescue in wartime and takes its side when negotiating
peace. The Nixon Administration re-supplied Israel during the October War and protected Israel from the threat of Soviet intervention.

Though the individual sentences are correct when they are take alone but together they completely contradict each other. For anyone who is aware of the Nixon administrations attitude with regards to Israel would hardly imagine it as one that was anything short of a reluctant support. Also after their initial ‘opinion’ they add to the paragraph they continue the above sentences with the negotiations that the US-Soviets had to bring the situation under control as advocacy of the Israelis. Then suddenly jump to the Oslo Peace accords that were again forced upon Israel. As by 1993 Israel had already acquired dominance over the neighboring Arab States and had effective control over the West Bank and Gaza thereby not something that was only a technicality for the Israelis and face saving measure for the Arabs.

The authors don’t at anytime mention the many SR-71’s that flew over Israel taking pictures of damage to Israeli tanks and equipment during the October war, so that Nixon was sure that the Israelis were not given any ‘undue’ advantage. Nor does it mention that Nixon’s re-supply was not solely due to his compassion for the Israeli people but rather for the genuine fear that Egypt and Syria would take over the State of Israel thus handing over the Suez to the Soviets giving them a stranglehold over Western shipping and the Mediterranean in general. The authors also fail to present the backdoor diplomacy that Kissinger and the Soviets had, also the reluctance of Nixon to get involved due to the situation in Vietnam, the failure of intelligence form both the Israelis and American intelligence, not to mention the deep politics behind the war. I would also like to point out the fact that it was the US that saved Egypts 3rd Army and the Syrians from disgrace, defeat and death when the Israelis finally fought back and took back lost ground (See Ariel Sharon’s campaign here!). Can I also mention that the Israelis lost nearly 2200 soldiers and had 5600 injured which would be equivalent to 500,000+ American lost or wounded when taken in perspective with our respective populations then. I would also like to mention that America was not alone in supplying the war as the Soviets had been supplying the Egyptians and the Syrians as well .The Authors make no mention of this too.
I could potentially go on and on but here is a very good and balanced study on the war taken from NSA documents speaks of all what I have said and much more. This is what they have to say about the war:
The October war had a fundamental impact on international relations not only by testing the durability of U.S.-Soviet détente but also by compelling the United States to put the Arab-Israeli conflict on the top of its foreign policy agenda. The threat of regional instability, energy crises, and superpower confrontation, made a U.S. hands-on role in the region inescapable…….

So do we believe that the authors of the Pro-Israel lobbies Study “don’t know” this angle to the Yom Kippur War even though they are Ph.D’s in History and hold titles of Professor in some of the most reputable institutes in America if not the World?

Israel’s strategic value during this period should not be overstated, however Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies.

This statement is yet another gem that its naivity for authors of such calliber is simply shocking. Firstly, the reason that the oil embargo was applied by the Arab oil producing states was because of massive American airlifts of military equipment to the Israelis just like the Russians were doing with the Egyptians. Secondly, OPEC didn’t impose embargo’s on oil but only Arab oil producing nations. Lastly, the embargo was placed only on the US and not on ‘Western Economies’.
Surely professors in the field of international studies know that there is a difference between OPEC and oil producing Arab states, a huge difference and also must know about the machination by the Arab states with regards to Yom Kippur War. Like for example, the war was started by Egypt’s sneak attack on the Israelis while the peace settlements was still going on after the 1967 war in the UN. Also the results of this war which the authors claim as ‘costly’ for America to support Israel in fact worked in favor of the aggressors like Egypt and Syria with Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai and returning to pre war borders. This however doesn’t carry much significance to the authors as they have concluded the results of the war before any actual study.
The oil embargo on the US was yet another tactic employed by Sadat to coerce America into forcing Israel to give up its claim over the disputed area of the West Bank. Such an embargo was premeditated by the Arabs and was NOT a reactionary measure as the authors would have us believe. This has been shown to be the case in the study shown below, which BTW is credible academic work.
With diplomacy stalemated, during 1972 and 1973, Sadat believed that the military option was necessary to secure U.S. political intervention and to facilitate negotiations. To bring U.S. influence on Egypt's side, he was willing to make a separate arrangement with Israel over the Sinai, although he would keep his flexibility secret from leaders of other Arab states. To make the military option workable, that is to disperse Israeli forces during war, Sadat realized that he needed partners. A non-military ally was King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, who promised to use the oil weapon against the United States.

Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War, the first Gulf War (1990-91) revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The United States could not use Israeli bases during the war without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and it had to divert resources (e.g., Patriot missile batteries) to keep Tel Aviv from doing anything that might fracture the alliance against Saddam.

Here again we have fact and opinion deceitfully blended to give a picture that is far from the truth. For starters by merely reading the passage we can ask ourselves why is an ally that was not allowed to participate a ‘burden’? For sending a couple of Patriot missile batteries to Israel, in exchange for Israel’s marked pacifism here despite being attacked repeatedly by Iraqi-Scuds despite no provocation on its part? Can we truly call this Israeli attitude a burden for the US ?
Or is it that the anti-Iraq coalition countries,[like Saudi Arabia -recognizes Israel, Jordan -recognizes Israel and Kuwait- at that time was itself was in no position to be choosy] were so against the idea of Israel participating that they threatened to back out from the fight even though Saddam was actively attacking them? To the reasonable and the initiated such arguments are dismal at best especially for alleged academicians.
Would we be biased in imagining that Israel was genuinely concerned about Iraq with Saddam Husseins unparalleled military build up & with Iraqi Sunni’s baying for Israeli blood, taking into account Iraq’s previous hostility towards Israel in general? Would it be wise on our part to forget that despite the ‘pro-Jewish’ lobbies apprehensions regarding the Iraqi build up, the USA didn’t act against Iraq until they attacked Kuwait and took over more than half of the world’s oil supplies, which are in OUR own interests?
As for the Israeli ‘burden’, though they didn’t support the Gulf War directly, they did provide valuable intelligence & logistical support to the US. This is what Tariq Aziz said after the first Gulf War to Frontline:
Q: What was the calculation in firing the Scud missiles at Israel?
Aziz: Well, Israel was part and parcel of the military aggression against Iraq. They did not participate directly, openly, but they provided all support to the aggression against Iraq so.
Q: Did you hope to provoke them into retaliating to split off the Arab zone?
Aziz: No, we didn't think that they will do anything in the sense of ground attack because if they have to fight on the ground, they have to cross Jordan. That makes it difficult for them….the Americans avoided that. Had Israel entered a ground confrontation with the Iraqi troops, the results of the conflict would have been different.
Q: So why do it then...a gesture of defiance?
Aziz: Well, when you are attacked by an enemy, you attack your enemies, that's natural eh? Israel acted as an enemy to Iraq at that time. It participated fully,…….. Israel provided many many logistics, you see to the preparation of the war, before the war and during the war, so why don't you hit them if you can? We had the capability, we did it and it was not a surprise….

The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or “the West”; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Let us take the first sentence in which the authors claim that “ terrorist organizations..(HAMAS) do not threaten the US…”, which is both correct and incorrect on how it is taken. It is true that HAMAS does not carry out terrorism in the US or attacks the US directly but what the authors have failed to show is that Palestinian militant organizations have killed more than 53 American citizens and at least another 83 have been injured by terrorist acts in" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Study of Americans killed by Palestinian Terrorism-U.S House of Representatives
Also, by the first sentence do the authors imply that the US turn a blind eye to acts of terrorism that have killed thousands of people in an allied nation just because they do not affect us directly ? Why then did the US extend support to the British during WW2, to the French, to South Korea, to the numerous other allied nations that have faced aggression and have had to contend with it. The US doesn’t physically participate but rather seeks to bring the two sides together at the same time condemning terrorism, is this a sign of American bias towards the Israelis ? From what I know of history, Israel has had to bend to US dictums many times in the past even against its wishes or the security of its citizens. The granting sovereignty to the PA and signing a peace deal with a known terrorist Arafat , pull out from Gaza etc, they have undeniably done a lot of that is expected of them.
Coming to the second sentence, this again is totally deceptive statement. Granted that the Palestinian terrorism is indeed a product of Israeli control of the West Bank but to claim that it is not random is absurd. Firstly, the very acts of terrorism that Palestinians terrorists have employed have been things like, shootouts, suicide bombings, rocket attacks of Jewish settlements etc all towards Israeli civilians and not directly on the IDF. Though there have been attacks on IDF bases, the majority of attacks have been towards Israeli civilians with random acts of violence towards them. I am sure any reasonable person wouldn’t hesitate to call bus bombs, attacks of cafes and sporadic shoot-outs as “random” acts but unfortunately the authors of the study prefer to term these as ‘not random’ because that would make it easier to arrive at their conclusion.

…..saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around………..
There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians…….

This statement makes up one of the central argument against the pro-Israel stance of the US. Granted that many terrorist do find US support to Israel to be point of contention between the United States and the Arab World. But terrorism directly against America which is a very recent phenomena (started in the 90’s) while compared to the US-Israel relationship (goes back to the late 60’s). To say that American support to Israel is a main cause for the terrorist movement against the United States would be to say that the Arabs were either unaware or not concerned about the US-Israel relationship for nearly 30 years. Or that America’s insistence on Israel to grant autonomy to the PA, the sign peace accords with Arafat in the 1990 and the PA in 2000 or America generous aid to the PA(BTW America is the largest contributor of aid to the PA ) are against the interests of the Palestinians and the Arabs in general. This however defies logic, as the above have only improved the lives and the standing of the PA and have helped expedite the peace process.
Terrorism towards the United States has surfaced after the First Gulf war during 1990. The presence of ‘non-Muslim’ forces in the Islamic heartland was seen as desecration of Islam for most of the hard-liners and as an insult to Arabs for not being able to protect their ‘holy-land’ and having to depend on ‘kafirs’. Apart from this the attitude of the Al-Saud family with respect to the US and also other Muslim nations towards the US was seen as American perversion to the religion of Islam. These terrorists are not fighting against the state of Israel solely but rather to ‘cleanse their land’ from Western “perversion” and thereby build a pan-Arab caliphate with the disposal of the US from the Middle East as their primary objective.
Osama bin laden has expressed this time and again and according to the Council on Foreign Relations:" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Osama Bin-Laden Background Q&A
When did bin Laden begin to consider the United States his enemy?
In the 1980s, bin Laden disdained America for its alliances with Israel and moderate Muslim states, but it was the Gulf crisis that crystallized his hatred. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden wanted Arab veterans of the Afghan war to help the Saudi army defend Saudi Arabia. He saw the arrival of American troops to confront Saddam—and the continued U.S. military presence in the Gulf after the war—as a violation of the sanctity of Muslim territory.

The above clearly shows what I am referring to. Also it is after 9/11 that Al-Qaeda has started to attack Israeli civilians like the dual bombings in Mombasa, Kenya 2002(" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source ) because it sees Israel as America’s ally. In essence the same networks that once worked only against the Israelis and many other local causes have now been joined together by the Al-Qaeda. Here is a study regarding this mentality:" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Council on Foreign Affairs - The Protean Enemy
Why do religious terrorists kill? In interviews over the last five years, many terrorists and their supporters have suggested to me that people first join such groups to make the world a better place -- at least for the particular populations they aim to serve. Over time,….. , terrorism can become a career as much as a passion. Leaders harness humiliation and anomie and turn them into weapons. Jihad becomes addictive, militants report, and with some individuals or groups -- the “professional” terrorists -- grievances can evolve into greed: for money, political power, status, or attention.
Consider, for example, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). EIJ’s original objective was to fight the oppressive, secular rulers of Egypt and turn the country into an Islamic state. But the group fell on hard times with the arrest of their leader in the United States…Thus in the early 1990s, Ayman al-Zawahiri decided to shift the group’s sights from its “near enemy”…… -- to the “far enemy,” namely the United States and other Western countries.

The example above shows clearly how the situation has worsened through the influence of Al-Qaeda and tightening the noose around terrorist organizations. American activity that has been beneficial to the Arab world has always been seen criticaly be it the development of the Arab world through Western investment in their oil resources or protecting their holyland against occupation. The situation in Israel has been there since before WW2, 9/11 has little to do with America’s support for peace in Israel in the last 3 decades. (BTW the twin towers attack is supposed to be in retaliation for the bombings of the Towers in Lebanon, which inspired Bin-Laden to give the go ahead for a similar attack on NYC).
I would also like to include this insightful study regarding the real reasons for Anti-Americanism in Arab Society;

Although anti-Americanism is genuinely widespread among Arab governments and peoples, however, there is something seriously misleading in this account. Arab and Muslim hatred of the United States is not just, or even mainly, a response to actual U.S. policies -- policies that, if anything, have been remarkably pro-Arab and pro-Muslim over the years. Rather, such animus is largely the product of self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problems within those societies." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Article from

Neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed by a nuclear-armed rogue, because the
blackmailer could not carry out the threat without receiving overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a “nuclear handoff” to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would be undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterward.

This statement make little sense because the 1967 war was started because the of the general distrust that exsisted betweent the arab states and Israel and the Yom Kippur war was the result of the 1967 Six-day war. The alleged Israeli military superiority over another state has little to do with the actual causes in both these cases, it was aggressive Arab rhetoric coupled with Israeli paranoia that started the Six-day war and thus led to the Yom Kippur war.

As regards to the “handoff” I would like to point out the case of Pakistan which despite running a nuclear “Wal-Mart” at the “Baghdad Market” for WMD’s has not been penalized nor been blamed. What is to say that these rouge state could not acquire this technology with the massive funding and networks from the Al-Qaeda to use it against the US or its allies ? Nothing from past experience says that rouge states cant get access to WMD’s undetected. As for punishment, just look at the case with respect to Iran, North Korea etc, what has the UN/IAEA or the US been able to do to “punish” these states ? NOTHING!!

Also the “rouge” states in question doesn’t need to carryout threats directly with the large number of terrorist organization in the region more that willing to take part in the process thereby distancing themselves from any attacks and pleading innocence making any retaliation difficult and internationally unacceptable. The Israelis know this and so do the Arabs, that is the problem.
Organizations like Al-Qaeda claim that they have nuclear weapons for use incase they were to be used against them.

Apart from its alleged strategic value, Israel’s backers also argue that it deserves unqualified U.S. support because:
1) it is weak and surrounded by enemies,
2) it is a democracy, which is a morally preferable form of government;
3) the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment, and
4) Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to its adversaries’ behavior.

On close inspection, however, each of these arguments is unpersuasive.

This is the central logic that the second part of the study deals with. Instead of dealing with individual paragraphs I will deal with each point. The authors present each point under a separate heading and present their arguments against each of the above points, points that they believe are the reasons the pro-Israel lobby presents for the need of America’s continued support of Israel. I would like to point out the fallacies in each of their arguments and show their blatant editorialization of fact in order to obfuscate the truth and promote prejudiced views. I will stick to the same order as shown above.

  1. The first point deals with the demographic perspective of Israel with respect to its neighbors. The authors claim that during the 1948949 war and the 1956 wars Israel apparently won with ease due to its “large” numbers contrary to what they say the pro-Israel lobby claims. This however is far from the truth as firstly; the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq attacked the Jewish nation of Israel. As a newly created state, Israel would be hard pressed to defend itself from the regular armies of FIVE different nations with its low numbers demographically. Secondly, it had to contend with the local fraction of the Irgun and the Stern Gang and try and build a regular force to defend itself. Lastly, the IDF would have to contend with the local armed resistance form the local Arab Palestinians. All these would not make the victor easy by any standard, but victory was achieved nonetheless because the Israelis managed to organize quickly and put to use western weapons to compensate for their smaller numbers. Here are the numbers that took part in the first war:

    Source for 1948-49 War
    State Entry Exit CombatForces Population Losses
    Egypt 1948 1949 300000 35000000 2000

    Israel 1948 1949 140000 2200000 6000

    Jordan 1948 1949 60000 1000000 1000

    P'stine 1948 1949 50000 2250000 3000

    Syria 1948 1949 300000 6000000 1000

    These numbers clearly show the massive disadvantage Israel faced during its independence and as for the 1956 war that was a joint operation by the French-British-Israel against the Egyptians for taking over the Suez Canal and restricting entry for ship from nations that weren’t to their liking. This was against UN regulations and " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">UNSC Resolution 95 was passed that proclaimed that Egypt was in contradiction to international law. The War of 1956 was the collective contribution of France-UK-Israel and not a unilateral Israeli action. In fact it was the US that was against the Suez War and despite this Britain and France went ahead. The armistice that was latter negotiated by the US was in fact pro-Arab than pro-Israel, so there goes the authors claim of American bias towards Israel there.
    Another point that the authors refer to is that Israel is no longer the underdog in the region with its commanding military might but what they fail to realize is this might is a product of Arab aggression and not American support for if there was no threat by the Arabs, Israel would have been much less militaristic. Also they forget to note that despite the military might Israel still suffers from constant attacks against its civilians and its cities from Arab militants that are supported by all Arab states collectively. They face terror threats from all sides except the Mediterranean Sea, with hezbollah in the north, Hamas form the West Bank and Syria, Islamic Brotherhood form Egypt etc. Demographically also they dwarf in size when compared to the collective populace of the Arab states.
    Disregarding this however, Israel today doesn’t seem interested in being considered as a “victim” but has rather sought US assistance in maintaining the Status quo of the situation, rather than endorsing its campaign politically or militarily.

  2. The next point revolves around Israeli and US values of Democracy which the authors see as not ‘enough’ justification for the level of support Israel gets. While it is true that not every democracy is treated with the same level of support Israel gets, it is important to consider that during the Cold War, the situation was played up as the forces of Communism (UAR) were against the democratic state of Israel and in this context the US decided to extend its support to Israel so that it may maintain dominance over the regions oil supplies. Today however this rational doesn’t seem to take center stage but nonetheless does serve to cement ties in some way. For example the authors of the study claim that as America has numerous allies that are dictatorships, being democratic would mean little to secure US support. This is plainly fallacious reasoning as not only does the US seek to spread democracy and the rule of law globally, it also forms part of the core values that were propagated during the cold war to combat communism and dictatorships. Even today, the values of democracy form an important part of US foreign policy with America’s support to Taiwan being a prime example. Thus, the authors have again been predicated by their prejudice rather than academic scholarship.

    The authors go on to claim that Israel treats its Arab citizens as second class and thus is at odds with American values of equality and justice for all. But this is yet again far from the truth as, not only are the Arabs citizens given equal rights and privileges but they are also have reserved seats allotted to them in the Kessnet apart from the right to own land, buy property and practice their religion freely without persecution unlike anything that is possible in the middle east. But I wont deny that there is indeed massive discrimination against Israeli arabs by the Israeli government and its jewish citizens. The reasons for this are understandable but in no way acceptable, because despite the Intifada and the suicide bombings, rocket attacks from the Palestine, the Arab citizens of Israel are in no way responsible and treating them with disdain would only tend to increase their aversion for the Israeli authority and its jewish citizens. The Israeli government realizes this as a problem and so does the Supreme court of Israel but such a case of discrimination is present in every society in every country in the world and cannot be attributed as ‘undemocratic’ by Israel. Here is an article that speaks of the discriminations against Arabs and the governments steps to tackle this form" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Jewish Virtual Library.
    Also it is claimed that Israeli citizen ship is solely by blood kinship but this is again incorrect as according the Israeli Govt. :
    Citizenship may be acquired by:

    *The Law of Return

    The authors conclude their argument against the democratic credentials of Israel by claiming that Israel doesn’t give Palestinians proper ‘political rights’ when they have conducted two elections and have authority over the West Bank and Gaza which Israel has allowed them to form. Plus Israel also has been a major donor of aid to the Palestinians and has supported their attempts at democracy along with the international community. Here is an article that speaks about the state of democracy in Palestine :

    From the Book by David SchenkerPalestinian Democracy and Governance: An Appraisal of the Legislative Council
    Israel supports a PA that can fight Islamic militancy and terrorism, regardless of its stance on human rights and due process.
    In Washington, policy toward the PA is largely guided by peace process concerns. Based on these concerns, Washington has been a consistent supporter of Arafat, who Americans believe can "deliver" the peace…..Although this policy may ensure continuity and incremental progress in the peace process, it does not take into account the established link between peace and democracy. …………In terms of the Palestinians, however, it should be. In the PA-where the population has both a knowledge of and an appreciation for democracy-the discussion is timely and relevant. Unlike many of the peoples of the region, Palestinians have a history in which participation, pluralism, and respect for rule of law are not alien concepts.

  3. This point deals the Holocaust and what the Authors claim as the excuse used by the pro-Israel lobby to get the US to support its case unconditionally. This is when the authors get really desperate and the real shoddiness of their scholarship comes forth. They insinuate that Israel’s founding is equally immoral and unjust as the Holocaust and therefore negates their claims of moral superiority over their enemies.

    This they begin to prove this by stating the demographics of the British Mandate and show the decline in Arab numbers and the increase in Jewish numbers as a sign of occupation. They make little mention about the Balfour declaration and the guarantees afforded to the Jews by the British but rather try to show it as some sort of occupation. Next they show the Arabs that were ‘driven out’ by the Israelis by making this argument:

    This opportunity came in 1947-48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile. Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee.

    This is perhaps the best example of the authors bias and prejudice. They claim that 700,000 Palestinians were forced into exile but they don’t say that nearly 600,000+ jews in the Arab lands were forced to flee their homes when their Arab nations decided to kick them out. Also they don’t mention that it was the Arab states in connivance with the Palestinians leaders of that time decided to attack the state of Israel on the day of its formation. The authors also discount the Israeli version of Arabs being asked to flee by their leaders without proving any concrete reason to do so other that dismissing it off hand. Lastly, they call out the notorious Benny Morris as a reference and even try to call his work as ‘scholarship that demolished myth’, which to the initiated would be incredibly funny. Benny Morris has achieved a sort of cult status in the world of historians as a radical extremist who delves more propaganda than fact." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Here is an article about his bias that I think that the authors should have read before their exuberance in quoting from his work.

    Another quote that they present of Ben Gurion and claim it to be professions of guilty Israelis is this one:

    .. As Ben-Gurion told 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. . . .

    This looks like compelling evidence when presented in the fashion the authors have but, they have forgotten to mention one important point which is that this quote is part of a conversation that reflected Ben-Gurion’s personal views to a friend. They have also not presented the entire quote so that one may understand its meaning in the fullest possible sense. The quote above is continued with the following:

    Read the entire quote" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here
    …But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish State, and I would answer: fifty-fifty'
    "But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind and be PM of Israel too?", Goldmann broke in.
    Ben-Gurion's answer was simple: "who says I sleep"? Goldmann concluded by stating "That was Ben Gurion all over. He had told me that so as to show me how well he knew in his heart that Israel could not exist without peace with the Arabs, but his stubborn, aggressive unbending character prevented him from following what his own intelligence told him. The best proof of that is that having lost his grip on power his intelligence reasserted itself; he even became a 'Goldmannite', declaring that all the occupied territories except Jerusalem should be restored.

    So if one were to read the entire quote, it would be clear to see that Ben-Gurion was in fact pointing out the need for peace with the Arabs and their attitudes towards the Israelis. Though this might mean a candid admission that the Jews were seen as occupiers, this would only mean that he understood the attitudes the Arabs had towards the Isrealis and his admission of that fact. Rather than portraying it as the admission of guilt his true intent was to try to explain to Goldmann the hurdles that the Jews faced in attaining peace with their arab neighbors by presenting their attitude towards the Jews, whom they saw as foreign occupiers.

    This is yet another example of the clever manipulations of the authors in order to beguile the reader into accepting their opinions rather than drawing out a valid and objective line of reasoning. A way to perpetuate their bias.
    Another quote on Golda Meir that the authors use is :

    Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that “there was no such thing as a Palestinian,”

    This would seem to be denying the rights of the Palestinians but it is in fact to be taken from a historical perspective, as historically Palestine is a state that the Romans named after destroying the Jewish civilization there and not contrary to popular perception the name of the Arab state of Palestine. Also Arab leaders have themselves claimed that ‘their is no such Palestine’ and they see themselves as Syrians. It is this context that Meir refers to rather than a sort of declaration against the Palestinians Arabs. The authors however have twisted this in order to make it seem so.

    Of course you would be right to call this as Zionist propaganda but take a moment to examine the statement below;

    Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
    “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.”
    In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source

  4. The last point deals with the morality of the Israeli cause and the authors attempt to show that Israel has little moral standing on which America can base its support. The depths to which the authors stoop here knows no bounds and they in fact contradict themselves here. They begin by stating :

    Israeli scholarship shows that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs. The Arab inhabitants did resist the Zionists’ encroachments, which is hardly surprising given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab lands. The Zionists responded vigorously, and neither side owns the moral high ground during this period. This same scholarship also reveals that the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved explicit acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews.

    The ‘scholarship’ that the authors refer to here is none other than their champion Benny Morris, who we have already dealt with before. The authors in their quest to propagate their prejudice have forgotten altogether the meaning of scholarship and by identifying Benny Morris as a scholar this fact is clearly shown. To be fair , it is true that prior to the separation by the British there was a lot of friction between the Arabs and the Jews and this led to many deaths but that does not mean that any one side is to blame. Also the claim of ‘rapes, ethnic cleansing etc’ by the Jews is totally uncorroborated and it is only Morris’s speculations and aracana that he uses to make such claims. Morris is himself known for his pathetic credentials that to claim his work as scholarship would truly show the shear apathy of the premise articles scholarship.

    Another gem that surely must be mentioned is this argument by the author:

    The IDF conducted numerous cross-border raids against its neighbors in the early 1950s, and though these actions were portrayed as defensive responses, they were actually part of a broader effort to expand Israel’s borders. Israel’s expansionist ambitions also led it to join Britain and France in attacking Egypt in 1956, and Israel withdrew from the lands it had conquered only in the face of intense U.S. pressure.

    The first sentence itself shows the authors bias and poor scholarship, they claims that the “IDF conducted numerous raids into its neighbors territories in the early 50’s and these were portrayed as defensive responses”. This is true so far, lets see how they continue, “they were actually part of a border effort to expand Israel’s borders”; now this last part is in no way corroborated nor do the authors provide any evidence of this. It also shows how they have consistently sought to skew the facts to skew opinions. Instead of presenting the facts and then using these facts to draw out logical conclusions they simply state their opinions right after statements of fact and hope that the unsuspecting reader will take these opinions to be facts as well. This is NOT scholarship to say the least, more like intelligent propaganda to brainwash the unsuspecting and the uninitiated. Also taking reality into consideration, during the 50’s there wasn’t any expansion of Israel’s borders or it settling on new land that wasn’t part of the original mandate.

    Now coming to the second sentence, this is again another whopper of a lie which claims that Israel joined France and Britain attack on Egypt with ‘Expansionist ambitions’ but this is far from the truth as we all know. I have already presented the UNSC resolution that shows clearly Egypt’s illegal refusal of Israeli ships and its unilateral decision to control traffic on the Suez. This was the sole reason for the war and this is widely accepted as the truth. The authors then bring in fact again to show that the US mediated and brought settled an armistice between the parties. Such duplicity is rarely seen in articles that claim to be academic studies and that too from reputed faculty of schools like Harvard. It is this pernicious attempts by the authors over and over again that has made publishing houses, Harvard University and many other institutions that hope to keep their credibility intact away from this ‘study’.

    Had the authors claimed that the Israelis were also guilty of using excessive force and responding extremely to situations, it would have been understandable and logical, but instead they have chosen to adopt a more insidious method to spread their prejudice by mixing fact and opinion seamlessly.

    Historically speaking though, what the authors say is true to some extent in the sense that there has been a large amount of excesses by the IDF especially in Beirut and in some instance in the West Bank and to deny this would be unfair.

    I could now continue in a similar fashion to expose the fallacies and the deceit in the third and last part of the study but as that would extend this post by another 3000 words or more. But I would like to point out one interesting quote that the authors of the study have put up:

    Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002 that “My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel”. One would think that the number 1 priority for any congressman would be to “protect America,”

    Well this is certainly an interesting quote but from the quote I think that the congressman was referring to foreign policy as in, support to Taiwan, support to South Korea etc as opposed to national security policy like combating terrorism etc. That is what I gather from that quote but the authors would have me believe that it is not “foreign policy” but rather all policy that the Congressman is referring to. Well if one can pass off 40 pages of prejudice for fact, it would truly be a feat onto its own.

    I will put this as candidly as I can in question and answer form for those who wouldn’t like to read through all that I have posted above.

    Does this study present a true picture of the nature of the Israeli lobby?
    To put it candidly , this study is BS ! They use crappy references, cheap tricks, juvenile logic and an almost infantile style of writing to put forth their perspective. I would think that the members of ATS with little experience on the forums would be more than capable of putting together something much better than this sorry excuse for an academic study. Heck, I am certain that I could have made a better study would have presented the influence of the pro-lobby much better than this so-called Harvard academician.

    What do I think is the purpose of this study?
    I would say that the authors wanted to get some publicity, maybe even some recognition that they feel they deserve and are not getting so they go in for controversial subjects. Or they may have been influenced either emotionally or economically to publish a quasi study on the lobby.

    Is there a significant ‘Pro-Israel’ lobby in the United States and is it influential ?
    Hell yes!

    Does the pro-Israeli lobby control US Foreign Policy?
    The number of issues regarding Israeli interests that crop up in the US are many and many times decisions go against the wishes of the lobby and there is nothing they can do about it. But there are many times when the decision go in favor of the lobby also. The percentage of decisions in favor of and those against is much narrower for the Israeli lobby than for most other lobbies. Like for every 100 decisions that deal with Israel 55 may against what the lobby desires and 45 may go according to the lobby. This percentage of ‘successes’ is what makes the Israeli lobby so influential. This does not mean that they have total control over congress or the Senate, the lobby couldn’t possibly have that because of the nature of the lobby. The lobby is multi-faceted in itself and not all groups in the lobby would agree with every decision. Rather they are able to convince a majority of politician about the benefits in supporting the individual lobbies’ perspective on an issue in the best interests for America and Israel.

    Is the pro-Israel lobby’s influence against Americas Interests ?
    The lobby is certainly in the interests of Israel and Israel wants to cement its existence in the region permanently. Though at times the US has faced hardships in dealing with the Arabs, in the long term the presence of Israel- a non-Muslim and democratic nation in the middle east, is definitely better for US interests and the world in the long run by serving as a counter balance to break the Muslim hegemony in the region.

    How does we control the influence of the Pro-Israel lobby?
    Lobbing as I discussed in my previous post is an essential part of our legislative process and therefore it’s presence has become almost indispensable. The pro-Israel lobby is just good at lobbing and because a large majority of pro-Israeli Americans make it to government circles and the centers of power this lobbing becomes all the more easy. Also the backing of religious Israel friendly groups helps to further promote the lobby. In effect, the lobby is good because it receives support from many sides.
    Its not a case of ‘If you don’t like the winners you just change the game.’ Because even thought many people don’t like politicians doesn’t mean that we change our democracy into a dictatorship. Similarly the Israeli lobby is just good at what it does and you cant punish people for doing their job too well !

    Isn’t it true that Israel funnels money back to America to fund its lobbies like AIPAC etc ?
    This is nonsense. Lets face it $3 billion for Israel today is loose change, they make much much more from trade alone not to mention the defense contracts from nations etc. Also with so many Israeli-American business man eager to get their case heard before various congress subcommittees they are all too willing to help fund these lobbies. Israel today really speaking has come to a point where they don’t really need to depend on America for their continued existence but rather it is the emotional, religious, ideological and economic ties that hold the nations together.

    Why does the pro-Israel lobby have so much influence in the US?
    The pro-Israel lobby has great influence the same reasons there is considerable support for other regions by the US like for example support for Ireland with regards to the IRA(due to the vast number of Irish descendants), for democratic Taiwan( due to the large number of Chinese Americans against communist china), for democratic South Korea, for Japan etc. This support exists because of the very nature of the US as an immigrant nation and though most would consider themselves only as Americans and keep American interests first, there is an undeniable feeling of support from American for these countries.
    They all lobby the government in some way or the other but none are as good as the pro-Israel lobby. The pro-Israeli lobby is just better than most other interest specific lobbies at lobbing not because it uses underhanded means but because it is more coordinated than most other lobbies and is effective with its resources. Also I would think that religious ties make up a good portion of the influence. And remember these are Americans who support Israel not foreigners coercing American politicians.

    Why hasn’t this study on the pro-Israel lobby been published by the American Media?
    There have been many such studies, books and articles about the pro-Israel lobby from the US. This is not the first of its kind and neither is it something so unique as the authors would have you believe. These studies are generally the works of those seeking attention or those with a personal agenda that seek to come out with controversial works like these and the publishers know this. Also the people who come out with these studies generally tend to be of rather poor scholarship as this study has turned out to be. There is also the role of the publishers who don’t want to publish such studies because such material would tend to directly affect their profits and their credibility. With protests from the readers, interest groups, politicians etc all bring down their profits and their credibility and thus endangering their business. But I don’t think such an excuse can work today with the help of the Internet which has almost zero censorship of content would have been the ideal place to publish anything that the authors may fear would not get published otherwise. But the authors in question here choose to make a drama out of this and choose rather ostentatiously to go to England and have a press release claiming that this is due to the effects of the a pro-Israel lobby.

    I wanted to post this earlier but I got sick and couldn’t spend the time needed to complete this. I did not as some have claimed read the ‘inescapable’ facts of the study and decided to not touch it.
    I was however not able to complete the 40 page study completely as I have still not fully recovered. I have however presented a summary at the end to clarify my perspective on the issue.


    [edit: to correct tags]

    [edit on 1-4-2006 by IAF101]

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:21 AM
I just have a question to Regenmacher.

regarding your comment:

Yeah sure it's not about oil, while our executive branch is full of oilmen.

If I am the president of US , and I have oil company can I initiate a war for my personal benefits without the permission of the congress?

War on Iraq would never be initiated if the congress didn't give the permission. correct me if I am wrong.

Now, it is not a hidden fact the Israeli lobby has great influence on the congress , In fact it's real power comes from the congress. So I still don’t think that oil was the main motive for the war on Iraq. Even if Bush administration make profits from Iraqi oil , The congress will not enjoy oil profits unless the US has a really corrupt congressmen that accept bribery!!
If congressmen accepts multi-million bribery I will be amazed by such corrupted congress (as worse as the most corrupted countries in the third world!).

I still believe that oil was not the main motive because it would never pay costs back to the US, BUT oil could be the factor that guaranteed the involvement of some corrupted government personals.

Lets go to the congress:

what we should investigate is US congress , What is the influence of the Israeli lobby on the US congress. Is it true that most of congressmen are Pro-Israeli? How did the Israeli-Lobby infiltrate the Congress?

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue

I still believe that oil was not the main motive because it would never pay costs back to the US, BUT oil could be the factor that guaranteed the involvement of some corrupted government personals.

While its true that the occupation costs more than the oil being pumped out is worth that will change in the future. The Supply and Demand curves for oil are getting close to diverging. Thats where there is not enough oil to meet demand no matter the price. When that happens America wants to be sure that we are ones who get what is needed. When price does not matter force settles who gets what they want.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by Deep_Blue

I still believe that oil was not the main motive because it would never pay costs back to the US, BUT oil could be the factor that guaranteed the involvement of some corrupted government personals.

While its true that the occupation costs more than the oil being pumped out is worth that will change in the future. The Supply and Demand curves for oil are getting close to diverging. That’s where there is not enough oil to meet demand no matter the price. When that happens America wants to be sure that we are ones who get what is needed. When price does not matter force settles who gets what they want.

Good point.


If the motive is to get oil at any cost then:

Why ?
What is the impact on US economy?
What will happen when US leave Iraq?
Did the US Pumped enough oil in the last 2 years?

They can get oil cheaper than the huge costs of the war, especially when we consider that the world is not on the edge of oil crises and there still a huge oil reserve in OPEC counties.

Stability in Iraq is volatile , under those circumstances I don't think that oil companies in Iraq made a great progress. Also when US pulls out off Iraq the situation will explode (a civil war is highly probable) And oil will stop flowing to the US.

If war on Iraq would guarantee efficient benefits from oil, then why European countires like France refused to join the war? I bet that if the war was economically beneficial then France would have been the first ally to US in the war.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Deep_Blue]

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
I still believe that oil was not the main motive because it would never pay costs back to the US, BUT oil could be the factor that guaranteed the involvement of some corrupted government personals.

Oil and conflict - a natural mix BBC -know your history

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

If your going to address me, you can start answering my questions.

Tell us how do you measure influence?
How much influence does it take to sway the UN?
Who makes the most profits off the US, Saudi Arabia or Israel?
How much influence does it take if 15 of your citizens blow up the WTC in order to keep the US from retaliating?
How many trillions invested do you think that took to move the DJIA 3000+ points?

I suggest you start taking some market economic classes and learn about investing. Anyone can profit from war and I already showed what to invest in. Cost of iraq war weighed against corporate profits means they are all swimming in net gains. The lower classes get the shaft, not congress who just voted themselves a pay raise, not the elite who are increasing their ranks of billionaires, not the government contractors who are making billions in Iraq and not Bush with his cabinet full of oil tycoons. Abramoff scandal was just the tip of the iceberg into congressional corruption and corporate lobbying. Senators and reps are bought and sold daily, were running for office is about enriching your monetary and corporate assets in a kelptocracy.

Chomsky: "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."

Carlyle Group: Uber Lords of Lobbying

Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict

There's multiple overlapping motives for empire expansion with oil and energy resources aas primary ones. The coming third world war will be fought over resources and you can bank on it. The US economy will continue to grow if it has able to procure cheap energy resources. If not, the economy will implode while the rich and poor gap widens.

Groups call on Exxon Mobil to pay $7B for war relief
Tell me what do you think ExxonMobil's annual lobbying budget is?
Then compare it to the Isreal lobby's funding. Have you done that?

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
Top oil execs investigated for lying to Congress
Investigation summarily closed as in nothing to see here move along.

Oil Wars:Militarizing energy policy
American leaders have responded to this systemic challenge to stability in oil-producing areas in a consistent fashion: by employing military means to guarantee the unhindered flow of petroleum. This approach was first adopted by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations after World War II, when Soviet adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab upheavals in the Middle East seemed to threaten the safety of Persian Gulf oil deliveries. It was given formal expression by President Carter in January 1980, when, in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran, he announced that the secure flow of Persian Gulf oil was in "the vital interests of the United States of America," and that in protecting this interest we would use "any means necessary, including military force." Carter's principle of using force to protect the flow of oil was later cited by President Bush the elder to justify American intervention in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, and it provided the underlying strategic rationale for our recent invasion of Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The next expansion in the oil war points to Iran.

Experts See Danger in Rising Oil Prices[
In that context, a hypothetical supply disruption that jolts oil prices to $80 or higher and keeps them there for an extended period -- say, three months -- could result in "a substantial falloff in discretionary spending" that snowballs into a serious slowdown.

Perhaps the top threat for the oil market is the standoff between the United Nations and Iran, OPEC's No. 2 producer, over Tehran's nuclear energy ambitions. Iran's foreign minister said Friday his country would not use oil as an economic weapon, and that helped ease prices, but analysts say they remain concerned about supplies from Iraq, Russia, Venezuela and other places.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Here's some information to get you started:
Bibliography for the Study of Oil and War

And remember Israel wants Iraqi oil too!
An old Israel-Iraq oil line ... reopening?
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?

Mearsheimer and Walt: “The Jews made me do it”
US policy in the Middle East has been driven by far more than blind support for Israel. Oil, obviously, has been and continues to be the overriding factor. Between World War II and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, containing the communist regime, for both the sake of containment and the sake of the oil, was the focus of our policy. We did a lot of ugly things to further those goals, yet popular affection for the US remained generally high until the more or less simultaneous arrivals of Ariel Sharon, the second intafada and the second Bush. Since 1967, at least, we have Israel to thank for absorbing animosities that might otherwise have been directed at us.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Israel Lobby Part 3
Both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby have warped policy in the middle east. American patriots, rather than siding with one lobby or the other, can reject both.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:51 PM

Remember, the topic is the Harvard study and the Pro-Israel Lobby, not the education level of other members or whether they remind you of a fictional television character.

Stay on topic.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:41 PM
What is this ? No responses to my post ?

I thought people were so enamoured with the study that they had taken if for granted, where is the comeback ?
Do you want me to publish it in PDF, unfortunately I am not qualified in history so it might not be as catchy as "Harvard professor slams pro-Israel lobby" !

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by IAF101
….said the Spider to the Fly.

I was getting around to a response, it takes awhile to digest all that, and I'm still perusing it.

You have demonstrated to me that the US government does and will make up it's own mind and lobby scapegoating isn't the answer to fixing US policy when we disagree with it. I say primary motivation behind any free market society is based on contined growth in assets.... considering Israel falls into that same genre, there's going to be a numerous parallels.

There is not a shred of academic objectivity

I would refrain from using absolutes and calling it all bs in your thesis, the study did have some valid points in it. When using absolutes, you turn gray and valid issues which the study had plenty of, into us or them mentality that breeds apathy on both sides.

It's not them, it's us

Private interest and pork barelling does not flourish without congressional approval. Voters remaining complacent, incompetent or unaware means we get what we put into it...nada.

Here's some lobby data sources for the readers:

Lobbying is here for now and has been here since President Grant. If we want to change it, then we have to vote accordingly and become responsible consumers. Blaming groups for organizing in order to promote their agendas, while we sit on our hands or cast disparaging remarks, is not going to change much of anything.

Anyone can support their favorite lobby. Anyone can start their own lobby, if they feel their message needs to be heard. Anyone can choose to not buy products from corporations they see as irresponsible. Anyone can save their capital to increase their power base and personal influence.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in