Archive for the ‘Israeli Lobby’ Category

Israeli Lobby Targets Opponent Academia ~ The Arab World

Professor William Robinson of [University of California at Santa Barbara] UCSB was the target of a campaign of intimidation, silencing, and political repression that included techniques described in the “Hasbara handbook”[download here] by the Israel lobby in contravention of academic freedom and university rules. He describes the experience here. The latest Israeli carnage in Gaza has provoked worldwide condemnation of Israel for its continued war crimes and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. In response, the Israeli state and its allies and agents are stepping up campaigns of intimidation, silencing, and political repression against opponents of its policies. Israel may continue to win military battles – after all, it has the fifth most powerful military on the planet – but it is losing the war for legitimacy. In the wake of its bloody attacks on schools, hospitals and United Nations refugee centers in Gaza, support has intensified around the world for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The BDS campaign in the United States has taken off, above all, on university campuses, which is why the Israel lobby is so intent on targeting academia. ….Five years ago, I was attacked by the Israel lobby in the United States, led by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and nearly run from the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), where I work as a professor of sociology, global and Latin American studies. The campaign against me lasted some six months and garnered worldwide attention, but I am hardly alone. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of professors and student groups have been harassed and persecuted for speaking out against Israeli occupation and apartheid and in support of the Palestinian struggle. Some of these cases have been high profile in the media and others have gone relatively unknown. The latest victim, Steven Salaita, a respected scholar and professor of English literature and American Indian Studies, was fired in August from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for denouncing on social media the most recent Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Note: The text between [two brackets] is added by editor for clarification and it is out of quotes.

Read more:

Israeli Lobby Targets Opponent Academia ~ The Arab World

Fair Usage Law

August 31, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

The Power of Israeli lobby and the United States – Paul Findley(Ex Congressmen) – Video



The Power of Israeli lobby and the United States – Paul Findley(Ex Congressmen)
Paul Findley (born June 23, 1921) is a former United States Representative from Illinois, who represented its 20th District. A Republican, he was first elect…

By: Mukhtar Shaikh

See original here:

The Power of Israeli lobby and the United States – Paul Findley(Ex Congressmen) – Video

Fair Usage Law

May 16, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Indyks galloping horse

To understand how thoughtless the USs latest Middle East peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theatre. One particular character that stands out as testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk.

Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term.

As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On Friday, 18 April, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Binyamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting.

It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se; the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for 29 April.

The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realise that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example.

Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in 1982. AIPAC is a right-wing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums.

Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements, and the colourful past of its honoured guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the right-wing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends.

I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favour, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled.

He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.

These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the mans undying commitment not to peace, but to Israel, or, more accurately, to peace as envisioned by Israel, which is the core of the ongoing crisis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace nor does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett, leader of the extremist party, The Jewish Home, who is known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace. But it is not peace that is predicated on justice or that envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain an unmistakably racist agenda, and a colonial policy of land grabbing.

Here is the original post:

Indyks galloping horse

Fair Usage Law

April 25, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Congressman Takes on AIPAC and Gets Thrown in Prison – Video



Congressman Takes on AIPAC and Gets Thrown in Prison
In this video Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange speaks with James Traficant who was thrown in prison for nearly 8 years after taking on the Israeli Lobby. The fo…

By: WeAreChange

Go here to see the original:

Congressman Takes on AIPAC and Gets Thrown in Prison – Video

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Ramzy Baroud

To understand how thoughtless the US latest peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. One particular character who stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk.

Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term.

As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting.

It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for April 29.

The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realize that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example.

Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums.

Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements, and the colorful past of its honored guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the rightwing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends.

I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favor, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled.

He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.

These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the mans undying commitment, not to peace, but to Israel, or, more accurately, to peace as envisioned by Israel, which is the core of the ongoing crisis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace, as does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even the Minister of Economy, Naftali Bennett, leader of the extremist party, The Jewish Home, who is known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace. But it is not peace that is predicated on justice or that envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically-tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain an unmistakably racist agenda, and a colonial policy of land grabbing.

See the original post:

Ramzy Baroud

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Martin Indyks Galloping Horse:Moral Crisis in Obamas Peace

by Ramzy Baroud April 24, 2014

To understand how thoughtless the US latest peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. One particular character who stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk.

Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term.

As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting.

It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for April 29.

The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realize that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example.

Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums.

Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements, and the colorful past of its honored guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the rightwing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends.

I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favor, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled.

He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.

Continued here:

Martin Indyks Galloping Horse:Moral Crisis in Obamas Peace

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

US hands Palestine a loaded deck

US hands Palestine a loaded deck By Ramzy Baroud

To understand how self-defeating the US latest “peace process” drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. Martin Indyk in particular stands out as a testament to how inherently futile the exercise is.

Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerry’s selection might have appeared rational. Former ambassadors often possess the necessary expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and there are reasons why Indyk can hardly be seen a diplomat in this case.

As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry

dispatched his envoy to Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last-ditch effort to revive the talks and to help bridge the gap between the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. “No breakthrough was made,” an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting.

This was no surprise, as no progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerry’s deadline for a “framework agreement”, slated for April 29.

The Americans only want to maintain the charade of a “peace process” as it gives them an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations class themselves as honest brokers in these talks, but its quite clear that the Americans have hardly been honest in their dealings with either party.

In fact, the US is not a third party at all, but was and remains in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example.

Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory of Israel and its allies.

See more here:

US hands Palestine a loaded deck

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Should Abbas jump on Indyks galloping horse?

To understand how thoughtless the US latest peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. One particular character who stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk. Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term. As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoys visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting. It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for April 29. The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realize that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first and their own interests second. Indyk is an example. Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums. Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington, D.C. in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements and the colorful past of its honored guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the rightwing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favor and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled. He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war. These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the mans undying commitment, not to peace, but to Israel, or, more accurately, to peace as envisioned by Israel, which is the core of the ongoing crisis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace, as does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett who is leader of the extremist party, The Jewish Home, who is known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace. But it is not peace that is predicated on justice or that envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain an unmistakably racist agenda, and a colonial policy of land grabbing. Unsurprisingly, this is the same kind of peace that the Americans envision as well. Kerrys new peace agenda is not entirely a rehash of old agendas. Yes, it is that too, but it almost completely embraces the once far-fetched ideas of Lieberman and rightwing groups, that of annexations the Jordan Valley and land swaps in exchange of main settlement blocs. When Lieberman floated these ideas a few years ago, he sounded like a deranged politician. Thanks to Kerry, it is now part of mainstream thinking. So Indyk, who dedicated a lifetime to securing an Israeli style peace, is now magically branded as the one attempting to revive talks and exert pressure on both sides like any good honest broker would do in these situations. But Indyk is not the only lobbyist-turned advocate for peace. He is one of many. Dennis Ross, one of Washingtons essential political hawks for many years and a strong supporter of the disastrous Iraq war, served as a special Middle East coordinator under Bill Clinton, and was handpicked by President Barack Obama very early on to continue to the play the same role in the new administration. Aside from the diplomats strong links to neoconservatives, especially those involved in the now defunct pro-war group, the Project for the New American Century; he also served as a consultant to the same lobby club founded by Indyk, WINEP. It was no coincident of course. WINEP, as other hawkish pro-Israeli groups, has served as an advocacy platform for Israel, and also fashioned Israeli-styled peacemakers. Interestingly, both Dennis and Indyk blamed Palestinians for the failure of previous peace talks. Blumenthal astutely highlighted Indyks J Street tirade blaming late PLO leader Arafat for the failings of the so-called Clinton peace parameters, despite the fact that Arafat had indeed accepted them. Indyk reminisced: I remember Shimon Peres saying to me at the time when Arafat had to decide whether to accept the Clinton Parameters, he said, history is a horse that gallops past your window and the true act of a statesman is to jump from the window on to a galloping horse. But of course Arafat let the galloping horse pass by leaving the Israelis and Palestinians mired in misery. Now, its Indyk, the die-hard Israel lobbyist, being sent along with another galloping horse outside Abbas window. We all know well how this is going to end, and we can imagine Indyk giving another speech at an AIPAC or J Street conference deriding Abbas for failing to jump.

– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com Email: ramzybaroud@hotmail.com

Visit link:

Should Abbas jump on Indyks galloping horse?

Fair Usage Law

April 22, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Israel lobby seeks to ruin Iran N-talks: Analyst – Video



Israel lobby seeks to ruin Iran N-talks: Analyst
A political analyst says the Israeli lobby is seeking to scuttle efforts aimed at reaching a final comprehensive deal between Iran and the P5+1 over the Isla…

By: 1atheo

See the original post:

Israel lobby seeks to ruin Iran N-talks: Analyst – Video

Fair Usage Law

April 15, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Israeli Lobby Targets Opponent Academia ~ The Arab World

Professor William Robinson of [University of California at Santa Barbara] UCSB was the target of a campaign of intimidation, silencing, and political repression that included techniques described in the “Hasbara handbook”[download here] by the Israel lobby in contravention of academic freedom and university rules. He describes the experience here. The latest Israeli carnage in Gaza has provoked worldwide condemnation of Israel for its continued war crimes and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. In response, the Israeli state and its allies and agents are stepping up campaigns of intimidation, silencing, and political repression against opponents of its policies. Israel may continue to win military battles – after all, it has the fifth most powerful military on the planet – but it is losing the war for legitimacy. In the wake of its bloody attacks on schools, hospitals and United Nations refugee centers in Gaza, support has intensified around the world for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The BDS campaign in the United States has taken off, above all, on university campuses, which is why the Israel lobby is so intent on targeting academia. ….Five years ago, I was attacked by the Israel lobby in the United States, led by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and nearly run from the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), where I work as a professor of sociology, global and Latin American studies. The campaign against me lasted some six months and garnered worldwide attention, but I am hardly alone. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of professors and student groups have been harassed and persecuted for speaking out against Israeli occupation and apartheid and in support of the Palestinian struggle. Some of these cases have been high profile in the media and others have gone relatively unknown. The latest victim, Steven Salaita, a respected scholar and professor of English literature and American Indian Studies, was fired in August from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for denouncing on social media the most recent Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Note: The text between [two brackets] is added by editor for clarification and it is out of quotes.

Fair Usage Law

August 31, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

The Power of Israeli lobby and the United States – Paul Findley(Ex Congressmen) – Video




The Power of Israeli lobby and the United States – Paul Findley(Ex Congressmen) Paul Findley (born June 23, 1921) is a former United States Representative from Illinois, who represented its 20th District. A Republican, he was first elect… By: Mukhtar Shaikh

Fair Usage Law

May 16, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Indyks galloping horse

To understand how thoughtless the USs latest Middle East peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theatre. One particular character that stands out as testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk. Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term. As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On Friday, 18 April, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Binyamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting. It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se; the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for 29 April. The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realise that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example. Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in 1982. AIPAC is a right-wing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums. Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements, and the colourful past of its honoured guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the right-wing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favour, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled. He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war. These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the mans undying commitment not to peace, but to Israel, or, more accurately, to peace as envisioned by Israel, which is the core of the ongoing crisis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace nor does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett, leader of the extremist party, The Jewish Home, who is known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace. But it is not peace that is predicated on justice or that envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain an unmistakably racist agenda, and a colonial policy of land grabbing.

Fair Usage Law

April 25, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Congressman Takes on AIPAC and Gets Thrown in Prison – Video




Congressman Takes on AIPAC and Gets Thrown in Prison In this video Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange speaks with James Traficant who was thrown in prison for nearly 8 years after taking on the Israeli Lobby. The fo… By: WeAreChange

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Ramzy Baroud

To understand how thoughtless the US latest peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. One particular character who stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk. Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term. As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting. It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for April 29. The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realize that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example. Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums. Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements, and the colorful past of its honored guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the rightwing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favor, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled. He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war. These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the mans undying commitment, not to peace, but to Israel, or, more accurately, to peace as envisioned by Israel, which is the core of the ongoing crisis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace, as does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even the Minister of Economy, Naftali Bennett, leader of the extremist party, The Jewish Home, who is known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace. But it is not peace that is predicated on justice or that envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically-tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain an unmistakably racist agenda, and a colonial policy of land grabbing.

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Martin Indyks Galloping Horse:Moral Crisis in Obamas Peace

by Ramzy Baroud April 24, 2014 To understand how thoughtless the US latest peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. One particular character who stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk. Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term. As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting. It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for April 29. The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realize that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example. Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums. Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements, and the colorful past of its honored guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the rightwing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favor, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled. He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

US hands Palestine a loaded deck

US hands Palestine a loaded deck By Ramzy Baroud To understand how self-defeating the US latest “peace process” drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. Martin Indyk in particular stands out as a testament to how inherently futile the exercise is. Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerry’s selection might have appeared rational. Former ambassadors often possess the necessary expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and there are reasons why Indyk can hardly be seen a diplomat in this case. As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry dispatched his envoy to Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last-ditch effort to revive the talks and to help bridge the gap between the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. “No breakthrough was made,” an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting. This was no surprise, as no progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerry’s deadline for a “framework agreement”, slated for April 29. The Americans only want to maintain the charade of a “peace process” as it gives them an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations class themselves as honest brokers in these talks, but its quite clear that the Americans have hardly been honest in their dealings with either party. In fact, the US is not a third party at all, but was and remains in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example. Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory of Israel and its allies.

Fair Usage Law

April 24, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Should Abbas jump on Indyks galloping horse?

To understand how thoughtless the US latest peace process drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theater. One particular character who stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk. Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerrys selection may appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term. As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to Jerusalem. On April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last ditch effort to revive the talks and to help bridge the gap between the PAs Mahmoud Abbas and Israels Benjamin Netanyahu. The envoys visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have taken place between Israeli and PA negotiators. No breakthrough was made, an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting. It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerrys deadline for a framework agreement, slated for April 29. The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a peace process the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title honest broker. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realize that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first and their own interests second. Indyk is an example. Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyks most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using intellectuals and experts as mediums. Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Streets first annual convention in Washington, D.C. in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has cleverly distinguished itself as pro-peace, thus deceiving many into believing that AIPACs dominance in Washington is being seriously challenged. However, its cleverly worded statements and the colorful past of its honored guests and speakers indicate otherwise. Indyk, the rightwing Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made aliyah to Washington during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israels favor and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David, Blumenthal recalled. He quoted Indyk. I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, said Indyk. I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israels survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war. These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the mans undying commitment, not to peace, but to Israel, or, more accurately, to peace as envisioned by Israel, which is the core of the ongoing crisis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace, as does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett who is leader of the extremist party, The Jewish Home, who is known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace. But it is not peace that is predicated on justice or that envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain an unmistakably racist agenda, and a colonial policy of land grabbing. Unsurprisingly, this is the same kind of peace that the Americans envision as well. Kerrys new peace agenda is not entirely a rehash of old agendas. Yes, it is that too, but it almost completely embraces the once far-fetched ideas of Lieberman and rightwing groups, that of annexations the Jordan Valley and land swaps in exchange of main settlement blocs. When Lieberman floated these ideas a few years ago, he sounded like a deranged politician. Thanks to Kerry, it is now part of mainstream thinking. So Indyk, who dedicated a lifetime to securing an Israeli style peace, is now magically branded as the one attempting to revive talks and exert pressure on both sides like any good honest broker would do in these situations. But Indyk is not the only lobbyist-turned advocate for peace. He is one of many. Dennis Ross, one of Washingtons essential political hawks for many years and a strong supporter of the disastrous Iraq war, served as a special Middle East coordinator under Bill Clinton, and was handpicked by President Barack Obama very early on to continue to the play the same role in the new administration. Aside from the diplomats strong links to neoconservatives, especially those involved in the now defunct pro-war group, the Project for the New American Century; he also served as a consultant to the same lobby club founded by Indyk, WINEP. It was no coincident of course. WINEP, as other hawkish pro-Israeli groups, has served as an advocacy platform for Israel, and also fashioned Israeli-styled peacemakers. Interestingly, both Dennis and Indyk blamed Palestinians for the failure of previous peace talks. Blumenthal astutely highlighted Indyks J Street tirade blaming late PLO leader Arafat for the failings of the so-called Clinton peace parameters, despite the fact that Arafat had indeed accepted them. Indyk reminisced: I remember Shimon Peres saying to me at the time when Arafat had to decide whether to accept the Clinton Parameters, he said, history is a horse that gallops past your window and the true act of a statesman is to jump from the window on to a galloping horse. But of course Arafat let the galloping horse pass by leaving the Israelis and Palestinians mired in misery. Now, its Indyk, the die-hard Israel lobbyist, being sent along with another galloping horse outside Abbas window. We all know well how this is going to end, and we can imagine Indyk giving another speech at an AIPAC or J Street conference deriding Abbas for failing to jump. – Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com Email: ramzybaroud@hotmail.com

Fair Usage Law

April 22, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed

Israel lobby seeks to ruin Iran N-talks: Analyst – Video




Israel lobby seeks to ruin Iran N-talks: Analyst A political analyst says the Israeli lobby is seeking to scuttle efforts aimed at reaching a final comprehensive deal between Iran and the P5+1 over the Isla… By: 1atheo

Fair Usage Law

April 15, 2014   Posted in: Israeli Lobby  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."