The Israeli Lobby Is America's Third Party

[Rubo]

The Israeli Lobby Is America's Third Party

 

Over the course of the last five decades, the Israeli Lobby has grown in power to the extent that it now amounts to a third major party with a political program that rivals the agendas of both the Republicans and the Democrats. Like the other two contenders for political power, the party of the Israel Firsters has enhanced its stature by shifting alliances and wooing new constituents.

AIPAC, the umbrella group of 'official' pro-Israeli pressure groups, is but a small component of this major third force in the American political process. What the Israel Firsters lack in terms of an actual demographic voting constituency, they make up for by having a major stake in influential media monopolies.

Let us begin with the obvious links between the mass media titans and what is essentially an ethnic lobby. Mortimier Zuckerman, the President of Major American Jewish Organizations, publishes US World and News Report. William Safire of the New York Times publicly acknowledges doing public relations work for Ariel Sharon. Thomas Friedman has spent two decades sanitizing the criminal war record of both Begin and Sharon. Ted Koppel boasts of his personal friendship with Netenyahu. At CNN, Walter Isaccson appears to be coordinating coverage with the IDF. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post likes to pose to the right of Netenyahu. Conrad Black, the Canadian media tycoon, publishes the Jerusalem Post, which reads like a semi-official publication of the IDF.

During the Clinton years, the keys at the State Department were handed over to operatives straight from the Israeli Lobby. Martin Indyk, former head of AIPAC was made ambassador to Israel. Dennis Ross, the 'mediator', also had ideological roots in the lobby. Eagleburger, Holbrooke and Albright are all dedicated Israel Firsters.

With the change in administration, a new batch of pro-Israeli activists moved into key positions. Ideologically, they pose as 'neo-conservatives'; a movement that even the New York Times reports is mostly Jewish. In fact, the proper definition of neo-conservative is an Israel Firster who wanted to be politically viable after the Reagan 'revolution'. To a large extent, the difference between 'neo' and the 'oldo' conservatives is the country they aspire to serve. The 'oldos' are America Fisters, while the 'neos' worship the 'old country', a mystical Yiddish supremacist apartheid state built on the ruins of Palestine on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean.

In the last two decades, the Israeli Lobby has expanded its constituency to include a major new base among right wing Evangelicals who believe that Israel is always right. According to this very new and very American branch of Protestant Christianity, the bible says Israeli goons can kill and maim Palestinians, steal their land and place them under a constant stage of siege. Among the followers of this 'new religion' is one Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, who has publicly advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. This new 'constituency for repression' believes that Israel has biblical sanction to administer collective punishment and torture, destroy personal and public property and generally make life miserable for the native people of the Holy Land.

It makes little difference to these 'Zionist Christians' that the community they seek to 'cleanse' includes the oldest Christian community in the world. And it matters even less to the Israel Firsters that their doctrines also predict the mass conversion of Jews and the end of times.

Today, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, ten million people are locked in a bitter struggle over land and destiny. Nearly half of the population between the river and the sea are native Palestinians. Their desperate cry for liberty is not only ignored by America, but tens of billions in United States tax revenues are spent to assist their tormentors.

We have an American policy in the Middle East that serves the constituency of a third party that no American has ever voted for. It is an ethnic constituency that includes lunatic elements with visions of an apocalyptic end to our one common planet.

In the aftermath of the criminal assaults on America, we are long due for an investigation of the real cause of all our troubles with radicalized elements in the Middle East. Why is our Congress investigating the CIA, the FBI and the INS, when the real focus should be on the State Department and a catastrophic foreign policy that amounted to the appeasement of a belligerent foreign state run by war criminals? Why do we have an Israeli Lobby so powerful that it acts like a major political party and constantly tampers with our foreign policy to align it with the dictates of the Likudniks in Tel Aviv? What vital American national interest is served by the continued repression of the Palestinian people?

The deadly assaults against our shores on 911 could certainly have been avoided. But the notion that any American government would have sanctioned such an assault or been lax in attempting to stop it is a bit off the wall. Yet, the fact remains that both the Clinton and Bush administrations were arrogant enough to take foreign policy risks to appease the constituency of the Israeli Lobby, the phantom third party that has come to dominate public discourse on foreign policy. It was common knowledge that there would be a price to pay for the Gulf War, the Saudi military bases, the murderous economic blockade of Iraq and the humiliating occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan. If there was an intelligence failure, it was a failure to properly assess the potential cost of our errant foreign policies.

Congress is now interrogating the intelligence community. I would rather that the intelligence community started interrogating Congress. Perhaps the INS should be called upon to sort out our governors and find out which ones deserve ID cards to properly identify them as members of the third party. But since Congress is the designated investigator, perhaps they should call for the State department to come clean with the American people. How did so many members of the Israeli Lobby end up in such prominent positions at Foggy Bottom during the Clinton years? How many have found new homes in the Bush administration? Did they serve American interests or align themselves with Sharon's agenda? What measures can be taken to protect the State Department from the fundamentalist theology of the third party? Do certain ethnic publishers have an inordinate say in tailoring our policies in the Middle East and beyond? If Safire works for Sharon, should he still get a fair hearing with Colin Powell? I am certain that John Foster Dulles would have given a very candid response to all questions regarding the third party.

We are at a critical point in the history of the Republic and the world. It is essential that men of honor insist that proper scrutiny be paid to the third party. No rational discourse of the 911 disaster is possible without taking account of the ruthless nature of the operatives of the Israeli Lobby. Do not expect the New York Times, CNN or the Washington Post to instigate such a probe. They are very much part of the problem. It will be left to the brave voices of the alternative press to lead the charge and uncover some very basic truths about 911. The good news is that none of this is rocket science and the public record will eventually be set straight. Congress can investigate now or be investigated later.

 

Distorting U.S. Foreign Policy:

The Israel Lobby and American Power

by Michael Lind

Washington Report - On Middle East Affairs, May 2002

 

Today the Israel lobby distorts U.S. foreign policy in a number of ways. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, enabled by U.S. weapons and money, inflames anti-American attitudes in Arab and Muslim countries. The expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to self-determination for Kosovo, East Timor and Tibet. The U.S. strategy of dual containment of Iraq and Iran pleases Israel-which is most threatened by them-but violates the logic of realpolitik and alienates most of America's other allies. Beyond the region, U.S. policy on nuclear weapons proliferation is undermined by the double standard that has led it to ignore Israel's nuclear program while condemning those of India and Pakistan.

The debate that is missing in the U.S. is not one between Americans who want Israel to survive and those-a marginal minority-who want Israel to be destroyed. The U.S. should support Israel's right to exist within internationally recognized borders and to defend itself against threats. What is needed is a debate between those who want to link U.S. support for Israel to Israeli behavior, in the light of America's own strategic goals and moral ideals, and those who want there to be no linkage. For the American Israel lobby, Tony Smith observes in his authoritative study, Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy (Harvard), "to be a 'friend of Israel' or 'pro-lsrael' apparently means something quite simple: that Israel alone should decide the terms of its relations with its Arab neighbors and that the U.S. should endorse these terms, whatever they may be."

The Israel lobby is one special-interest pressure group among many. It is a loose network of individuals and organizations, of which the most important are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC: described by the Detroit Jewish News as "a veritable training camp for Capitol Hill staffers"-and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The Israel lobby is not identical with the diverse Jewish-American community. Many Jewish-Americans are troubled by Israeli policies and some actively campaign against them, while some non-Jewish Americans most of them members of the Protestant right- play a significant role in the lobby. Even pro-Israel groups differ on the question of Israeli policies. According to Matthew Dorf in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "The Zionist Organization of America lobbies Congress to slow the peace process. Their allies are mostly Republicans. At the same time, the Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now work to move the process along. Democrats are most sympathetic to their calls."

The Israel lobby is united not by a consensus about Israeli policies but by a consensus about U.S. policies toward Israel. Most of the disparate elements of the pro-Israel coalition support two things. The first is massive U.S. funding for Israel. As Stephen M Walt writes in International Security (Winter 2001/02), "In 1967 Israel's defense spending was less than half the combined defense expenditures of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria; today Israel's defense expenditure is 30 percent larger than the combined defense spending of these four Arab states." Israel receives more of America's foreign aid budget than any other country-$3 billion a year, two-thirds in military grants (total aid since 1979 is over $70 billion).

It is difficult to prove direct cause-and-effect connections between the power of a lobby and America's foreign policy positions. But, in the Middle East, it is hard to explain America's failure to pressure Israel into a final land-for-peace settlement-particularly since the Oslo deal in 1993-without factoring in the Israel lobby. The influence of the lobby may be easier to detect in the way U.S. positions have shifted on more specific totems of the conflict. For example, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were regarded as illegal during the Carter administration. Under Reagan, they shifted to being an "obstacle" to peace and are now just a complicating actor. Similarly, East Jerusalem vas considered by the U.S. to be part of the occupied territories but recently its status has become rather more ambiguous.

Stephen Steinlight, in an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies, describes how the Israel lobby uses donations to influence elected officials: "Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete...the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel." Steinlight adds: "For perhaps another generation... the Jewish community is thus in a position to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas." Steinlight is the recently retired director of national affairs at the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

Great article the rest http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/I...l_Lobby_US.html

[Alla]

What if other countries start taking sides and join the war. How sure are you that Saddam's missles can't reach the US? Wasn't he buying Soviet scientists so that they can work for him?

I don't think that there's any reason for the US to attack Iraq. The reasons the media and the government give us for attacking Saddam is completely BS. I think it's all about the oil, the US control in the region and what the jews want.

I think that when the US set up a military base in Georgia it was not because of the chechen and al-qaida terrorists nor it was about attacking Iraq from that region. The US was just trying to have an access in the Caucasus region.

[khodja]

The imminent attack upon Iraq is based solely on domestic American political concerns. The Bush Administration KNOWS that it is imperative that, in view of the corporate scandals and the lessening of trust in religious institutions due to paedophile priests, a diversion be created. Bush and his allies (who unfortunately include many prominent Armenians) are petrified that the Democrats are going to control Congress. Their timing gives them away. Why did they not strike at Saddam months ago? They were waiting to do it at a politcally strategic time for tje fall US elections. The real general behind all this is "General Rove", not the military command.

[Rubo]

Dear Alla, technology does not exist yet to deliver a nuclear missile fired from Middle East to reach US shores. Us have been relying nuclear submarines to do that since they can get closer to enemy’s shores.

With exception of Tony Blair kiss ass politics most European nations have shown no interests on new war on Iraq. Germany in particular and France have opposed this policy. Dear Hagarag Bush is pressed to act by powerful special interests, which also plays well in real politiks. Quick victory and win a reelection? You suspect? Wrong! Father Bush had the highest poll approval after the golf war and lost to Clinton. People care more about the economy and why should they not. I lost my job; my brother lost his business due to all the contracts going to India and China. In short this possible war on Iraq is totally unnecessary at best it is a diversion from what really takes place in Middle East and why US blindly supports Israel unconditionally. Think about this, If US made the annual three billion aids conditional to accepting peace terms then we would have had solved the situation in middle east long time ego instead of looking other way when Jewish fanatics were building illegal settlements for last twenty years. No US president can pressure Israel and expect to survive in office. Colen Powel has made it explicit that he does not support war on Iraq and he has been effectively sidelined.

[joseph]

Rubo jan how dare you tell the truth,are you sure you are not born in Jordan like me.

Hagarag are you sure you are not paid by the Jwish loby to infiltrate the Armenians,I am geting tired of you taking the Israeli side all the time,like Rubo said the palestinians have right to have an independent state to live in the WEST BANK,the same right the Armenians have to have an independent Negorno Karabkh,and asserians to have a free state.Our petriots in Artsakh did not brown nose any body to gain theire independent.

[khodja]

Rubo,

 

Bush realizes that his support is based primarily upon September 11, that he sits in office with less than 50% of the popular vote. He NEEDS to be a wartime President to shore up his popularity. Ergo, attack Iraq.

 

There was a Bush-Sharon deal made before the last election. The Turks were in on it also. Sharon takes a walk on the Al Asqa mosque to set the Palestinians into a frenzy. Barak looks bad, Clinton looks bad. Armenian Genocide Resolution is tabled. Bush and Sharon win elections. It was all planned behind the scenes.

[khodja]

Hovsep,

 

Your pseudonym is almost identical to my father's name. I think that you are a fraud, who somehow has decifered this.

 

The Palestinians had a chance to make peace with the Camp David meetings Clinton held. Clinton was more even-handed toward the Palestinians than is Bush.

 

As for me, Rubo has it right. The most sure way to make an enemy is to take away one's livelyhood. When you are a star employee and are removed because select Armenian clergy lobby for your removal, you begin to see your institutions in a different light.

[Rubo]

Dear Hovsep I was born in Tehran but spend over a decade in Yerevan but I don’t feel my views are affected by where I was born but my conscious is. Some on this forum feel that I spent too much time on Israel but its relevance to Armenia is significant since in case of renewed conflict with Azerbaijan we may have to stop Israeli arms transfer to Turkey to Azerbaijan. Israel politics and middle east is very much a relevant subject considering our biggest trading partner is Iran and other Muslim countries as well such as Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

 

Dear Hagarag and others, this site I selected was actually recommended by a Zionist from a Jewish forum. The myth of Barak generous offer at Camp David was just that a myth which was repeatedly used by media. Please read the actual conditions of Barak offer, which was not reported in the media. To empathize one must first understand any conflict as objectively as possible.

 

Extra!, July/August 2002

The Myth of the Generous Offer

Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman (Jewish)

 

The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon.com 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00).

In case the point isn‘t clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

 

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end.(!!!!) For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

[Rubo]

Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon.com 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00).

In case the point isn‘t clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

 

This is how public opinion is shaped. Distortions after Distortions peculiarly let’s look at the last names of propaganda producers E.J. Dionne, Mortimer Zuckerman, Samuel G. Freedman, Charles Krauthammer and many other Jewish editors. I will leave it at this. You make your own assessment about news reporting in this country.

[khodja]

Rubo,

 

You now see that the Israelis are in control. Armenia's best interesrs would be served as a satrap to Israel. The Palestinians have NO power and only have the power to direct suicide bombers. The annals of history are strewn with the relics of civilizations who sided with losers.

[Rubo]

I am sure some of you already think that I am an anti-semantic. This is totally false since I have to hatred to any groups of people in particular. It goes against my moral convictions. Having said this I would like to point the obvious.

US with the help of intense beyond the scenes lobbing by Jewish special interest groups are trying to get US involve yet another war against Iraq. We already had all the press leaks about aluminum pipes “discovery” suppose Iraqi nuclear program. The main question is how many innocent Iraqi children and civilians have to die to justify toppling Sadam and replacing him with a pro US puppet? Do Jewish groups have a morality issue concerning the cost of possible innocent lives lost due to “collateral damage”?

Since when small minority can dictate a whole nation to go to war to protect a foreign country’s interests even though no possible Iraqi nukes can reach US shores? Has anybody thought seriously about Israeli nuclear arsenal? Are we saying Iraqis are so stupid not to realize that attacking a country, which has the capabilities to wipe out Iraq within minutes from face of this earth? I just don’t buy Bushes sing and song about the threat of Iraq. We should perhaps examine Why 9/11 happened in the first place. If you think this is trivial think again. US war on Iraq will totally devastate US economy and they will pay that war with my and millions of unsuspected taxpayers money. I rather not support a country on a mission to kill civilians for some dubious cause.

[joseph]

Hagarag,take the YAMAK off your head before you join this Forum, it is called HyeForum.I read the jewish labor party newspaper Yediot Ahronot,on the web they have the arabic version,you are more jewish than some of the jews themselfs,the labore party and the peace now movment are against Israel ocupaying the Palestinians. About bieng fraud,Hovsep Kashishian is my real name i dont use covert names,we are from cilicia and there is nothing in my looks that look mongol or french i have brown eyes and i use to have dark black hair now its mostly silver hey what you expect i am 59 years old,and i am proud of my race i wont change it for anything.dont get hot, with your atitude of having things your way or non sure people will cast you out.

Rubo i saw the map that was represented by Clinton and Barak,you remember South Africas town ships,identical,Indian reservations,identical.

[Alla]

Hovsep,

Which Arabic news sites have news in english?

I've been trying to find good Arabic news sites, but the ones that I found are all in Arabic.

[joseph]

Alla hear are some:

www.middle east online.com

www.sahafa.com

www.jordan daily.com

www.albawaba.com [you can chose the country]

www.jordan times.com

this is what i can think now i can post more later

[joseph]

Alla i will try this again

www.middleeastonline.com

www.sahafa.com

www.jordandaily.com

www.albawaba.com

www.jordantimes.comi hope it works this time

[Rubo]

Hovsep jan,which one do you recommend or which one is most objective

[khodja]

Hovsep,

 

Your grey hair comment delineates the difference between your kind of Armenian and myself. I am almost your age and have NO grey hair, naturally. I would NEVER use hair dye or any other toxic chemical on my body. I am also a believer in the true Chritianity of Jesus, not the hierarchical forgery that conniving men have foisted upon the flock. You are a traditionalist who believes that what you have learned is the truth. I KNOW from intensive study that it is all BS. Cunning men of commerce and cunning church leaders have sold us a "Bill of Goods," all lies.

 

Your knowledge of Arabic websites and your easy understanding of Arabic shows that your perceptipns are more that of an Arab than an Armenian. My being raised among Jews gives me more of a Jewish perspective. BUT, we are both Armenians. I was married to a Lebanese Armenian. I KNOW exactly how you Araba-Hyes think.

[Rubo]

Your knowledge of Arabic websites and your easy understanding of Arabic shows that your perceptipns are more that of an Arab than an Armenian. My being raised among Jews gives me more of a Jewish perspective. BUT, we are both Armenians. I was married to a Lebanese Armenian. I KNOW exactly how you Araba-Hyes think.

Dear Hagarag, How about just human perspective! Does understanding any conflict require biases on either side?

Unfortunately your views are heavily biased against Armenians. You don’t like or loath republican Armenians but you fail to see the organic whole but you rather generalize from the margins as though you talk about the whole. It is peculiar that for whatever reasons your loyalty at least intellectually is more Jewish then Armenian. If in doubt please reread your statements. I showing great civility toward you since I do not believe alienating people is productive but Hagarag you are alienating yourself from being an Armenian.

[khodja]

Rubo,

 

Like a master vintner or master perfume maker you are distilling the essence of what Ara Baliozian has been ranting about for decades, the cause of the White Genocide. There are litmus tests established by the so-called leaders of the community (primarily wealthy merchants and church leaders) as to what you must be to be an accepted Armenian. All others are cast out and alienated from the community.

[joseph]

Hagarag,and i know how you jewe-hyes think.i still say that you are more jewish than lot of jews ,and me be able to read arabic and english gives me more perspective than you,i dont want to come down to your level and use the street language you use to atack every one that dose not think like you,i like to hear you saying one good thing about the Armenians.You are as you said 7/8 Armenian and hate us this much ,i wonder how you are going to act if you were 50/50 armenian,God help us i dont want even to think about it.

[khodja]

My late mother, 3/4 Armenian, 1/4 Assyrian all Catholic, was surprised when her bosses, associates and clients, almost all Jews, stated to her that "You are one of us."

 

You mistake my disgust with Armenian ways with a hatred of my heritage. We are not Moslems, why do Armenians approach life like Moslems?

[phantom22]

Get lost Turk boys!

 

I know that you are lurking in this Forum desperately looking to unveil something to save yourselves at your darkest hour.

[Armenak]

You're going nuts.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

You're going nuts.

 

 

[phantom22]

It is the traditional Armenians tied to the bosom of their church who are making me nuts.

 

The Pope makes pronouncements about morality while his Church is rife with immorality.

The Catholicos walks next to the Pope on most doctrinal matters.

 

 

You're going nuts.