Various US Groups Protest AIPAC Annual Conference on May 23, 2005

[norml]

Various US Groups Protest AIPAC Annual Conference on May 23, 2005

May 15, 2005



PROTEST!!
AIPAC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MONDAY, MAY 23RD
starting 4:00 PM/ MAIN RALLY 6:00-8:00 PM

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


From: [e-mail]
May 12, 2005
To Interested Groups:

The following call was initiated by the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN) and finalized by representatives of several groups, six of whom already have signed on. We hope you will join us in endorsing this very important event. We will keep you updated on further developments. Email us to endorse, to attend a Sunday May 15 evening planning meeting on Capitol Hill or if you have questions or comments. <[e-mail]> Please feel free to circulate this call.

CALL FOR MAY 23RD PROTEST OF AIPAC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

A coalition of organizations is calling for a peaceful demonstration on Monday, May 23 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at the 2005 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual conference being held May 22 to 24th at the DC Convention Center. We will gather on Massachusetts Avenue at 7th Street NW.

We do so to protest Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, its building of a separation wall through the West Bank and its current expansion of settlements, which will cut off an additional 250,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine and implement a system of de facto apartheid in the occupied territories. We protest any appearance by Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, who for over 50 years has been involved in a series of war crimes, including the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla.




snip




http://www.aljazeerah.info/15o/Various%20US%20Groups%20Protest%20AIPAC%20Annual%20Conference%20on%20%20May%2023,%202005.htm

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[norml]

2. Jewish groups support Bolton as UN diplomat

Jewish groups support Bolton as UN diplomat
By: MARILYN H. KARFELD Senior Staff Reporter



John Bolton, UN ambassador nominee, meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2003. PHOTO/AVI OHAYON/GPO


Major Jewish organizations are strongly supporting the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a fact that has flown under the public radar.

Thus far, the discussion in the Jewish community as well as nationally has centered on Bolton's alleged bullying behavior toward his subordinates.

During confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, senators heard testimony that Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, repeatedly intimidated or tried to fire those intelligence analysts who disagreed with him. Other critics complained about his anti-UN statements and less-than-diplomatic negotiations on international issues.

However, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International (BBI), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) all back Bolton's nomination.




snip



http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/local/bcover0513.txt

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Judicious Editing of the Cleveland Jewish News Excerpt

THE INVITATION IN APPEND "3. INVITATION FROM A ZIONIST IN HIS NON-ZIONIST, AMERICAN PERSONA" TO LUNCH AT THE RED CROSS CONVENTION STILL STANDS


The excerpt from the Cleveland Jewish News has been edited somewhat. I am a liberal; and a humanitarian - so I am not saying the editing was done in bad faith. But to give a "fair and balanced" picture, I am appending some the segments that ere edited out:

The Jewish groups all cite Bolton's forceful role in the successful 1991 U.S.-led effort to repeal a 16-year-old United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. The Jewish organizations also emphasize that Bolton will be able to reform the UN.

<snip> -- paragraph deleted from original

(comments attributed to Prof. Michael Scharf, director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University, an expert in international criminal law, who worked with Bolton in the State Department from 1991-93.)

While Scharf praises Bolton's achievement in repealing the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, he feels Bolton would not make a good UN ambassador.

Revoking the UN Zionism resolution, which Scharf says he and Bolton worked on for an entire year, "changed the whole environment at the UN for the Mideast peace process. While that resolution was on the books, it was all about bashing Israel."

<snip> paragraph deleted from original

Bolton does not believe "international law is real law," says Scharf. "He thinks it's all political commitments that can be broken at will."
--http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/local/bcover0513.txt

I am not going to debate the "United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism." because I know that reasonable, progressive, humanitarian liberals working for just and lasting peace can differ. I merely put the heretofore deleted portions in to show motivation of the groups referred to therein, and not any DUers or appenders.

THE INVITATION IN APPEND "3. INVITATION FROM A ZIONIST IN HIS NON-ZIONIST, AMERICAN PERSONA" TO LUNCH AT THE RED CROSS CONVENTION STILL STANDS

[not systems]

5. Prof. Michael Scharf sounds like a great guy so what is wrong with ...

the others. The real issue is what these organized
groups that claim to represent many people are doing.

...
"However, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International (BBI), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) all back Bolton's nomination."
...

I hope people let these groups especially the ADL which is supposed
civil rights organization know that supporting the retrograde
nominee John Bolton undermines their claim to be anything other
right wing Bush supporting hacks.

[Colorado Blue]

8. This has 100% to do with fact that Bolton was a key factor

in changing the definition of "Zionism" in the UN.

Zionism is, pure, simply and ONLY, about the Jewish people's requirement for their homeland.

It is not a sneaky, evil, rascist, conspiratorial doctrine dedicated to creating evil.

You must be aware that books like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was published widely in the Middle East early in the 20th century and which continues to be taught AS ACTUAL HISTORY in schools, are having a terrible toll of the ability of Jewish people to get along in the Middle East.

Of course, people believe that stuff widely here too.

If you need more proof of this, please see this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x91831

[not systems]

11. Yes that seems to be the case...

I understand the Zionism is nothing more or less that the
idea that Israel is the homeland for Jewish people.

That is something I agree with.

What I don't like about these groups involvement in US
politics working against things I believe in. For example
the idea that the UN should be a forum for resolution of
international conflict and that the rule of law should
take president over nationalistic aims like expanding a
countries borders by war.

I am aware of the history of the slander that Jews control
the world or banking ect. exist in the world but I don't see
why that should prevent people from examining the actions of
groups like AIPAC, JINSA, and the ADL. When these groups
choose to take positions that support political figures in
the US that are strongly polarizing one can only expect that
it will bring greater attention to these actions.

I don't need proof that anti-Semitism exists what I need
is proof that US internal politics and foreign relations are
not being partly based on what is best for Israel or at least
what very powerful right wing Zionists both Jewish and
Christian think is best at the detriment of other more
general interests and values.

I see evidence that US relations with all Islamic countries are damaged
because of the perception that the US is a one sided supporter
of Israel. Unfortunately the evidence that this is true seems
overwhelming. No amount of pointing out that Islam is evil or
violent or backward will change the fact that it exists and
is a huge force in the world and without improving US relations
or at least reaching a mutual respect and non-aggression I see
war for the rest of my life.

[Colorado Blue]

13. I think the US has a long way to go with foreign relations.

As far as the Islamic world is concerned, they totally do not seem to have a clue. Firing Arabic speakers because they are gay, for example, is beyond stupid. And mistreating the Koran, and torturing people - it's - unbelievable.

I suspect there is a Christian bias working as well, so it might not be simple ignorance, but actual bias against Muslims. That, I hope, is not true of the mainstream.

As far as support for Israel is concerned - it's VITAL. Given the tiny size and population of Israel, the fact that is has been and is repeatedly attacked - I don't see how, in conscience, we can turn our backs. Although, it is one of the goals of Israel to become more self-reliant and less dependent on the US - but that can't happen in the teeth of hatred.

How can the Israelis stand on their own in the face of continual promises that they will be exterminated and their nation destroyed? This really isn't an exaggeration!

And, I think people have an exaggerated sense of Jewish and Israeli power in the world.

Israel is essentially a tiny client state of the US - not its master. It's the perception of Jewish power that is so terribly dangerous, it has worked to get us blown away in the past and we're afraid of that now.

I think it is both necessary and possible, to treat the Islamic world with more respect and consideration, without leaving Israel to be damaged or destroyed.

But thus far, our governments haven't been doing such a good job at diplomacy.

In fact, the Great Powers are guilty of actually causing trouble, even to the point of starting wars, in order to keep control of the region. The Soviets are directly responsible for lies to Egypt that led to the 6-Day war and Kissinger is said to have jump-started the Yom Kippur war. So here we are.

***

At least, people are becoming aware that it is both stupid and wrong to ignore the existence, history and culture of the Muslim people. That is long overdue.

For their part, Muslims do not regard other religions as equals. That is part of the problem with Israel. I think it is difficult for them to accept that Jews could make a nation and also fight like men, when Dhimmi laws say they can't even ride a horse and they are often referred to as monkeys and dogs.

And unfortunately, with a few exceptions, the Arabian people in particular haven't had leaders like Ataturk, and the Iranian leaders, good, progressive leaders, have been sabotaged by the oil industry.

In Mandate Palestine, the British, over the objections of local leaders, installed a radical and very bigoted person, Haj Amin al Husseini, as Mufti of Jerusalem - who fomented terrible riots, killing thousands of Arabs and Jews, and wound up working for Hitler. His legacy haunts us still. The British put the Wahabis in power, along with members of the Saud family. The Ba'ath party is said to have been founded by agents of Vichy France, its leaders entranced by the Nazis.

The machinations of Empire have had disastrous effects.

In any case, reforms in the perceptions of women and minorities are difficult to achieve when the trend has been toward Islamist extremism, and is actually driving things BACKWARD.

Yet, the Israeli Sharansky - and others, including Bush - and in this I think he is sincere - believe that Arabian people both need and deserve democratic government, and that democracy in the region is vital for the interests of peace. I agree with them.

We all have work to do, I think.

[Colorado Blue]

29. I'd like to respond to your comments about AIPAC, and also

more generally, to your comments concerning people who post here, and whom you seem to think are overly protective of Jews and/or Israel.

In the best of all possible worlds, it would indeed be possible to talk about AIPAC, so forth, without starting a violently antisemitic and/or one-sided Israel-bashing festival. Unfortunately, there is a lot of inherent prejudice in our culture, as there was in Europe. Conflation of the war in Iraq with Jewish interests is a serious problem and is making matters worse.

Frankly, I think this is a set-up. I think the Rove spin machine couldn't have found a better person than a Jew known as "The Prince of Darkness" to go on the tube and talk about the war in Iraq, if he'd invented one. Further, I think Israel is getting set up to take a hit on Iran. If she doesn't do what the US says, she's fucked. If she does do what the US says, she's fucked.

Either way, there are 6 million human beings in Israel, locked together with millions of innocent Palestinian people, whose lives are up for grabs, and who most certainly are threatened and victimized by Big Power politics.

In any case, and this includes 9/11 conspiracy theories, the old Zionist World Domination and Sneaky Jewish Conspiracy Theories and Jewish Double Agency Conspiracy Theories are rearing their ugly heads in a way that is really frightening.

So if some of us seem a little hysterical, it is because we ARE. Jewish people are becoming frightened.

My in-laws are German, served in Hitler's Luftwaffe. They are familiar with Bad Signs. They think we're in big trouble. If THEY think we're in Big Trouble, I agree with them. A friend tells me no less a personage than David Irving, Holocaust Denier, gave a speech recently in which he said something like, "If I were an American Jew today - I'd SPLIT."

Does this help?

We're not nuts. We're historians.

Finally, support of Israel is NOT inherently a rightwing cause. In recent years, it's somehow been made out to be one. Yet, Israel is a tiny, democratic state, trying to remain democratic while fighting a war that really started in the '20's, and which has spanned a world war, the holocaust, 5 subsequent wars, terrorism, a population explosion and continuous acts of terrorism and threats of genocide.

Yet, the left wing press and academia have focused only on what they've seen in the last few years or so, since Arafat refused statehood. Even so, the violence has gone both ways. Jewish deaths have rised dramatically since the Oslo accords - when peace SHOULD have been in the works, more violence ensued.

Moreover, leftists - who should be concerned about minority rights and women's rights and democratic causes - seem enamored of Islamism and cultures which represent the EXACT OPPOSITE of what democracy and liberalism stand for.

Frankly I do not get it.

So, we feel increasingly isolated and afraid.

Does this make sense?

[not systems]

30. Yes it does...

and I agree with much that was said in this post.

First I agree Zionism is not a left or a right wing issue
it is a neutral issue on our standard political graph.

I agree that it is possible that some one like Rove or
Poppy Bush is probably capable of laughing about making
Pearl, Wolfowitz and Ari's faces and names synonymous with
war since they all are easily identifiable as ethnicly
Jewish. I don't know if they did but I wouldn't put it
past them.

What is hard to take is the idea that all Israeli
actions and supporters are victims of anti-Semitic
criticism when they are called out for their actions.
I have seen endless posts accusing people of a various
of things from being Nazi dupes to being guilt of
perpetuating blood libel myths. I for one find this
tactic over the top and suggest that a more open and
less hostile approach might be better.

On this site frequently people like me have leftist
heroes like Chomsky who take strong stands
against the war and strong stands against right wing
Israeli policies. It is not surprising that when these
people are attacked for this people will defend them.
I also think that prominent right wingers like Horowitz
make for an increasingly polarized situation between
Zionist's and leftists. It is also obvious that many
leftists are Jewish so I can't accept that the left wing
Jews are bad ones or have identity issues or whatever
it makes no sense. Why can't I take their thoughts and
ideas more seriously than people like Horowitz.

One good thing about DU is that people can talk across
some of our cultures divides and can learn what other
people think. I do appreciate you resent personal
responses much more than dozens of posts about historical
details that frankly don't interest me much.

[Colorado Blue]

31. Thanks for your response. I didn't understand the last

sentence though?

I have a confession. I'm getting confused lately over what is left and what is right, or what is left and what is wrong, and what is right and wrong:)

So nu, you're confused already also?

Some examples, hopefully they'll clarify:

Articles from Front Page, which I've seen recently, seem excellent, informative and well-balanced. Yet, people say, Front Page is a HATE SITE.

Articles from LEFT wing (I guess) papers or sites, have had screaming banner headlines, like, "WAKE UP AMERICANS! ZIONISTS HAVE TAKEN OVER YOUR GOVERNMENT!"

This, I find confusing.

Also, people who probably consider themselves progressive or liberal are confused when we get up in their face for posting from al Jazeera or zMag. I think that's probably because they don't understand how innaccurate, inciting and polarizing these sites really are. The Iranians have turned al Jazeera OFF for fomenting violence. I don't know if it's back on or not, but they were accused for trying to start violent trouble among the Arab tribes in Southwest Iran. That should tell us something.

Also, there is a LOT of Saudi money floating around academia these days. I have no doubt but what that is affecting the political discourse among the young. So when people say AIPAC is influencing American politics, I say, look to who REALLY has big bucks - worry a little about THEM.

In any case, I, as a liberal, don't understand why the incitement of violence or the wholesale enthusiasm for repressive regimes is enticing to my fellow liberals. Sharansky, for example, who supports free societies, he gets destroyed on LBN and GD - people prefer BUCHANAN, of all people. They'd rather see dictatorships maintained than listen to a Jewish Israeli. That confuses me and I think it leads to misunderstandings on I/P also.

This is one reason some of us - myself included, from time to time, post a lot of historical detail. I guess we figure, well, if people understood more they'd judge less, and we could talk more, and so forth.

In any case, I'm pooped!

Later, thanks for the conversation. When you have time, let me know what you think.

PS, I think a lot of us find ourselves taking a harder stand than we would like, regarding Israel and certain heavy-footed tactics and/or politicians, for example, because we feel very threatened. Nuance is lost under attack, so maybe we all come off like Nudnik Likudniks:)

Personally, I feel Sharon has transformed since Arafat died. He's leading the point for change and progress now. They were dark mirrors of each other. So he's being demonized unfairly, to be honest.

And, people are truly attempting to delegitimize and demonize the entire state - AND domestic Jews and Jewish politicians. Revisionist history is a serious problem that is likely to "disappear" us. There are zillions of wildly innaccurate and slanderous websites out there, and others more subtly misleading. So we are worried.

I think I can speak for all of us here on DU, who support Israel: we ARE concerned that the Palestinians should be treated well! We just don't want to lose Israel in the process; we seek a fair balance, and we seek respect for our heritage.

[Darranar]

32. A serious question...

Can you find a single English Aljazeera article that you find "inaccurate" or "inciting"?

I've been reading it pretty consistently for a long time now, and one or two headlines I've seen could have been interpreted the wrong way, but I don't have many problems with it. It is rather clearly from an Arab perspective, but that is striking only because most people are used to the American perspective of the American press.

[Colorado Blue]

37. Sure. The one about AIPAC left out several key paragraphs,

which entirely changed the tone of the article, as Coastie points out. In a post following his, I pointed this out and complained about it, and used it as an example of why I, at least, feel this news source is NOT objective when dealing with Jewish affairs whether domestic or Israeli.

The Jewish groups all cite Bolton's forceful role in the successful 1991 U.S.-led effort to repeal a 16-year-old United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. The Jewish organizations also emphasize that Bolton will be able to reform the UN.

<snip> -- paragraph deleted from original

(comments attributed to Prof. Michael Scharf, director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University, an expert in international criminal law, who worked with Bolton in the State Department from 1991-93.)

While Scharf praises Bolton's achievement in repealing the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, he feels Bolton would not make a good UN ambassador.

Revoking the UN Zionism resolution, which Scharf says he and Bolton worked on for an entire year, "changed the whole environment at the UN for the Mideast peace process. While that resolution was on the books, it was all about bashing Israel."

<snip> paragraph deleted from original

Bolton does not believe "international law is real law," says Scharf. "He thinks it's all political commitments that can be broken at will."
--http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/05/13/...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=91625&mesg_id=91822&page=

***

There's another in the thread about the closing of the 2 vote offices in Jerusalem. It's linked. If you compare it to the original from Reuters you'll see what I mean.

Israel closes Palestinian vote offices in Jerusalem
5/10/2005 7:03:00 PM GMT

Israeli police attacked and shut down two Palestinian vote offices in Arab East Jerusalem that were registering voters for a July parliamentary ballot, claiming that they are operating illegally.


http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8196

The way the piece was worded - they used the same headline as the original but changed key words here and there, for example they dropped in the word "attacked", making it sound like a violent episode. The whole tone of the piece was thus subtly but unmistakably changed, and had a definite slant which was NOT apparent in the original.

And, other reports of Israeli misdeeds were added to the article, so the overall impact was very different from the original piece, and far beyond its scope. It gives the feeling, with those reinforcing paragraphs of OTHER incidents, "oh those horrible Israelis" - which the Reuters piece does NOT. If the readership ALREADY is thinking, oh those horrible Israelis, it certainly would reinforce a pre-existing mindset.

***

Similarly the piece about the Jews recommending Bolton left out the RATIONALE behind their having done so, which is because he dealt with the UN on the conflation of Zionism with rascism, and is seen as someone who can reform the UN, as well mentioning as dissenting opinions from within the Jewish community.

Does this make sense? Leaving those paragraphs out of the article made it sound as if AIPAC loves this horrible rightwing cowboy for no particularly good reason. The reader might then conclude, whoa, those horrible Jews, they all love Bolton, that figures. Etc.

As to the tsunami incident, the actual ARTICLES didn't claim the Israelis caused it - although there were other services that DID claim that - and I understand the non-English versions did also - but the headlines most certainly inferred that they did.

In one piece I saw, they dropped in a question mark at the end, so it looked like a question, but the subliminal message was unmistakable. It read something, "Tsunami Man Made?", then sort of dropped the, "some people say that it was caused..." into the article. The article then concluded there was no evidence that people DID cause the tsunami - but the damage was done by that point. The very fact that the question was ASKED is rather astonishing.

Here's another example of a headline having a subliminal impact on the reader:

The U.S. knew about the tsunami

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6430

Now, the ARTICLE modified the headline but I think the impact got through loud and clear.

These changes or innaccuracies or additions of charged words such as "attacked" don't have to be particularly striking in and of themselves, but they add up to editorializing and thus go beyond the reportage of news. Certainly the use of banner headlines is an age-old attention getter that simultaneously influences the reader's thought processes.

I grew up in and have worked in the advertising business so I'm hypersensitive to these things.

Perhaps you'd need to see the original pieces, like the Reuters piece in the one case and the Cleveland Jewish News piece in the other, to really pick up on it, and see how much these little nips and tucks affect the feeling of the articles.

We accuse Fox of this kind of thing all the time, and think it is bad.

Certainly, for a reader unfamiliar with the complexities of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, or one who is predisposed toward antisemitism or anti-Zionism, al-Jazeera is a paper guaranteed to slant or reinforce his impressions.

I must add, al-Jazeera is mild compared to many.

[Darranar]

38. Different institutions...

I am talking about this al-Jazeera, which is the one ranted about in the American press.

Aljazeera.com is a different institution. See their About Us section.

[Colorado Blue]

40. Thanks - I was using the .com articles. I'll look at the

other one. Sorry for the error.

[Colorado Blue]

45. I'm puzzled. The lead post doesn't link now. I don't think

that's an aljazeera.com link. It's the one I was referring to, that cut key paragraphs.

[Englander]

46. Aljazeera.net =Aljazeera TV station.

If in doubt,look for this symbol on the page;



The link that started this thread is "aljazeerah.info",
which appears to be a different organisation to the ".net",
& the ".com" varieties.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Editorials/2002/April%202002/Mission.htm

Also,the ".info" version is spelt aljazeeraH.

So,"Aljazeera.net" is innocent!:)

[Colorado Blue]

47. Thanks. I apologize for the confusion!!!! Bigtime. nt

[Colorado Blue]

39. I had one further thought. This has to do with left wing

vs. LEFT WING.

I, for example, admire Chomsky also, for his anti-war stance, and his general humanitarianism. So, you'll know where I'm coming from.

However, there are people who bug me. Three types:

1) Left wingers who think they hold the moral high ground absolutely.

I may have felt this way when I was 17 but at 55 I know that things are considerably more complex than that.

2) People who think they are progressives but have gone so far left they are right. In other words, they have looped around and become reactionaries. Into this group I lump the so-called "anti-Zionists". Listen - Israel exists, it is here, so what can you possibly mean by "anti-Zionist" except that you wish to destroy Eretz Israel?

With these people, I have a BIG PROBLEM. They are reactionaries and actually are calling for blood. Since I DO admire humanitarians and progressives, I do NOT admire people who want to go BACKWARDS.

3) People who are unrealistic. Many leftists fall into this camp, and they frequently overlap with category 1). In a sense I think this often stems from a GOOD thing, which is a desire to do and BE, good. BUT, it frequently results in a viewpoint which utterly disregards real life problems, such as the existence of terrorists - which ARE REAL, even though George Bush says they are:)

Thus, demands for Israel to withdraw IMMEDIATELY to the "Green Line", neither address the fact that Israel is a democracy and has to deal with ALL her citizens, even the right-wing assholes, BUT, the border situation really does suck, and there really are violent people out there, and negotiations are needed to establish security for Israel AND the Palestinians.

And a peace treaty sure would be nice:)

[tobeornottobe]

49. I agree with your categorizations.

And, I would add a fourth category, (perhaps it is a corrollary of category # 2), in which some people will not address the existence of any faults in a non-western culture or society if it cannot be blamed on western colonialism or imperialism, especually of the American variety, and the more it can be attributed to Zionist machinations over hapless America, the better.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. INVITATION from a Zionist in his non-Zionist, American persona

we are all humanitarians. So, I will repeat my invitation that I am making in all of my appends through May 25-->

This is an open invitation for all DUers who do more then post about working for peace and humanity -- and given enough of themselves to be invited to the American Red Cross's US National Convention (no, not Magen David Adom - but the Red CROSS:

The invitation at General Discussion is for real - if you are a DUer and volunteer significantly in NGO's (e.g., here the Red CROSS = not MDA) for service to humanity - join me for lunch. PM me - and we'll set up a time and place at the San Francisco Convention.

So, to repeat the invitation, any DUers going to the Red Cross National Convention in San Francisco on May 27-30 - please PM me---> I am on the "Local Chapter Convention Support Committee" and would like to chat with DUers who will be in our lovely "City By The Sea" (Second Bluest City of the Bluest Region of the Bluest State)

[norml]

6. A small part of the greater AIPAC espionage story

A small part of the greater AIPAC espionage story
Xymphora

Sunday, May 15, 2005


From the New York Times <1>(I'm waiting with bated breath for the New York Times story on the Blair cabinet memo that proves that Bush lied about the war in Iraq, a story to be written of course by Judith Miller):

"At one point last summer, Mr. Franklin had agreed to help the government with the investigation before ending his cooperation when it became evident that prosecutors wanted to charge him with a crime. During that time, he made several telephone calls to possible subjects in the case, including one to Mr. Weissman, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. The call was surreptitiously monitored and recorded by F.B.I. agents.

In the conversation with Mr. Weissman, Mr. Franklin said he had learned that Iran was seeking to encourage or engage in attacks against Israelis in northern Iraq, people who have been officially briefed on the case said. They said that Mr. Weissman told Mr. Rosen of the conversation and that the two men are believed to have passed the information to an Israeli official who was an intelligence officer. It is not clear whether the information was based on actual information or was fabricated to lure the two Aipac officials into incriminating themselves."


This is pro-Israel spin, recycling the old Jerusalem Post story <2> that all Franklin did was pass on information that was concocted as part of a sting operation by FBI anti-Semites to entrap AIPAC. The last quoted line of the New York Times story is just a paraphrase of the line in the Jerusalem Post ("It is unclear whether the 'classified' information was real or bogus."). The story doesn't make much sense on the face of it. Considering the relationship between Israel and the United States, it is impossible to believe that the United States wouldn't inform Israel that Iranian agents were going to attack Israelis in Kurdistan. If that didn't happen, you can be certain that Douglas Feith would have picked up the hotline in his office connected directly to Sharon's office and passed the information on immediately. The AIPAC dudes were smart enough to have seen right through this. The only good that came out of the entrapment story is that it forced the Israelis to admit they were operating in Kurdistan (another scoop <3> by Seymour Hersh, and a story that was immediately and vociferously denied by Israel).



snip



http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11766&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[Coastie for Truth]

12. I assume you are RSVPing to my invitation in Append 3

we can discuss the Xymphora blog in uruknet.info over lunch. How does Friday sound? Ciao.

See - I don't desecrate the Host, or use Palestinian toddler blood in my Passover Matzohs, or run death camps with Xyklon B gas, or poison wells, or spread plague. I don't molest little gentile children. I don't spy for foreign powers. I support the Democratic ticket - and tithe to the DCCC and DU. I belong to the ACLU and AI. I help poor people who have been burned or flooded out of their homes, or help them get their lives together after earthquakes or hurricanes.

[norml]

16. You seem anxious to put all sorts of ridiculous labels on me for posting

information about a protest to be held, against something I personally think is worth protesting. In the time I've been on DU I've not posted much about AIPAC, or Israel. In fact, I've not posted anything on AIPAC, or Israel. Is this typical of what anyone who posts anything critical of AIPAC, or Israel can expect? Isn't it possible that I might love Jewish people and culture, while at the same time I might hate what AIPAC, and Israel are doing? When you jump all over me, on my first post on this subject, you only cause me to draw my own conclusions about how rational you are on this subject.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. I was trying to be a good host

and a good humanitarian Red Cross Disaster worker, and a good liberal, and a good progresive -- and invite you to be my guest for lunch during the Red Cross Natiional Convention.

You could have just said "Decline"

I posted an invitation at append #3 - to show the DUer's who are also Red Cross Volunteers some San Francisco Hospitality. You responded to my invitation (Append #3) with your append #6 about "A small part of the greater AIPAC espionage story - Xymphora"

I courteously responded in append #12--
"I assume you are RSVPing to my invitation in Append 3 --
we can discuss the Xymphora blog in uruknet.info over lunch. How does Friday sound? Ciao.

See - I don't desecrate the Host, or use Palestinian toddler blood in my Passover Matzohs, or run death camps with Xyklon B gas, or poison wells, or spread plague. I don't molest little gentile children. I don't spy for foreign powers. I support the Democratic ticket - and tithe to the DCCC and DU. I belong to the ACLU and AI. I help poor people who have been burned or flooded out of their homes, or help them get their lives together after earthquakes or hurricanes."

To which you responded (Append #16)

"You seem anxious to put all sorts of ridiculous labels on me for posting --- information about a protest to be held, against something I personally think is worth protesting. In the time I've been on DU I've not posted much about AIPAC, or Israel. In fact, I've not posted anything on AIPAC, or Israel. Is this typical of what anyone who posts anything critical of AIPAC, or Israel can expect? Isn't it possible that I might love Jewish people and culture, while at the same time I might hate what AIPAC, and Israel are doing? When you jump all over me, on my first post on this subject, you only cause me to draw my own conclusions about how rational you are on this subject"

If you are a Red Cross volunteer and are going to be at the San Francisco Convention - I'll spring for lunch - that's what started this exchange. If you're not - that's ok, too.

I did not jump all over you. I invited to a San Francisco lunch - and told you that I do not fit the stereotypes.

[norml]

22. Sorry, I've no way to travel to San Francisco for lunch.

I've not managed to go on any sort of road trip, or vacation since 1999. Congratulations on being a Red Cross volunteer. Congratulations on living in San Francisco. Thanks for the invitation, but I have to be at my job, here in Lincoln Nebraska.

[not systems]

23. I feel some what the same...

for years I have been on DU and mostly avoided the IP forum
because it is so unhappy and rancorous. It is not really
a big issue for me except for where it intersect US policy and
issues of war and peace.

Then about a month ago I was jumped all over and accused of
a wide variety of things by certain residents of this forum.

After getting a good solid flaming I decided to spend some time
hanging around at seeing what the truly dedicated in this forum
are up to.

It is very hard to get a hold of the terminology and sensitivity
of this topic but it has been informative.

I can say that most of the ardent and strident defenders of
every action of Israel are on many other issues people I would
be in agreement with.

But when it comes to AIPAC, JINSA or some actions of the ADL
the truly dedicated have no room for disagreement and people
who do will be attacked as scapegoating and/or being anti-Semitic.

It certainly is an interesting bunch and being rational doesn't
seem to play a very large roll in many posts.

I have been on the internet for long enough to note that
everyone is not what they seem and some people are
just nuts. So I alway try to maintain a healthy skepticism
of people motives.

I have checked out the sick forum LGF and have discovered that
no group has a shortage of hate and when I see similar sentiments
here I find it distasteful. Fortunately most people have a more
compassionate view of the suffering of others including people
they consider enemies.

I'm glad that I have many friends, coworkers and heroes who
are Jewish because if I was to only to base my impressions on
the people on LGF or the most aggressive and accusatory people
here I would get a very negative impression.

Fortunately that is not the case.

[Colorado Blue]

7. It is WRONG to edit key paragraphs from articles like this.

The fact that Bolton is a creep in many ways does NOT repudiate the fact that the UN is notorious for Israel-bashing.

Cutting out these key paragraphs is a very bad thing to do, it changes the entire tenor of the rationale for supporting Bolton, and it also indicates that Jewish people as a group do not necessarily support him - factors completely lost by cutting these out:

The Jewish groups all cite Bolton's forceful role in the successful 1991 U.S.-led effort to repeal a 16-year-old United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. The Jewish organizations also emphasize that Bolton will be able to reform the UN.

<snip> -- paragraph deleted from original

(comments attributed to Prof. Michael Scharf, director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University, an expert in international criminal law, who worked with Bolton in the State Department from 1991-93.)

While Scharf praises Bolton's achievement in repealing the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, he feels Bolton would not make a good UN ambassador.

Revoking the UN Zionism resolution, which Scharf says he and Bolton worked on for an entire year, "changed the whole environment at the UN for the Mideast peace process. While that resolution was on the books, it was all about bashing Israel."

<snip> paragraph deleted from original

Bolton does not believe "international law is real law," says Scharf. "He thinks it's all political commitments that can be broken at will."


--http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/05/13/...

I'm curious. Why are we posting articles that miss key paragraphs?

Al Jazeera is NOTORIOUS for slanting articles, written by or derived from other sources, to put the worst possible antisemitic or anti-Israeli spin on them. That should most certainly be taken into account when posting from this site. I can provide an example, which is relatively mild, but which will show exactly what I mean.

Links on request.

[norml]

9. I've never edited anything I've posted. First four paragraphs, then snip.

That's all. And if you want to post any links yourself, that's fine by me.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Not accusing YOU of doing it. I'm accusing al Jazeera, and

saying it's notorious for things like this.

It makes them an unreliable source of news - particularly about ANYTHING to do with Jews.

After the tsunami, they published banner headlines implying that Israel had caused it. Things like that resonate in regions already preconditioned to hatred and fear.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think that Jewish/Israeli doctors weren't permitted to help the victims in Indonesia, though they volunteered immediately.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. When I was a TA

A response like that would have been an F

[norml]

15. Various US Groups Protest AIPAC Annual Conference on May 23, 2005

Opinion Editorials, May 2005, To see today's opinion articles, click here: www.aljazeerah.info




Various US Groups Protest AIPAC Annual Conference on May 23, 2005

May 15, 2005



PROTEST!!
AIPAC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MONDAY, MAY 23RD
starting 4:00 PM/ MAIN RALLY 6:00-8:00 PM

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


From: [e-mail]
May 12, 2005
To Interested Groups:

The following call was initiated by the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN) and finalized by representatives of several groups, six of whom already have signed on. We hope you will join us in endorsing this very important event. We will keep you updated on further developments. Email us to endorse, to attend a Sunday May 15 evening planning meeting on Capitol Hill or if you have questions or comments. <[e-mail]> Please feel free to circulate this call.

CALL FOR MAY 23RD PROTEST OF AIPAC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

A coalition of organizations is calling for a peaceful demonstration on Monday, May 23 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at the 2005 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual conference being held May 22 to 24th at the DC Convention Center. We will gather on Massachusetts Avenue at 7th Street NW.

We do so to protest Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, its building of a separation wall through the West Bank and its current expansion of settlements, which will cut off an additional 250,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine and implement a system of de facto apartheid in the occupied territories. We protest any appearance by Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, who for over 50 years has been involved in a series of war crimes, including the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla.

We also protest AIPAC’s role in supporting Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials’ threats to take military actions against Iran’s nuclear energy facilities and their efforts to involve the United States in such attacks. Two AIPAC officials, recently fired after months of vigorous public support by AIPAC, have been implicated in press reports as having received "highly classified" information on Iran from Defense Department analyst Larry Franklin, who has been arrested in the case, and possibly passing the information on to the state of Israel.




snip




http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2005%20Opinion%20Editorials/May/15o/Various%20US%20Groups%20Protest%20AIPAC%20Annual%20Conference%20on%20%20May%2023,%202005.htm

[Coastie for Truth]

17. I dug through SUSTAINS web site

Calls for complete and total boycott - even of goods having nothing to do with the occupation or military or law enforcement -- like digital image processing systems; cardiac diagnostic devices, digital video cameras focused on medical and industrial applications, Disposable saliva ejectors, Educational computer systems & mobile training units, Educational training and entertainment multimedia systems; interactive multimedia courseware (biological), Electrocardiograph Equipment, Fertilizer pumps, Geothermal development, Lympha Press - a sequential pneumatic compression device for the treatment of lymphedema, Meat Alternatives (Veggie Burgers etc) Veggie Patch line (Stop and Shop, other markets), Medical & industrial recording paper, Medical diagnostic imaging systems, Medical Diagnostic products, Patient monitoring equipment, and lots of food products, and lots of arid/desert agricultural hardware (specialty irrigation, etc.)

Here's the link to SUSTAIN's list of items to boycott -- http://www.boycottisraeligoods.org/modules11748.php (IT IS NOT A DEAD LINK -- WOULD NOT OPEN WITH MOZILLA OR NETSCAPE -- ONLY WITH MS INTERNET EXPLORER)

Yes they want peace. The peace of a Judenrein ME.

[Darranar]

18. Could you link to that call, please?

Their Ten Things You Can Do To Support a Free Palestine only calls for divestment and a boycott of settler goods, not a complete boycott.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. The above link

was in the "sustain" web site -- lists the goods and manufacturers to be boycotted. Very detailed -- I could only open it with IE ---> not Netscape or Mozilla.

Mozilla and Netscape only gave me a bunch of HTML code.

[norml]

20. Zionism vs. Intellectual Freedoms on American College Campuses

Zionism vs. Intellectual Freedoms on American College Campuses

......... by David Green May 15, 2005
Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend

It has become obvious during the course of this academic year (2004-05)—if it was not already—that campus advocacy of Zionist ideology and Israeli state interests is shamelessly repressive of open and respectful discourse based on high standards of evidence, argument, and morality. This repression targets basic 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and press; academic and more general intellectual freedoms; and—most crucially—the political freedom to translate well-documented truths and carefully considered moral judgments into advocacy and activism. Like the struggle in Israel and Palestine, conflict on college campuses has an asymmetrical quality. On one side is a vigilant, proactive, and well-funded campaign by Israeli and Jewish-American organizations in support of the policies of the Israeli government, and the funding of those policies by the U.S. government. On the other side is a campaign to disseminate information regarding the history and reality of the Israel/Palestine conflict that has rightfully been incorporated into the conventional wisdom of scholarship, international law, and the reports of major human rights organizations. But unlike the struggle in the Middle East, supporters of Israel cannot use violence with impunity, and thus—in spite of blatant political intimidation by advocates for Israel—the struggle is a spirited and hopeful one for advocates of Palestinian rights, who have the much greater part of truth and conscience on their side.

Before considering this phenomenon, I would offer a few observations about the larger political context. First, U.S. policies toward the Middle East, including Israel, are driven by American priorities; albeit these priorities have over the past 40 years increasingly coincided with those of Israel, culminating in the current era of Neocon-Likud collaboration. Nevertheless, when there are conflicting interests, such as in the Jonathan Pollard case and the current investigation into AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) spying, it becomes clear that the U.S. administration will put its foot down, and that both Israel and American Jewish leaders will comply, if not without disingenuous and face-saving complaint. Second, the power of AIPAC is directed not so much at the policies of the executive branch, which are largely determined by geopolitical and defense industry interests, but at the Congress. No member can be allowed to leave the reservation of long-running American/Israeli rejection of a just solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict without public punishment, including charges of anti-Semitism and extravagant funding of opposing candidates. Finally, suffice it to say that the mainstream media, for reasons both inherent in the “manufacture of consent” and specific to this problem, make it impossible for the average U.S. citizen to understand the blatant reality of Palestinian victimization. Thus relatively little effort has to be made by Jewish Zionist organizations to shape the views of Americans in general about Israel and Palestine, especially when one considers the strenuous efforts of Christian Zionists to this end.

It is in this context that college campuses have become the primary venue, such as it is, of honest and disruptive discourse about this conflict, and the primary focus of efforts by Zionist organizations to curtail the freedoms that are essential for debate, advocacy, and action by students, faculty, and activists for a just peace. It is only on college campuses that Palestinian rights advocates can be claimed to pose even an imagined threat to the hegemony of Zionist propaganda in mainstream American political culture. During the past year, supporters of the Palestinian cause have been faced with the gamut of organized efforts by Zionist organizations to deny basic freedoms: speech, press, academic, intellectual, and political. As cogently argued by Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Alexander Cockburn, and many others, the primary tactic employed in these efforts is to identify criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. At Harvard, this charge has been notably made by President Lawrence Summers and Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. This argument is supported with banal assertions of the “unique” nature of the Nazi holocaust, and by an evolving body of fraudulent scholarship and historical propaganda, including by Dershowitz in The Case for Israel in relation to the Zionist movement and the state of Israel.

The origins of the current assault on intellectual freedoms are in the most recent intifada of September 2000, the subsequent and bloody re-occupation of occupied areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority in the spring of 2002, and the need to challenge a narrative sympathetic to the Palestinians. By the end of 2002, Daniel Pipes’ and Martin Kramer’s Campus Watch was in full cry, posting “dossiers” on Middle East scholars critical of Israel . Concurrently, the high-minded tone of Israel’s claim to be on the front lines of western progress were articulated in 2003 by Israeli politician Natan Sharansky, with his spurious claim that Jewish students are being silenced on American campuses that have become “hot-houses of anti-Israel opinion.” . Since, then, Sharansky has become a favorite of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice.




snip




http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=35&ItemID=7864

[Colorado Blue]

24. Jesus H. Christ.

Why not just go all the way and call for the extermination of the Jews? That's essentially what is being preached all over the Middle East. And you think maybe we should start the same in the US of A?

This is outrageous. It is, in fact, Jewish students who are being intimidated, in and out of class, and Jewish people who are not being allowed to speak, and whose history is being "revised". Even ancient Jewish history is being undermined in Middle Eastern schools, and by Middle Eastern preachers. And in America, Jewish people who would like to participate in peace demonstrations are frequently greeted by Stars of David desecrated with the swastika.

This is more like something out of Stalin's Russia, or Nazi Germany, than the free and democratic United States.

The "Palestinian Cause" as thus presented, is nothing short of the destruction of Israel. If you doubt me, read the Palestinian Covenant. In light of that simple fact, do you blame Jewish people for being alarmed, and trying to balance the equation?

What zmag ISN'T reporting, naturally, are the actual texts of speeches by some of these professors. They are hateful, shocking. They are sophistry, which will not stand the light of real historical review. Massad for example attempts clever word games to turn the Jewish people into Nazis and the Arabs into Jews. He portrays all Jews as evil and tries to delegitimize the Jewish state.

IT WILL NOT WASH.

And, it doesn't matter WHERE the hate is coming from - it is still hate and it is still enormously destructive. We should repudiate it absolutely.

Or maybe we don't even have to look that far afield for the inspiration behind this. After all, the American Nazi Party is gaining a lot of strength. Their philosophy hasn't changed since Adolph Hitler was in his prime.

SHEEP. I think you are sheep if you buy into this crap.

And I'll tell you something else: if people are wondering why Jews are turning to the right - it's because people who PRETEND to be liberal and progressive are abandoning us and setting us up a catastrophe. Good scholars, real historians, are being called "right wing" and shunned, just because the "liberal" point of view doesn't like their words.

I ask you, who is REALLY trying to destroy free speech and intellectual freedom?

I'm stunned.

Here, read from this ISLAMIC website, created by a Sunni Imam and professor of Islamic history in Italy. He doesn't buy into this crap, he knows where it was born:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com

[Coastie for Truth]

25. There have been several threads on DU

about physical confrontations between pro-Palestinian demonstrators and pro-Israel demonstrators, which escalated out of control with physical attacks on Jewish students generally. This was at California State University, San Francisco. (Don't take my word -- do your own research on DU, www.mercurynews.com, www.sfgate.com, and www.google.com)

Similar events at UC Berkeley. But, with an added twisted. Several bearded Hassidic students were set upon while walking back to their apartments from a Passover Seder Service. At first the Berkeley Police would not investigate - then the FBI came in - then the Berkeley police investigate. Appeared for a few days in www.mercurynews.com.

[not systems]

26. I found your references on this incident unconvincing...

as to the cause and magnitude of the incident you describe
last time you posted this story.

I did my own research and concluded that the people making
the accusations have motives at least as suspect as the people
being accused.

Do you have a definitive objective source on this story that
the "Berkeley Police would not investigate" because I have
observed a common pattern of demonization of Berkeley by
people grinding axes about Israel and Palestine.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. Somebody on my "Ignore" List responded

But they are on my "Ignore" list - so, tough gnip gnops dude.

[not systems]

28. cool so now...

I can expect incoherent rants via PM to stop.

Great.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Paul Findley

Paul Findley has a history a mile long.

I am a little bit concerned when an allegedly "Democratic" (as in DemocraticUnderground) site that is primarily a site where Liberals and Progressives can be "comfortable" uses Paul Findley's "CNI" as a source.

I am not going to get into a flame battle - just Google and/or Yahoo "Paul Findley."

What's next?

(yes - I did contribute to Dick Durbin's 1982 Campaign against Findley; no I do not live in Illinois)

[newyorican]

35. Wow...

There is a lot to be concerned about.

Method: Conducted by Zogby International of 1,004 likely voters from 9/8/04 through 9/9/04.

Zogby press release

full, cross-tabulated results

------------------
Our Goals

Total withdrawal of Israel from all occupied territory (the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights).

A shared Jerusalem, the capital of two states, Israel and Palestine.

An end to all acts of aggression, provocation, and retaliation by Israel and the end of all violence and attempts to solve the problem by military means.

American recognition of a totally independent state of Palestine.

An elimination of all unaudited U.S. aid to Israel.

Normalized relations with Israel, her neighbors, and regional organizations such as the Arab League.

A political atmosphere in which (1) a fair and objective media covers the Middle East without fear of retaliation by advertisers and pro-Israeli groups; (2) the American electorate is unafraid to debate the issues openly and frankly; and (3) our elected officials vote their conscience.

CNI BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Paul "Pete" McCloskey
Chairman
Attorney,
US Congress (R-CA), 1967-1983

Paul Findley
Founding Chairman
Author of "They Dare to Speak Out" and other books,
US Congress (R-IL), 1961-1983

Eugene H. Bird
President
U.S. Foreign Service, 1952-1975
President of CNI since 1993
General Electric

F. J. Hunt
Colonel USMC (ret.)
President, CNI Chapter for Southern California

E. Faye Williams
Attorney, Author, Trans-International

George Luecker
Methodist Church activist

Dr. Fahim Qubain
Founder, The Hope Fund
Former State Department Consultant on the Middle East

Source

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

There you go. One ea. info-dump. Feel free to engage critical thought portions of the frontal lobes. Also feel free to actually address the topic, or not.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyorican]

41. Who?

Zogby?

It's a Zogby poll after all. Is Zogby an anti-semite also?

Interesting way to address the topic.

From those that squeal loudest about attacking the sources, no less...

Oh well, complaints about attacking the source rather than addressing the topic can now be seen for what it is...projection.

[Coastie for Truth]

42. I interpreted the post as being about Findley, not Zogby NT

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Did I say Zogby?

Or is this misdirection? I thought I said the person's name. As for squealing, I find it VERY interesting that when we use quotes from a Republican, it is "propaganda," but if they are anti-Israel it becomes "gospel" and all is well. Those in movie houses....

[Colorado Blue]

43. It's not just him. I googled ALL of them. They ALL seem

to have a certain POV, most unfriendly to Israel at the very least.

Zogby is merely THE POLLSTER.

It's the organization that gives one pause.

Check them out, one by one.

[norml]

48. Rice Says World Must Not Tolerate Iranian Nuclear Weapons Bid

Rice Says World Must Not Tolerate Iranian Nuclear Weapons Bid
By David Gollust
Washington
23 May 2005




Condoleezza Rice, speaks at American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) policy conference

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday said the world must not tolerate any Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon. She spoke as European foreign ministers prepared for new talks with Iranian officials on the nuclear issue.

The Bush administration has supported the European overture with Iran, backing the effort by Britain, France, and Germany with U.S. incentives to Iran to shelve suspect nuclear activities.

But as the so-called Euro 3 prepared for a key meeting Wednesday with Iranian officials in Geneva, Ms. Rice took a hard line towards Iran, telling the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC that a nuclear-armed Iran would be intolerable.

"The United States has focused the world's attention on Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction," she said. "And along with our allies we are working to gain full disclosure of Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. The world must not tolerate any Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon, nor can it tolerate Iran's effort to subvert democratic governments through terrorism."




snip




http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-23-voa38.cfm

[tobeornottobe]

50. self delete

wrong thread

[tobeornottobe]

51. self delete

wrong thread