The best interview of Mearsheimer & Walt

[HHW]

February 11, 2008

A CounterPunch Exclusive
A Discussion with Walt and Mersheimer

The Power of the Israel Lobby

By WAJAHAT ALI

"Let's move over here--in the corner. It'll be better for us to talk
in private. Or else some people might get the wrong idea," chuckles
John Mearsheimer, a Distinguished Service Professor of Political
Science at the University of Chicago and co-author of the incendiary
book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."

The controversial book's co-author, Stephen Walt, an Academic Dean at
the prestigious Harvard Kennedy School of Government, smiles and
concurs as we all find comfortable seats in the back end, lounge
corner of San Francisco's Prescott Hotel for our exclusive, in-depth
interview.

"The wrong idea" according to the authors is the inaccurate labeling
and smearing of their reputation as "Anti-Semites." According to them
and their supporters, they've unfairly earned this slander solely due
to their detailed and systematic criticism of an "Israel Lobby" and
its alleged actions in greatly influencing U.S. foreign policy in the
volatile Middle Eastern regions of Israel and Palestine.

The Anti-Defamation League, which retaliated by publishing "The
Deadliest Lies: The Myth of the Israeli Lobby" on the same release
date as "The Israel Lobby," lambasted the professors' work as an "anti-
Jewish screed: a relentless assault in scholarly guise." However,
talking to them in person and later observing their demeanor at a
speech followed by question and answer session held at U.C. Berkeley,
the two professors both appeared very calm, rational, collected and
lacking the stereotypical, passionate vitriol and acidic anger
unfortunately espoused by all parties associated with the endless
"Israel-Palestine conflict."

For anyone with even the slightest experience in dealing with the
"Israel-Palestine" issue, whether that experience be academic,
polemical, political, or even a friendly discussion over coffee, it
becomes glaringly obvious the topic is contentious, divisive and, dare
I say, explosive. To call it a "powder keg" of a situation would be a
glorious understatement.

It is with that understanding and assumption that I conducted this
interview in order to achieve, if it all possible, a rational
discussion about a tragic conflict producing irrational acts and
consequences.

The following is the unedited conversation and interview with the
authors regarding their controversial thesis, their critics and
detractors, the stifling of academic dissent, foreign policy in the
Middle East, and the resulting profound implications for the United
State's relationship with the Muslim World in the 21st century.

ALI: I guess life must have been boring for you guys, and you had
nothing interesting going on. So, you decided to spice things up,
right? What goes on in your head that makes you get up one day and
decide, "You know what? I think we're going to tackle the "Israeli
Lobby."

(Both laugh.)

WALT: We wrote this not because our lives were boring, but because we
were concerned with what was happening with American foreign policy
and specifically American Middle East policy. We felt there was an
aspect that wasn't get that much attention in the U.S; the influence
of the "Israeli Lobby" was the elephant in the room that no one was
willing to talk about. We believe this was having unfortunate affects
on the U.S., other countries, and Israel itself, and no one,
especially mainstream circles, would speak or write about it. We
thought we were in positions of relative security and if we didn't
[talk about it], then no one else would.

MEARSHEIMER: Nevertheless, we fully understood we were grabbing the
third rail, and pro-Israeli forces in the U.S. would come after us in
a serious way. We've not been surprised by the reaction to our piece
here in the U.S.

ALI: Ok, for the unacquainted, let's become familiar with the central
thesis of "The Israel Lobby," lay it out for me and the readers.
There's this group you label the "Israel Lobby." Who are they and why
should we, as average Joe Americans, even care about them?

WALT: The Lobby isn't a single organization. It is a loose coalition
of different groups and individuals that actively work and try to move
American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction and try to maintain
a special relationship with the U.S. and Israel. This group includes
some predominantly Jewish American groups, such as AIPAC, the Anti
Defamation League, The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
Organizations. It also includes non-Jewish groups like Christian
Evangelicals, such as Christians United for Israel. This is not a
single organization, and they don't agree on every issue, but they all
want to maintain that special relationship. It's an interest group
like other groups we have in U.S.

Interest groups are part of American politics. So, there's nothing
illegitimate or wrong with what the Israeli Lobby is doing. But, like
some other interest groups, when they have profound impact on U.S.
foreign policy, they may be leading to foreign policies that aren't in
the interest of the country as a whole. So, Americans should be
concerned about this and other interest groups if they are leading to
policies that are contrary to the American national interest.

MEARSHEIMER: American should care about the Israeli Lobby, because it
has a profound effect on the shape of U.S.­ Middle East policy. We
believe by and large that effect is negative. In other words, the
Lobby is pushing policies not in the U.S. interest and not in Israel's
interest either. The best example of that is the Lobby's influence has
with regards to the occupation and the building of settlements in the
West Bank. The U.S. has opposed settlement building since the Israelis
first conquered the West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967. It has been the
official policy of every president since Lyndon B. Johnson to oppose
settlement building, but no president has been able to put any
meaningful pressure on Israel to stop building settlements. The
principle reason is due to the Lobby, which goes to great lengths to
make sure no President can force Israel to do something that it
doesn't want to do. Since Israel doesn't want to end the settlements,
no President has been able to put an end to the settlement building.

What are the consequences that result from this? It is one of the main
reasons why the U.S. is deeply hated in the Arab and Islamic world. It
is one of the main causes of America's terrorism problem. It is clear
that Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of the main
architects of the 9-11 attacks, were deeply battered by American
policies in the Occupied Territories [in Palestine.] So, we as
Americans should care how the Lobby influences U.S.- Middle East
policies, because it sometimes influences them in a way which is not
in the best interests of the U.S.

ALI: However, doesn't the publication of your book, the media
publicity blitz surrounding it, the release of Jimmy Carter's
"Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," and Norman Finkelstein's very public
criticism of Alan Dershowitz's "Case for Israel," all provide examples
that a healthy debate about Israel does indeed exist and the Lobby is
either ineffective or not as influential as you suggest?

WALT: Nobody believes that the discourse in the U.S. is 100% pro-
Israel. That is completely impossible. Our point in the book and our
publication of the book doesn't contradict this, we contend that
conversation and public discourse in mainstream media circles is
overwhelmingly pro-Israel. It's not to say occasionally you won't have
other voices out there. But the fact is we had trouble getting our
original article published in the U.S., and we have had some coverage,
but relatively little, regarding our book in mainstream media circles.

We've seen various efforts made to try and minimize the exposure by
getting events cancelled when were supposed to speak about this, or
having media arrangements fall through. So, it's not to say you can't
occasionally get critical views out there, but the balance of coverage
on the Middle East coverage is pro-Israel. But, if you look at the
critical reviews of the book, the reviews in England have been
uniformly positive. Generally, all across Europe as well. There have
been a number of positive reviews in Israel itself. But the mainstream
reviews in U.S. [is a different story], for example the Washington
Post, the New York Times Sunday Book Review; the New Republic had a
vicious attack comparing us to Osama Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So,
getting favorable reviews, including in Israel, is relatively easy
outside of the United States.

MEARSHEIMEHR: Based on reading our book, one would predict we would
get hardly any positive reviews in the United States, and a lot of
positive reviews outside of U.S., including Israel. That prediction
has held up very well. We have been consistently slammed in the
mainstream media inside The United States, and garnered lots of
positive reviews outside the U.S., which is what the book would
predict.

ALI: Is this proof of the New-Anti-Semitism? Is this the smoking gun
evidence that the whole world is ganging up against Israel and
American Jewry?

MEARSHEIMER: The fundamental flaw with that argument is that the book
has received favorable treatment in Israel itself. One of the most
positive reviews was written in Haaretz itself written by Daniel Levi
who is an Israeli Jew. The most favorable review overall was written
by an Israeli, Yuri Avnery. This is not to say that there are not
people in Israel or U.S. who see our book as evidence of the The New
Anti-Semitism. We don't believe there is a New Anti-Semitism. We
believe there is not a lot of Anti-Semitism in the U.S. or in Europe
itself. And that charge is leveled at critics of Israel like us and
Jimmy Carter, because it is an effective way of marginalizing and
sidelining us. We are not Anti-Semites, Jimmy Carter is not an Anti-
Semite, and the vast majority of people who like our book are not Anti-
Semites, in fact many of them are Jews.

ALI: Briefly describe your initial journey towards publication at the
Atlantic Monthly. Why did they ultimately reject the draft, and how
did you find a publication home at London Review of Books?

MEARSHEIMER: Stephen and I decided in early 2002 to think seriously
about writing a piece on The Israeli Lobby and U.S. foreign policy.
Then, in the fall of 2002, we were commissioned by The Atlantic to
write that piece, and we began working on it. We were slowed down by
the fact the Iraq war was about to take place. We couldn't write about
it while it was still happening, because the Lobby was involved in
pushing that war. So, we didn't get a draft of the piece to the
Atlantic until the Spring of 2004. After they saw the initial draft,
they were very happy with it and asked us to make a number of changes,
which we did. We submitted the second draft in January 2005, and
shortly thereafter they rejected it. We believe they rejected it
because they came to believe the subject was too controversial and
would cause problems.

ALI: Were you surprised when it was rejected?

WALT: We differed on this. I was more surprised than John was. But we
were both disappointed. Again, we had no indication that they weren't
going to publish it, and they had seen all of our previous drafts and
had been very positive about all of them. So, for them to suddenly
discover at the last minute that the entire piece was unacceptable,
and that they didn't want us to re-write it to make it acceptable, was
very disappointing.

MEARSHEIMER: So, the Atlantic rejected the piece, and of course,
surely, they will never say they rejected it out of fear about how the
Lobby would react to the piece, but rather how the piece was written.
We don't believe that's the case. We believe they got cold feet. After
it got rejected, we talked to a number of journals about the
possibility of getting the piece published somewhere in the 2005.

By the early summer of 2005, it became clear it would be impossible to
get it published in the United States. So, we put the article away and
didn't think it was possible to get it published in the U.S. Someone
gave a prominent American academic a copy of the piece we had
submitted to the Atlantic, and he knew the editor of the London Review
of Books. He wrote to me and asked me if we were interested in
publishing it there. We talked about it and thought it was an
excellent idea, and we talked to them and made an agreement to submit
it by January 2006, a new version of the article. They published it
two months later in March 2006. I mean, it's interesting to think had
this academic not gotten hold of the final draft we submitted to the
Atlantic, it would have never appeared.

ALI: I want talk about this "stifling" of criticism. Let's discuss
this recent "Google" speech, where you were scheduled to appear, but
according to you a Google representative at the last minute told you,
"You can't appear without having the other side represent," and then
they cancelled at the last second. In your opinion, is this "other
side" really present?

WALT: As part of the publicity campaign for the book, our publicist
began to setup various venues to come talk about the book. Three of
those agreements were cancelled. We were cancelled at the Chicago
Council of Global Affairs who had invited us to come and speak. The
President of the Council got in contact with John and said, "In order
to protect the institution, he was canceling the event. The subject
was just too hot to cover," and we can only appear there if they had
someone who would represent the "other side," and it was too late to
get someone from the other side. I should mention they've had plenty
of people who represent "the other side" speak at the Chicago Council
and those people spoke on their own. Michael Oren, an Israeli American
historian, for example has spoken on his own without someone else
representing the other side.

MEARSHEIMER: Dennis Ross would be another good example. And we always
say there is nothing wrong with this.

WALT: We think that's fine. It's entirely appropriate for Oren or
Dennis Ross or lots of other people to come and speak there. They
never said anything to us or our publicist about having someone there
to debate us when were arranging everything. It was only after the
cancellation, did they mention this. We had an agreement to speak at
the City University of New York also in September, but that also fell
through without an explanation. Finally, we were scheduled to speak at
Google Headquarters here in Mountain View, California, which regularly
hosts an author series where they bring authors on a variety of
subjects to give talks. So, our publicist got an email the previous
Friday late in the afternoon that the event had been cancelled and
didn't give us an explanation.

We were subsequently told that the decision had been made "very high
up in the company," and the Google representative said they had never
seen an event like this get cancelled like the way they did. They said
they would be interested in possibly rescheduling us, but we've never
been able to reschedule the event, so clearly, it's not going to
happen. But, just to add a number of other places where we've spoken,
such as the World Affairs Council in Dallas, the Hammer Museum, The
City Club of Cleveland, all these people told us they had gotten
emails, phone calls, or messages protesting our appearance and
suggesting we be dis-invited. To their great credit, none of these
places gave into that kind of pressure. In each of these places, we
appeared without note-worthy incident; we had good discussions, they
asked challenging questions. Some people agreed with us, some people
disagreed with us a lot, but in all these places we had a very useful
discussion and nothing bad happened at all.

ALI: I want to you hear some comments by your critics. George Schultz,
Reagan's Secretary of State, writes in the new book "The Deadliest
Lies: The Myth of the Israeli Lobby," -

MEARSHEIMER: That book was scheduled to be published on exactly the
same date as our book was published on September the 4th.

WALT: Publishers know when things are going to appear months in
advance and once our publisher made it clear it was going to be on
their Fall list, then they can start preparing "The Deadliest Lies,"
which is a very thin book that didn't involve much work, and thus it
could be arranged to have it timed with the release of our book. I
mean, there are no secrets in the publishing world. Nothing unusual
about this.

MEARSHEIMER: The Abraham Foxman book ["The Deadliest Lies] and the
George Schultz preface in the forward are not based on the book we
wrote, "The Israeli Lobby," because it hadn't been published at that
time. It was rather based on the article that was published [in 2006.]

ALI: Well, he writes in the forward, "those who blame Israel and its
Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support - are wrong.
They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our
[The U.S.] best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its
supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they
are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies
it adopts." If you both concede that what the Israeli Lobby does is
within the confines of a democratic process, then isn't Schultz's
critique valid? If the Lobby isn't working democratically, then how is
it abusing the process?

WALT: We make it very clear in our book that what the Israeli Lobby is
doing is not an abuse of the Democratic Process, but we think all
Americans have the right to organize around political causes they
believe about. But the fact that it is legitimate activity doesn't
mean it is in the best interest of the country. Lots of other interest
groups have skewed American policy in a way that is not good for the
country as a whole. We never argue, and we don't believe what the
Lobby is doing is illegitimate, inappropriate, or not Democratic, it's
just that the effects are harmful to the United States.

Now, if George Schultz disagrees with us, then he can make that
argument and we can have a debate on it. One of the reasons we wrote
the book is to try and encourage debate. "Whether or not unconditional
support for Israel is good for the U.S. or not? Was it making
Americans safer? Was it Americans more popular around the world? Was
it improving our relation with allies in The Middle East and
elsewhere?" If all those are true, then, maybe, we're wrong. We're
making the argument that unconditional support for Israel, as
encouraged by the Israeli Lobby, has been deeply harmful.

I'd alert anybody who reads this article that they should go back and
read page 112 of George Schultz's memoirs called "Turmoil and Triumph"
where he talks about his own involvement trying to do Middle East
policy in the face of pressure from the Lobby. When he and President
Regan were dealing with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, he
discovered Congress was about to vote a $250 million supplemental
military aid package to Israel after the invasion of Lebanon, after
[Israel] had used cluster bombs, after the Shatila-Sabra camp
massacres. This is what he writes in his own memoirs:

"We fought the supplement and fought it hard. President Reagan and I
weighed in personally making numerous calls to Senators and
Congressman. The supplement sailed right by us and was approved by
Congress as though President Reagan and I had not even been there. I
was astonished and disheartened. This brought home for me vividly
Israel's leverage in our Congress. I saw that I must work carefully
with the Israelis if I was to have any handle on Congressional action
that might affect Israel, and if I were to maintain Congressional
support for my efforts to make peace or progress in the Middle East."

In 1982, and when he wrote his memoirs, he understood the Israeli
Lobby was very powerful and he understood that it wasn't good; it was
interfering with what he and President Reagan wanted to do. But he
understood it was too powerful to fight it. He might've forgotten that
in 2006-2007, but that's what he wrote in his own memoirs.

MEARSHEIMER: There's no question that Israeli supporters in the U.S.
have the right to push pro-Israeli policies. Their behavior in that
regard is as American as apple pie. However, there is one form of
behavior that many members of the lobby engage in that is antithetical
to the American way of doing business. That is the proclivity for
smearing critics of Israel. If you criticize Israeli policy, or the
power of the Lobby in formulating, or influencing U.S. Middle East
policy, you are almost certain to be called an Anti-Semite or worse.
Smearing people has become one of the key tactics that large numbers
of organizations and individuals use in the Lobby to deal with
critics, and this is not as American as apple pie. This kind of
behavior should be condemned.

ALI: Let's switch gears and talk about an Arab-American professor at
Columbia, Joseph Massad, who published a stinging criticism of your
book in Al-Ahram. He suggests your thesis falls into a predictable
trap, and I quote him, "the attraction of this argument is that it
exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility
and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and
gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would
be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies." So, my
question, after listening to this, does your thesis help exonerate the
U.S. government from all its responsibility? Moreover, perhaps the
U.S. is in fact using Israel, instead of Israel and its Lobby using
the U.S, correct?

WALT: Professor Massad greatly overstates it when he says this
exonerates the U.S. government from all responsibility. We understand
that actors in the U.S. government are independent actors to some
degree. You take the Iraq war where we believe the Israeli Lobby had a
key role in pushing the U.S. to do this, but ultimately George Bush
made the decision to invade. So, we wouldn't let him or Vice President
Cheney off the hook. We are not exonerating those people in the U.S.
government. Any official or most officials in the government, and
certainly people in Congress are shaped by the political and social
forces that exist within American society. They always pay attention
where the political support is going to be, and it's quite clear, as
we just saw from the George Schultz quote a moment ago, where the
Secretary of State thinks policy ought to go in one direction [not
giving Israel the supplementary aid] and President Reagan agrees and
thinks it's a terrible idea, but they get rolled by Congress as if
they had not even been there.

So, I think the idea that the U.S. government would be pursuing the
same policies vis a vis the Middle East the same policies it would be
pursuing absent the Israeli Lobby and the political power of AIPAC, I
think it is just wrong. It has been the official policy of every
president, every president since Lyndon Johnson to not support the
settlements but none of them ever do anything about it, and they are
the Presidents. It's because of an array of political forces that make
it impossible for them to take action. Problem #2 is the dog wagging
the tail argument, here the argument is that Israel basically is our
tool, we give it orders, and it does what we want it to do in the
Middle East.

MERSHHEIMER: That Israel is our Rottweiler argument.

WALT: I mean, if you look carefully at the record, there is not much
evidence that it is the tool we are using to shape the Middle East.
I'll give you three examples. One is the first Gulf War of '91 where
the U.S. goes into throw Hussein's Iraq out of Kuwait, Israel didn't
participate in the war, not because they didn't want to, but if they
had participated the Arab coalition would have fallen apart. So, we
went to great lengths to keep them out. And then we had to defend them
when the SCUD missiles starting coming to Israel. The second example
is the Iraq War of 2003, here we are our knocking off an Israeli
enemy, but the Israelis are not there doing it, it's us doing it. They
are on the sideline yet again. The third example is the Lebanon War in
the Summer of 2006. We don't like Hezbollah very much, and of course
the Israelis don't like them very much, but there is absolutely no
evidence that we were pushing the Israelis to go after Hezbollah. More
importantly, we certainly didn't want the Israelis to go after
Lebanon. If Israel was taking our orders in the Summer of 2006, they
would have left Beirut alone. They would have done nothing to
undermine the democratically elected government in Lebanon, which is
something that Bush takes great credit for. We had helped put the
government in power, and it was one of the big successes you could
point to in Bush's Middle East policy. If Israel was taking orders
from us, they would've had a very different approach than us in
Lebanon. It's not that there isn't some collusion, but the idea they
are our obedient servant carrying out the wishes of American
Imperialism in the Middle East is just dead wrong

MEARSHEIMER: Two quick points. The U.S. can't use Israel to support
its policies in the Middle East in a large part because it is
radioactive, and by that I mean so unpopular in the region. We
couldn't use Israel in the first Gulf War or second Gulf War. My
second point would be to focus on what happened after the Shah of Iran
fell in 1979. Up until that point, the U.S. had relied heavily on the
Shah to do much of its heavy lifting in the Middle East. After the
Shah fell, the U.S. was deeply concerned that the Soviet Union might
intervene in Iran, and number two that Iraq or Iran might try to
dominate the region. In that case, we would need military forces in
that region to deal with the problem did it arrive.

So, the United States, if we are to believe the story where Israel is
our Rottweiler, then we should've been able to turn to Israel to
replace the Shah. But, of course, we couldn't do that, and instead we
had to build the rapid deployment force, which is an over the horizon
military capability. But we need bases in the Middle East to deploy
equipment for the rapid deployment force should it have to come into
the region quickly. None of the equipment for the rapid deployment
force was put in Israel, because it was unacceptable for the U.S. to
station or to put equipment in Israel. So, what we did is we developed
a rapid development force of our own, and we deployed that equipment
in Arab countries.

ALI: Why do these pro-Israeli groups have such a loyal and firm
alliance with hawkish, Neo-conservatives and the Christian Right in
recent years? This is, after all, the same Christian Right, if you
read some of their ideology and dogma, who believe that the Second
coming of Christ will end in either the mass slaughter or mass
conversion of Jews in Israel.

WALT: The Israel Lobby is a heterogeneous group. They all want to
maintain a special relationship with the U.S., but they don't agree on
everything. There are a number of prominent groups, such as AIPAC, the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, the
ADL, the Zionist Organization of America. There are a number of
moderate groups that support a 2 state solution as well. The Israeli
Policy Forum, the Americans for Peace Now are just a few examples.
Then, there is this movement of Christian Evangelicals known as
Christian Zionists. The more influential and wealthier organizations
have tended to be right of center and more hard-line. AIPAC for
example is hard-line. The Zionist Organization of America is very hard-
line, opposing a 2 state solution.

ALI: Wait, what exactly do you mean by "hard-line?"

WALT: Generally those who oppose a 2 state solution, or like AIPAC
never endorsing it. And also, basically supporting the "Settlement"
enterprise. Groups like Israeli Policy Forum believe in the 2 state
solution and oppose the Settlement enterprise.

MEARSHEIMER: It's marginally a function of how you think of the
[President] Clinton parameters. The Clinton parameters would be a
broad outline for a 2 state solution. Organizations like the Israeli
Policy Forum, people like Dennis Ross endorse the parameters, I mean
he helped craft them.

WALT: I think we argue this in our book, if you look at the major
organizations they tend to be more right of center, but they have
become more conservative over time, and become more aligned with the
Likud party in Israel, more aligned at least politically with
conservative movements here in the U.S. The Israeli Lobby has moved in
a rightward direction over time. And, it has been strengthened by the
Christian Evangelicals who believe, and I'm oversimplifying a lot
here, but their view of Israel is shaped by their interpretation of
Old Testament prophecy. They believe the re-establishment of a Jewish
state in all of Palestine is foreordained in Biblical prophecy, and it
is a key sign leading up to the Second Coming, the End of times.

ALI: Like a pre-requisite?

WALT: It's a pre-requisite, it's gotta' happen. It's one of several
steps we have to go through. So, they oppose any form of Palestinian
state, they oppose any withdrawl of the settlement enterprise, because
they think that's inconsistent with what the Bible has predicted.

MEARSHEIMER: What the Bible says is necessary for the End times to
come about.

WALT: Now, as you said, obviously this image of what happens to Israel
or the Jewish people is not optimistic. Either they die, are
converted, or they get left behind. But, obviously, if you are Jewish
you don't believe any of that prophecy stuff, and therefore there has
been a tactical alliance between these groups, because it strengthens
the political influence of both hard-line organizations. To put it in
crude terms, I think the Jewish groups don't much care for the
Christian Zionist's other views, because they don't think they're
true, and they're happy to get their support on this foreign policy
dimension. As we can see the support for our very confrontational
policy with Iraq and Iran today, where the Christian Zionists have
been very bellicose, as have members of the Israeli Lobby been as
well.

MEARSHEIMER: An additional point to make is that Israel, itself, has
been progressively moving to the right as well. If you look carefully
at Israeli public opinion, there is little support for the Clinton
parameters, which is the only meaningful way you can create a viable
Palestinian state. The Israelis say they are willing to give the
Palestinians a state and favor a 2 state solution, but when you see
what the majority of the Israelis want to give the Palestinians it
does not in any shape, way, or form add up to a viable Palestinian
state. Basically, it would be a series of enclaves in the West Bank,
and the Gaza Strip would be another enclave. These enclaves would not
be territorially contiguous, not connected, and the Israelis wouldn't
give the Palestinians control of East Jerusalem. The point I'm trying
to make is that the fact the Lobby is dominated by hard-line
individuals is facilitated by the fact that it is a worldview that is
largely reflected by a majority of Israelis.

ALI: Professor Mearsheimer, you and several academics recently
convened in Chicago, Rockafeller Chapel, and you said academia is the
only space where Israel is "treated as a normal country, where past
and present actions are critically assessed," and the place where
public opinion on the matter is most accurately reflected. If that is
the case, then how do we explain the abrupt denial of tenure of
Israeli and Dershowitz critic Norman Finkelstein? [Finkelstein's very
public tenure controversy at DePaul University ended in September '07
when the Board decided to reject his tenure bid, despite overwhelming
support for Finkelstein by his peers, his students, and national and
international scholars]

MEARSHEIMER: I said in my comments, academia "tends to be the one
place," where Israel is treated like a normal country. I think there's
no question that there is more criticism of Israel in the academic
world and in college campuses, then there is in mainstream media.
Nevertheless, the Lobby works very hard to influence the discourse on
university campuses and goes to considerable length in influencing
hiring and promotion decisions regarding critics of Israel. The Normal
Finkelstein case is illustrative of this. Nobody disputes that the
Lobby put considerable pressure on DePaul University to deny
Finkelstein tenure. They will deny that the pressure had any effect on
the ultimate decision to deny him tenure, but this is hard to believe.

ALI: You suggest in your book that the image and framing of the issues
has been skewed to reflect Israel as a "David" fighting a "Goliath"
that is the Palestinians and neighboring Arab enemies. How much of
this alleged symbolism is actually reflected in reality? How has this
image been popularized and cemented in the mindset of American
psychology?

MEARSHEIMER: There is no question that Israeli's supporters have been
very successful in conveying the message to most Americans that Israel
is a David surrounded by an Arab goliath. Anyone who looks carefully
at the history of the conflict quickly discovers that is not the case.
To be more specific, Israelis won the 1948 war decisively, they won
the 1956 decisively, they won the 1967 war decisively, and they won
the 1973 decisively after suffering a massive surprise attack. All
those victories were gained before massive U.S. aid came to Israel.

WALT: Up thru '67 that's exactly right. The U.S. was starting to
provide significant military aid after '67, but the aid goes up even
more after the '73 war.

MERSHEIMER: So, Israel won those 4 wars, and since then no Arab state
has picked a fight with Israel for the simple reason they all
understand Israel is the "Goliath" and they are the "Davids." Today,
Israel has the most powerful conventional army in the region by far.
It's the only state in the region that has nuclear weapons, it has a
couple of hundred of them. It has a very close alliance to the U.S.,
which would surely come to its defense if its survival is threatened.
It has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and would have a treaty
with Syria had it not walked away from the deal. So, Israel is not
only the most powerful country in the region, but it also has peace
agreement with some of its neighbors, two of them they have fought
wars with in the past. And it would've have peace deals with 3 of its
principle adversaries had they reached a peace deal with Syria.

The Saudis started in 2002 to push a peace initiative that would've
brought peace between Israel and the Arab League, and they resurrected
it again this year and pushed it again. This tells you that most of
the states in the region are interested in reaching some sort of modus
of endii with Israel. They understand it is very powerful and not
going away anytime soon, therefore it makes sense to make some peace
agreement. Israel is in excellent shape in terms of military balance.
In terms of its dealings with its neighbors, it is in very good shape.

One might say what about the Palestinians? The Israelis have had
opportunities to cut a deal with the Palestinians, especially during
the 90's Oslo Peace Process. But they have never shown any serious
interest in allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state. If they
could change their thinking on that conflict and bring themselves to
evacuate almost all the West Bank, and allow for a Palestinian state,
then we believe they would have good relations with the Palestinians
as well.

WALT: You have to bear in mind the balance of power between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel, today, has the 29th highest per
capita income in the world, now that's not a poor country.
Palestinians are deeply impoverished, unable to have a viable economy
in the face of all of the obstacles presented now by Israel. The
Palestinians have no army, no air force, no navy, they barely have an
effective security force, and of course they are deeply divided
internally. When any group of people is put into a situation like
that, they are going to use any tactic available. Which is why of
course the Palestinians have relied on terrorism. John and I both
regard the use of terrorist tactics as deplorable, and the loss of
innocent human life on either side is deeply, deeply regrettable. So,
we're not defending that. But, the point is that the Palestinians
hardly pose an existential threat to Israel. It's very much a one
sided competition. The problem is for all of Israel's considerable
military power it still does not permit them to dominate the
Palestinians to the point they won't try to resist with any means they
can come up with. But the idea that Israel is the vulnerable party
here, and its various neighbors are all powerful has got reality
turned upside down.

ALI: How does the Lobby skew this image, in your opinion, for the
Average American psychology?

WALT: By constantly repeating how vulnerable Israel is, by constantly
exaggerating the dangers that is faces. And, it does have security
problems in addition to problems from terrorist bombings, it has
problems with Hezbollah to the north. But the groups of the Lobby are
hyping the exaggerated threat that Israel faces in trying to convince
people its security is very precarious; that Israel might be destroyed
anytime soon, that it faces a gigantic sea of enemies that aren't
interested in peace. But if someone looks carefully at the true
military balance, or looks carefully at what Israel's relations with
its neighbors really are and what those neighbors have already
offered, it suggests Israel is already quite secure in regards to its
overall existence. Its survival is not in jeopardy. Its security can
be significantly enhanced if it would reach a reasonable settlement
with the Palestinians and take that whole problem off the table once
and for a all.

MEARSHEIMER: The principle way that the Lobby creates this image of a
beleaguered Israel is by working 24-7 to shape the discourse about
Israel. The Lobby not only portrays Israel as a "David" surrounded by
"Goliaths," but it also goes to great lengths to silence those who
argue that the opposite is the case.

ALI: Here's a criticism. The U.S. is country with over 300 million
people. We have blogs, the internet, op/ed publications, websites,
liberals, republicans, and a diversity of opinions. How can a tiny
minority of Jewish people, which is about 2 to 3% of our population,
have that much influence? Is this some sort of conspiracy theory
suggesting Jewish boogeyman who own the vast, diverse media we have in
the United States?

MEARSHEIMER: We want to be absolutely clear we are not talking about a
conspiracy. We are also not making an argument that pro-Israel groups
control the media. Our argument is that the Lobby has to work very
hard to shape discourse in the United States, because it does not
control the media. Certainly, there are pundits and columnists and
owners of newspapers who are naturally pro-Israel. There are many
others that need to be reminded that criticism of Israel carries with
it a significant cost. It's there where the Lobby is great on what is
written in the mainstream media in regards to Israel. Our argument is
that they are very effective in that regard.

Let's just talk about the discourse in the mainstream media about the
Middle East. Where do you see evidence of Arab Americans writing
columns in major newspapers? Where is the evidence of Arab Americans
who are constantly on T.V. or on radio constantly criticizing Israel
and defending the Palestinians?

ALI: Someone can say Fareed Zakaria is Muslim--[Fareed Zakara is an
influential and well known editor, columnist, and pundit]

WALT: He's not Arab. He's a South Asian Muslim. He does not take sides
on Middle East questions very often. I think he understands this is a
delicate issue, and particularly as delicate an issue for someone as
prominent as he is who is known to be Muslim. Find me the Palestinian
American columnist in the Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street
Journal, the SF Chronicle. They don't exist.

MEARSHEIMER: What we have here in the United States is a one sided
debate. We have pro-Israel forces and nothing else.

WALT: What you see of course is anytime a major media organization
does publish something that is mildly critical they immediately get
pressure put on them. For example, this past fall CNN ran a 3 part
series on Muslim, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalism. The Forward, a
Jewish newspaper, said it [CNN] suffered from an "unprecedented
attack," where organizations were putting pressure on advertisers that
had bought advertising time. The whole purpose was not to stop the
broadcast, because it already happened, but they wanted to put enough
pressure on CNN that the next time a producer has an idea or a big
story that is controversial, that producer is going to face an uphill
battle. Or if a newspaper in Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, pushes
an article that is critical of the Lobby, if the editor gets 5,000
letters protesting about that, then they will think twice the next
time that they let something like that appear.

If you do this long enough and over many years, plenty of reporters,
editors, and columnists realize it's too much trouble. "I'll write
about something else, or I'll write something bland." That isn't
control of the media as in the old conspiracy scene, that's an
interest group, like how a number of interest groups work, working
very hard to try and make sure that their story gets reported, and the
other side tends not to get reported. I say "tend" because every now
and then you see something representing the other side appear in
various places, but the point is you want to make sure the balance of
coverage is on one side.

MEARSHEIMER: I want to add another dimension to this. It is widely
recognized in the U.S. that the Lobby has a powerful influence on U.S.-
Middle East policy. If you look at almost all the critical reviews of
our book, virtually all of the critics admit that the Lobby is
powerful. Nevertheless, when you read American news accounts of U.S.-
Middle East policy, you hardly ever see any discussion of the Israel
Lobby's presence, much less influence, in the shaping of the U.S.
policy.

WALT: Not never, but it's rare. It's rare you find someone who is
writing about Middle East policy who will devote a couple of
paragraphs to the role that pro-Israeli forces are playing in shaping
that policy. Even though everyone in Washington knows that they're
very influential.

ALI: Let's talk about Iraq. You, unlike many academics, underplay the
role of oil and oil lobbies in the Iraq War. If not oil, then what was
the motivating reason for the pre-emptive attack, and how does/did
Israel benefit from the attack on Iraq and the toppling of Saddam
Hussein?

MEARSHEIMER: With regards to the question of oil, there is hardly any
evidence that oil was driving the Iraq war. Except for Kuwait, none of
the oil producing states favored the war. And even though Kuwait
favored the war, it didn't push the U.S. hard to attack. Saudi Arabia
was opposed to the war, as were the other oil producing states in the
regime. There is hardly any evidence that I'm aware of that the oil
companies which were pushing this war. The oil companies wanted to cut
a deal with Saddam, so they could help him develop his oil fields,
move his oil around the globe, and make lots of money in the process.
The basic problem is there is not a lot of evidence to support the
idea that oil was driving this war. What we believe was driving this
was war was 1) The Israeli Lobby, and 2) the fact that George Bush and
Cheney after 9-11 believed it was necessary to topple Saddam to win
the war on terrorism. It's a combination of them pushing this war to
make this happen.

WALT: I would add to that, of course, the people who pushed for this
believed it would benefit the U.S. and benefit Israel as well. They
believed it would launch a process of political change throughout the
Arab-Islamic world that would make the terrorism problem go away,
enhance America's overall strategic position by gradually creating a
lot of countries that were Pro-American, and finally enhance Israel's
strategic position by creating a bunch of countries that were willing
to make peace. They were tragically wrong on all counts. How would
this war benefit Israel? The war didn't benefit Israel, of course,
it's been a strategic disaster for Israel. It's created a failed state
nearby [Iraq], and it has enhanced the position of Iran, which is a
country Israelis worry about even more than they worried about Saddam.
This underscores a point we make in our book and make all the time is
that the Israel Lobby in pushing for unconditional American support
for Israel, and in some elements, pushing for hair-brained schemes
like invading Iraq, it has been bad for the United States and
unintentionally bad for Israel, too. It's incorrect to see the Lobby
as always pro-Israel. A lot of what they are supporting is very bad
for Israel.

ALI: Seymour Hersh of the New Yorkers posits the U.S. is engaged in
"The-Redirection," whereby the U.S. and Israel are aligning themselves
with moderate Arab dictatorships against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
As professors of international relations and critics of the Israel
Lobby, what blowback would this have, if any, on US-Muslim world
relations?

MEARSHEIMER: The basic problem is that the strategy is not going to
work. The fact is that Israel is radioactive in the region. The fact
that Israel, the U.S., and Arab countries are going to form a right
alliance against Iran and maybe Syria and Hezbollah is not going to
work. Those Arab countries are going to be unwilling to reach an
alliance with the Israelis and U.S. as long as the Palestinian issue
continues to fester. One of the principle reasons for Condoleeza Rice
is pushing for solution to a Palestinian problem now is because she
understands now she can't put together an anti Iran coalition without
shutting down the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. But, there is no
serious hope that conflict is going to be shut down anytime soon.
That's why you can't put that balancing coalition against Iran
together. In the populations of countries like Egypt, Jordan, and
Saudi Arabia, there is a significant amount of sympathy towards Iran,
and a significant amount of animosity towards U.S. and Israel.

WALT: One of those reasons those countries wont jump into bed fully
with us on this, is because they are potentially fragile regimes and
they worry about what their populations think if they were to try
doing something like that. Second point to remember is Americans
sometimes think we would be much better off if we had more democracy
in the Middle East, and probably that's true if you take a very long
term view of it. But right now it's false to imagine rapid democratic
transitions in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. You
would end up in countries that were very anti-American, because they
don't like the support we've given Israel and they also don't like our
support we've given to those ruling regimes as well.

MEARSHEIMER: One important piece of evidence that highlights how it'll
be impossible for the U.S. to put together that coalition is to see
what happened during the Lebanon war in 2006. Initially, the Arab
governments in Jordan and Egypt were very critical of Hezbollah, which
is consistent with the policy that the Americans are trying to pursue.
But, it quickly became clear to the leaders in Jordan and Egypt that
the people in their societies sided with Hezbollah against the United
States and against Israel. Therefore, the leaders in Jordan and Egypt
had to turn on a dime and become critical of the U.S. and Israel and
support Hezbollah.

ALI: Let's close it with this final question and talk about U.S.-
Muslim relations in regards to Palestine. Why is this issue, the
Palestine issue, above all other issues at the forefront of the Muslim
world's anger against U.S. foreign policy? How does U.S. relation with
Israel and the Lobby undermine or help our relations with the Muslim
world in this regards?

WALT: For many people in the Muslim, Arab world there is a fundamental
question of justice. What they see happening to the Palestinian people
is a great injustice, although there were terrible crimes against
Jewish people in history, and those crimes may justify the creation of
a Jewish state. You can even argue on balance that it is ok to create
a Jewish state in Palestine. John and I both thing it was a good
thing. But, that act, creating a Jewish state in Palestine, involved
the infliction of great crimes against the local residents--the
Palestinians. Until there is some compensation and they are given a
state of their own, and effort is made to compensate them and
acknowledge what happened to them, the moral balance has not been
equated.

Second, the entire episode resonates with the whole history of Western
interference and domination of that region. It's seen as another case
where Western powers have inflicted great harm on Arab or Islamic
peoples. So, it has a particular salience for people elsewhere in that
region. Thirdly, it makes the U.S. look deeply hypocritical. The
United States likes to talk about human rights, it likes to talk about
democracy, it likes to talk about national self-determination. But
here, by giving Israel nearly unconditional support, even as Israel
continues its 40-year, 4-decade campaign to colonize the West Bank and
previously Gaza, and for us to be supporting that enterprise the way
we have is seen as deeply contrary to all the things the U.S. claims
to stand for. That drives a number of people in the Arab-Muslim world,
at least, makes them very angry. The fact we are so hypocritical and
inconsistent with our own professed values.

MEARSHEIMER: It is the longest ongoing occupation in modern history.

WALT: It's still ongoing; there are others like the British occupation
of India that lasted much longer. Of all occupations that are
currently happening, and there aren't that many, it's certainty the
longest, continuing occupation that is still happening.

Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist
nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and recent J.D.
whose work, "The Domestic Crusaders," is the first major play about
Muslim Pakistani Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is
at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at
wajah...@gmail.com

[drahcir]

I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
the least.

[HHW]

If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any interview your
credibility might improve. I say might.

It's the best because it is relatively long, features both of them and
is filled with detail not likely to have been heard by this audience.

[B. H. Cramer]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d051d96-b063-4efe...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> the least.

Was he quoting you, dickieboi?

>

[drahcir]

On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > the least.
>
> If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any interview your
> credibility might improve. I say might.

You are a joke, H. One of the numerous discussions with me you fled
from was about that very topic. Specifically, it was about the
interview in which M made an absolute fool of himself with Tom
Ashbrook. Any bells ringing, or has the alzheimers put you into a
blissful fog? If the latter, just let me know, and I would be more
than happy to provide a message id.

(kinda reminds me of the monty python routine where a reporter is
interviewing a notorious criminal. He says something like, "is it true
you murdered Mr. Smith and then stole his money? To which the
interviewee replies, in a cockney accent, "no, never!". "But the
police actually have you on tape firing the gun at him, him falling,
and you taking the cash." "Oh, yeah, I did that.")

>
> It's the best because it is relatively long, features both of them and
> is filled with detail not likely to have been heard by this audience.

My, my, how the mighty have fallen. From the NYTBR to <chuckle>
Counterpunch. Justice is served.

Listen, speaking of unfinished business, could you please comment on
this:

From Message-ID: d9df7a8a-a440-4337-8311-f755b4183109@
z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

On Jul 12, 2:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 11, 7:10 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I figured you went to the beach or something, yet now I see you have
> > been here all day, posting away, and not having the courtesy to grant
> > me a reply. I guess you don't want to face this:

> > >> No I don't believe Israel "gives a shit" about that video.
> > > Hehe, I guess you forgot that your heading was "A video the Israelis

> > didn't want us to see".

> Not my heading.

Really? Hmmm, well, maybe you can educate me regarding usenet headers.
Here is the infoirmation from your post:

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>

***As you can see, it is from you

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa
Subject: A video the Israelis didn't want us to see

***And here is your header. Would you please educate me as to how this
could not be your heading? Thanks.

Still waiting for your explanation, H.

[B. H. Cramer]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:667b654c-bb54-42ad...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Not my heading.

>Really? Hmmm, well, maybe you can educate me regarding usenet headers.

>Here is the infoirmation[sic] from your post:

"Infoirmation" dickieboi? Are you related to cohen or did you attend the
same konversion school?

[HHW]

On Jul 28, 6:29 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > the least.
>
> > If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any interview your
> > credibility might improve. I say might.
>
> You are a joke, H. One of the numerous discussions with me you fled
> from was about that very topic. Specifically, it was about the
> interview in which M made an absolute fool of himself with Tom
> Ashbrook.

You're the absolute fool, Ratner. Nothing like that happened.

Any bells ringing, or has the alzheimers put you into a
> blissful fog? If the latter, just let me know, and I would be more
> than happy to provide a message id.

I looked at it. There was nothing there.

>
> (kinda reminds me of the monty python routine where a reporter is
> interviewing a notorious criminal. He says something like, "is it true
> you murdered Mr. Smith and then stole his money? To which the
> interviewee replies, in a cockney accent, "no, never!". "But the
> police actually have you on tape firing the gun at him, him falling,
> and you taking the cash." "Oh, yeah, I did that.")

See above.

>
>
>
> > It's the best because it is relatively long, features both of them and
> > is filled with detail not likely to have been heard by this audience.
>
> My, my, how the mighty have fallen. From the NYTBR to <chuckle>
> Counterpunch. Justice is served.

Who has fallen Richard?

>
> Listen, speaking of unfinished business, could you please comment on
> this:
>
> From Message-ID: d9df7a8a-a440-4337-8311-f755b4183109@
> z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

What do you want me to comment on?

>
> On Jul 12, 2:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 7:10 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I figured you went to the beach or something, yet now I see you have
> > > been here all day, posting away, and not having the courtesy to grant
> > > me a reply. I guess you don't want to face this:
> > > >> No I don't believe Israel "gives a shit" about that video.
> > > > Hehe, I guess you forgot that your heading was "A video the Israelis
> > > didn't want us to see".
> > Not my heading.
>
> Really? Hmmm, well, maybe you can educate me regarding usenet headers.
> Here is the infoirmation from your post:
>
> Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> ***As you can see, it is from you
>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa
> Subject: A video the Israelis didn't want us to see

Had you thought I had changed the subject?

>
> ***And here is your header. Would you please educate me as to how this
> could not be your heading? Thanks.
>
> Still waiting for your explanation, H.

Do you think I wrote it or not?

[HHW]

On Jul 28, 6:47 am, "B. H. Cramer" <Iyamh...@themoment.yo> wrote:
> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

He's the real thing.

[drahcir]

On Jul 28, 5:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:29 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 8:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > > the least.
>
> > > If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any interview your
> > > credibility might improve. I say might.
>
> > You are a joke, H. One of the numerous discussions with me you fled
> > from was about that very topic. Specifically, it was about the
> > interview in which M made an absolute fool of himself with Tom
> > Ashbrook.
>
> You're the absolute fool, Ratner. Nothing like that happened.
>
> Any bells ringing, or has the alzheimers put you into a
>
> > blissful fog? If the latter, just let me know, and I would be more
> > than happy to provide a message id.
>
> I looked at it. There was nothing there.

A liar in addition to a senile fart. What a great combo!

H thinks he can escape by playing dumb. The truth is there for all to
see, H.

>
>
>
> > ***And here is your header. Would you please educate me as to how this
> > could not be your heading? Thanks.
>
> > Still waiting for your explanation, H.
>
> Do you think I wrote it or not?

Nice try, H. You're not fooling anyone here. Normally, you would just
slink away as you did the last time this was posted. Now you will try
silliness instead. This is fun!

[HHW]

It's never fun for you in the end.

[drahcir]

You couldn't come up with anything meaningful to say, yet felt
compelled to say something. Thus we get the non-statement above.

There are 2 issues in this little thread:

First, you were involved in a few discussions with me some months ago
re an interview by Tom Ashbrook of M. I will refresh your woefully
defective memory of what they were about: M contradicts one of the
main premises of his book, namely that Israel was responsible for the
US invasion of Iraq. Here is the message id of the first of a number
of mentions of it by me, every one of which you fled from, for your
reading pleasure:

1194623772.260402.100190
@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com

Second, you haven't addressed this statement:

> > > > > Not my heading.

the context of which is above, specifically re the fact that the
heading was clearly yours. I am sure most here would just love to know
what was going on between those jumbled neurons of yours when you
wrote it. You've now tried evasion by nonsense, what will be your next
response? I predict flight. Let's see if I'm correct.

[HHW]

On Jul 28, 6:47 am, "B. H. Cramer" <Iyamh...@themoment.yo> wrote:

> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

He's trying to disguise his tendency to whine:

[HHW]

What makes you think I wrote it"

[HHW]

"The well-oiled whine machine"

Like a beggar showing off his amputated limbs

07.27.2008 | Haaretz
By Gideon Levy

It was yet another grotesque, if not macabre, scene: Barack Obama
taking in a Qassam rocket exhibit in Sderot, holding a piece of
rusting scrap metal in his hand after visiting with Osher Twito, the
young boy whose leg had been amputated after he was hit by shrapnel
from a Qassam. The distinguished guest had barely recovered from his
obligatory visit to Yad Vashem, and now he was being exposed to more
horrors. The visit, though, was a success. The Israeli propensity to
extort sympathy the way an extractor produces carrot juice was in fine
form.

The routine was split this time between meetings with the country's
political leaders and visits to disaster sites, like Yad Vashem,
Sderot and, for dessert, the Western Wall, also known as the "Wailing"
Wall. If only there had been just a bit more time, Obama's hosts would
not have missed an opportunity to include our national suicide
memorial on the itinerary, Masada, just as they did when President
George W. Bush was in town, or the grave of Yitzhak Rabin, to which
many other guests have been guided. And there's of course the
mandatory flyover to show him Israel's "narrow waist," the Achilles'
heel of a small, weak country, that same country whose arsenal of
weapons includes practically every firearm known to man.

Hosting and crying, crying and hosting - Israel does not hesitate to
declare itself a disaster area before every visiting dignitary. A
country in which "it is fun to live in," as promised by our current
prime minister, is depicted to our guests as a stockpile of tragedies
and catastrophes; a fragile, threatened entity where the real fun
takes place when its citizens wallow in its disasters. Only in Israel
is it incumbent upon a guest passing through to see every wrong done
to its people lest the visit not be considered legitimate.

Instead of showing our guests places and sites that we can be proud
of, like the non-stop city life of Tel Aviv, the Philharmonic, the
universities, the theaters, and agriculture and industry, we guide
them on a tour of tears. We show them a Qassam exhibition in lieu of
an art museum. Oh, how we revel in wallowing in our own suffering, at
times real while at other times imagined or exaggerated; how we just
love to force it on our guests. A regional superpower is telling its
visitors: Look at how unfortunate we are. From the Iranian threat to
the rockets on Sderot, our lives are a series of sad poems.

We didn't always whine this way. There were years when our situation
was worse than it is today, but when we actually showed pride in our
country and its achievements. In the summer of 1955, David Ben-Gurion
accompanied the Burmese prime minister, U Nu, to visit Degania Aleph.
Upon returning to his country, an amazed Nu immediately ordered the
creation of Burmese kibbutzim. Pinchas Sapir showed his guests the
industrial factories; Levi Eshkol would often boast to visitors of the
National Water Carrier.

In the 1960s, we took Eleanor Roosevelt to see the boarding schools of
the Youth Aliyah. In 1979, we showed Anwar Sadat the Technion and the
Elscint factory, the pride of Israeli higher education and industry.
Belgium's King Baudouin was escorted to Kfar Hahoresh, where he
planted a tree, dedicated to the glorious State of Israel. In 2000,
which is not that long ago, we took then president of China Jiang
Zemin to Ne'ot Hakikar and Ein Gedi, where we showed him desert
irrigation and agriculture, upon his request.

Since then, with the exception of Angela Merkel's visit to Sde Boker -
which was also devoted primarily to genuflecting over the grave of Ben-
Gurion - we have stopped being proud of our country, and we have
ceased to recite its accomplishments to foreign guests. The message is
clear: "Look at how wretched we are, how weak and vulnerable and
miserable we are. Would you be so kind as to come to our aid?"

Like a beggar who shows off his amputated limbs in broad daylight,
Israel portrays its disasters for all to see, without shame and with
quite a bit of cynicism, in the hope that someone will throw a coin or
a bone in its direction. Except that Israel is not a beggar and its
amputated limbs do not arouse more pity than those of a good number of
other countries in much more difficult predicaments. The difference is
that those other countries have not turned their sighs and grunts into
a national anthem.

Ironically, Israel has many achievements to boast of, yet we hide them
from public view lest the world take less pity on us. The well-oiled
whine machine is in full swing. The face of despair that we impose on
our guests is for the time being greeted with expressions of
adoration. As with all episodes of self-pity, however, a period of
sober realization always follows. The day will come when our guests
will tire of all our wailing, much like people get fed up with
panhandlers on the street. Sderot is now relatively quiet and we have
already squeezed the fruits of its suffering to the last drop. Even
the memory of the Holocaust will one day run dry. So perhaps we should
act preemptively and change direction? Maybe it's time we return to
the days when we were proud of our accomplishments and not our
suffering.

Take the next Obama to Tel Aviv: Show him its vivid night life, and
arrange for him to meet with writers, scientists and intellectuals.
Show him the Iscar plant and take him to a performance by the Batsheva
dance troupe. This will be far more impressive than any piece of
rusting Qassam. Take him to a concert, a show, an exhibit, an Israeli
movie. Most of all, let's refrain from voices of angst - both ours and
his. Enough with sobbing in this country, already.

[Count 1]

Second, you haven't addressed this statement:

> > > > > Not my heading.

the context of which is above, specifically re the fact that the
heading was clearly yours. I am sure most here would just love to know
what was going on between those jumbled neurons of yours when you
wrote it. You've now tried evasion by nonsense, what will be your next
response? I predict flight. Let's see if I'm correct.

***

You were incorrect, he chose insanity instead.

He tried a similar tack with me a while ago, a video he linked to implied
IDF soldiers were hitting someone with a rock. I challenged the implication
by pointing out the soldiers gun's weren't IDF issue (among other reasons).

He said they weren't carrying guns.

I pointed out that they were carrying guns, and his reply was to say those
weren't guns, they were rifles.

I'm not kidding.

At no time did he address the obvious point that the video he posted a link
to contained a falsehood, presenting Palestinian militias beating a helpless
Palestinian as IDF soldiers. The entire gun/rifle nonsense was a diversion,
and then he ran from the thread.

And at no time will he address his obvious contradiction contained in his
header and subsequent reply. He'll just keep saying it wasn't his header,
over and over again, even though there is no doubt he typed it. Such a
person is either insane or shameless; basically a complete waste of time.

And air....food....water....space...you get the idea.

[HHW]

On Jul 28, 9:37 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 10:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 5:09 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 28, 5:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 28, 6:29 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > > > > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > > > > > the least.
>
> > > > > > If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any interview your
> > > > > > credibility might improve. I say might.
>
> > > > > You are a joke, H. One of the numerous discussions with me you fled
> > > > > from was about that very topic. Specifically, it was about the
> > > > > interview in which M made an absolute fool of himself with Tom
> > > > > Ashbrook.
>
> > > > You're the absolute fool, Ratner. Nothing like that happened.
>
> > > > Any bells ringing, or has the alzheimers put you into a
>
> > > > > blissful fog? If the latter, just let me know, and I would be more
> > > > > than happy to provide a message id.
>
> > > > I looked at it. There was nothing there.
>
> > > A liar in addition to a senile fart. What a great combo!

Put it up here and make your point. I'll characterize you afterwards.

>
> > > > > (kinda reminds me of the monty python routine where a reporter is
> > > > > interviewing a notorious criminal. He says something like, "is it true
> > > > > you murdered Mr. Smith and then stole his money? To which the
> > > > > interviewee replies, in a cockney accent, "no, never!". "But the
> > > > > police actually have you on tape firing the gun at him, him falling,
> > > > > and you taking the cash." "Oh, yeah, I did that.")

Quit dancing around. Put it up.

>
> > > > See above.
>
> > > > > > It's the best because it is relatively long, features both of them and
> > > > > > is filled with detail not likely to have been heard by this audience.
>
> > > > > My, my, how the mighty have fallen. From the NYTBR to <chuckle>
> > > > > Counterpunch. Justice is served.

You can't face what they say in the book, Ratner. But when you don't
and still make comments about it, you make the sort of mistakes liars
make.

>
> > > > Who has fallen Richard?

No, don't bypass it. They've not fallen. They're so powerful you don't
dare admit having read their book.

>
> > > > > Listen, speaking of unfinished business, could you please comment on
> > > > > this:
>
> > > > > From Message-ID: d9df7a8a-a440-4337-8311-f755b4183109@
> > > > > z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>

> > > > What do you want me to comment on? I don't run errands for such as you. You'll have to work for your humiliation. You need to be especially deserving.

>
> > > > > On Jul 12, 2:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:10 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I figured you went to the beach or something, yet now I see you have
> > > > > > > been here all day, posting away, and not having the courtesy to grant
> > > > > > > me a reply. I guess you don't want to face this:
> > > > > > > >> No I don't believe Israel "gives a shit" about that video.
> > > > > > > > Hehe, I guess you forgot that your heading was "A video the Israelis
> > > > > > > didn't want us to see".
> > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> > > > > Really? Hmmm, well, maybe you can educate me regarding usenet headers.
> > > > > Here is the infoirmation from your post:
>
> > > > > Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> > > > > 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> > > > > From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> > > > > ***As you can see, it is from you

The post is from me but, IIRC, the language in the header isn't. How
many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

>
> > > > > Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa
> > > > > Subject: A video the Israelis didn't want us to see
>
> > > > Had you thought I had changed the subject?
>
> > > H thinks he can escape by playing dumb. The truth is there for all to
> > > see, H.

Answer the damned question. We'll see what I'm playing.

>
> > > > > ***And here is your header. Would you please educate me as to how this
> > > > > could not be your heading? Thanks.
>
> > > > > Still waiting for your explanation, H.
>
> > > > Do you think I wrote it or not?
>
> > > Nice try, H. You're not fooling anyone here. Normally, you would just
> > > slink away as you did the last time this was posted. Now you will try
> > > silliness instead. This is fun!
>

> > It's never fun for you in the end. I'm preparing that end for you as we speak.

>
> You couldn't come up with anything meaningful to say, yet felt
> compelled to say something. Thus we get the non-statement above.

You really are so foolish to make an issue of whether or not I took
the header from youtube? Why yes you are. You've tried to make
adolescent "issues" of nothing before. This is worse than nothing.
Just think, Richard Ratner of Somerville MA, you could have faced me
on the merits of the issue, i.e., the merits of M & W's book.

>
> There are 2 issues in this little thread:
>
> First, you were involved in a few discussions with me some months ago
> re an interview by Tom Ashbrook of M.

Of Mr. Mearsheimer. Try speaking his name. He is a renowned Professor
of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

I will refresh your woefully
> defective memory of what they were about: M contradicts one of the
> main premises of his book, namely that Israel was responsible for the
> US invasion of Iraq. Here is the message id of the first of a number
> of mentions of it by me, every one of which you fled from, for your
> reading pleasure:

I do derive considerable pleasure from dealing with you, Ratner.
That's because you almost never know what you're talking about. You
haven't read the book, or say so at least. So you run considerable
risk when you get into the subject of its central thesis as opposed to
what it says about the *participation* of the lobby and Israel in
driving us to war in Iraq. You are reduced to making a strained and
misleading interpretation of a line or two in an interview becuase
you, a Jewish American Zionist, don't dare discuss the book itself in
the open. The reasons being your deep conflict of interest between
what you erroneously believe to be the interests of Israel and the
interests of the United States, and the raw power of the book..

Don't forget that neoconservatives in and out of government were a
part of that lobby. WIthout having absorbed Professors Mearsheimer and
Walt's treatment of the lobby's concrete history and behavior you are
a damned fool to pretend to talk about what's in the book. In the
first place *nowhere* does it say that "Israel was responsible for the
US invasion of Iraq."

There is one central thesis in the book. One and only one. There are
dozens of examples of lobby and Israeli conduct which support that
central thesis. It is not a book the central thesis of which even
focuses on Iraq. The run up to the Iraq war is used as one of many
collections of evidence supporting that far more general thesis. Here
are Mearsheimer and Walt setting forth that single central thesis in
response to a direct question from the interviewer in the very post
with which I started this thread:

>

> 1194623772.260402.100190
> @19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com
>
> Second, you haven't addressed this statement:
>
> > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> the context of which is above, specifically re the fact that the
> heading was clearly yours. I am sure most here would just love to know
> what was going on between those jumbled neurons of yours when you
> wrote it. You've now tried evasion by nonsense, what will be your next
> response? I predict flight. Let's see if I'm correct.

Overcome your fear and ingrained deviousness, Ratner. Read the damned
book. I'd love to talk about it with you here in the bright light of
day. In the meantime I'm not going to chase your urls. Build your own
case. If you show up with something you won't find me fleeing. But
unless you get serious I don't think you can. Serious means read the
book and then suck it up enough to face Mearsheimer & Walt in addition
to me.

we'll all wait and watch. Remember now, I have a copy of their book on
the desk as we speak.

[DoD]

Getting on to more important things... I totally forgot Canada Day,
and I am shameful of that...because
online you, MHM, and Devon are some of the most delightful people that
I have ever met. I hope that when your
labour day shows up in a few, I will be more thoughtful, as I should
because we obviously share that one, although I am not familiar with
the particulars of that holiday.... At any rate.....

Good wishes towards you and yours..

DoD

[HHW]

On Jul 29, 12:27 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Second, you haven't addressed this statement:
>
> > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> the context of which is above, specifically re the fact that the
> heading was clearly yours. I am sure most here would just love to know
> what was going on between those jumbled neurons of yours when you
> wrote it. You've now tried evasion by nonsense, what will be your next
> response? I predict flight. Let's see if I'm correct.
>
> ***
>
> You were incorrect, he chose insanity instead.

Look at the absurd corner you're in, Ratner, talking to yourself under
two nyms.

>
> He tried a similar tack with me a while ago, a video he linked to implied
> IDF soldiers were hitting someone with a rock. I challenged the implication
> by pointing out the soldiers gun's weren't IDF issue (among other reasons).
>
> He said they weren't carrying guns.

They weren't. If one's going to do close analysis of that film and
blame the crime on someone else he needs to know something about the
subject.

>
> I pointed out that they were carrying guns, and his reply was to say those
> weren't guns, they were rifles.
>
> I'm not kidding.

Neither was I, fool.

>
> At no time did he address the obvious point that the video he posted a link
> to contained a falsehood, presenting Palestinian militias beating a helpless
> Palestinian as IDF soldiers. The entire gun/rifle nonsense was a diversion,
> and then he ran from the thread.

It was exhausted. Frankly I didn't think your evaluation was credible
and no one else sided with you. How is it that you now claim victory
as if it had been established or adjudicated. Anyway, Ratner, aren't
we presently speaking of how the distinguished Professor of Political
Science John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago was humiliated
in an interview you won't post? Yes, of course, unless you want to
change the subject to the actual contents of his book. But no, you
don't wish to do that now do you.

>
> And at no time will he address his obvious contradiction contained in his
> header and subsequent reply. He'll just keep saying it wasn't his header,
> over and over again, even though there is no doubt he typed it.

Of course I typed it in. But it's wasn't mine.

Such a
> person is either insane or shameless; basically a complete waste of time.

Don't leave just now. It's fun to watch you talk to yourself.

>
> And air....food....water....space...you get the idea.

There is not idea, Ratner. You're afraid. It's as simple as that. Read
the book. We'll talk about it. I'd like that a lot and you understand
that.

[HHW]

You are so damned transparent, David.

[drahcir]

Um, maybe the fact that the header says you did? That's why I supplied
it, H. Looks like you prefer trying more nonsense to flight, just to
prove me wrong, I guess. I suppose you are willing to accept the
cementing of the idea that you are firmly in second childhood as
collateral damage - anything to show me up, H, eh? The funny part is,
you did flee, at least regarding the first point. That makes probably
about 5 times in total you have fled regarding the interview with
Ashbrook. I am going to have to write him a nice thank-you note.

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 1:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:37 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28, 10:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 28, 5:09 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 28, 5:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 28, 6:29 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > > > > > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > > > > > > the least.
>
> > > > > > > If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any interview your
> > > > > > > credibility might improve. I say might.
>
> > > > > > You are a joke, H. One of the numerous discussions with me you fled
> > > > > > from was about that very topic. Specifically, it was about the
> > > > > > interview in which M made an absolute fool of himself with Tom
> > > > > > Ashbrook.
>
> > > > > You're the absolute fool, Ratner. Nothing like that happened.
>
> > > > > Any bells ringing, or has the alzheimers put you into a
>
> > > > > > blissful fog? If the latter, just let me know, and I would be more
> > > > > > than happy to provide a message id.
>
> > > > > I looked at it. There was nothing there.
>
> > > > A liar in addition to a senile fart. What a great combo!
>
> Put it up here and make your point. I'll characterize you afterwards.

H, you seem to have forgotten, along with most everything else, how
usenet works. See the little greater-than signs to the left of the
text? That tells you how many replies there have been since the
lastest one. You are here replying to a post about three rounds ago, a
post to which you already replied. Now you ask me to "put it up here",
after you flee from it numerous times. I gave you the message id which
has the URL. You are welcome to post it and respond to it if you like.

>
>
>
> > > > > > (kinda reminds me of the monty python routine where a reporter is
> > > > > > interviewing a notorious criminal. He says something like, "is it true
> > > > > > you murdered Mr. Smith and then stole his money? To which the
> > > > > > interviewee replies, in a cockney accent, "no, never!". "But the
> > > > > > police actually have you on tape firing the gun at him, him falling,
> > > > > > and you taking the cash." "Oh, yeah, I did that.")
>
> Quit dancing around. Put it up.
>
See above.
>
> > > > > See above.
>
> > > > > > > It's the best because it is relatively long, features both of them and
> > > > > > > is filled with detail not likely to have been heard by this audience.
>
> > > > > > My, my, how the mighty have fallen. From the NYTBR to <chuckle>
> > > > > > Counterpunch. Justice is served.
>
> You can't face what they say in the book, Ratner. But when you don't
> and still make comments about it, you make the sort of mistakes liars
> make.
>

LOL! I supplied nearly 20 reviewers not including Gelb's, which I
posted elsewhere, in the message id provided. That should be enough
for any non-antisemite.

>
> > > > > Who has fallen Richard?
>
> No, don't bypass it. They've not fallen. They're so powerful you don't
> dare admit having read their book.

Are you having a nice conversation with yourself?

>
>
> > > > > > Listen, speaking of unfinished business, could you please comment on
> > > > > > this:
>
> > > > > > From Message-ID: d9df7a8a-a440-4337-8311-f755b4183109@
> > > > > > z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > > What do you want me to comment on? I don't run errands for such as you. You'll have to work for your humiliation. You need to be especially deserving.
>
> > > > > > On Jul 12, 2:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:10 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I figured you went to the beach or something, yet now I see you have
> > > > > > > > been here all day, posting away, and not having the courtesy to grant
> > > > > > > > me a reply. I guess you don't want to face this:
> > > > > > > > >> No I don't believe Israel "gives a shit" about that video.
> > > > > > > > > Hehe, I guess you forgot that your heading was "A video the Israelis
> > > > > > > > didn't want us to see".
> > > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> > > > > > Really? Hmmm, well, maybe you can educate me regarding usenet headers.
> > > > > > Here is the infoirmation from your post:
>
> > > > > > Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> > > > > > 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> > > > > > From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> > > > > > ***As you can see, it is from you
>
> The post is from me but, IIRC, the language in the header isn't. How
> many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
>

LOL! The post started the thread, it's your post, but it's not your
header. This is getting good!

>
> > > > > > Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa
> > > > > > Subject: A video the Israelis didn't want us to see
>
> > > > > Had you thought I had changed the subject?
>
> > > > H thinks he can escape by playing dumb. The truth is there for all to
> > > > see, H.
>
> Answer the damned question. We'll see what I'm playing.

The question, my poor H, doesn't make any sense. Your post. Your
header. No other option.

>
>
>
> > > > > > ***And here is your header. Would you please educate me as to how this
> > > > > > could not be your heading? Thanks.
>
> > > > > > Still waiting for your explanation, H.
>
> > > > > Do you think I wrote it or not?
>
> > > > Nice try, H. You're not fooling anyone here. Normally, you would just
> > > > slink away as you did the last time this was posted. Now you will try
> > > > silliness instead. This is fun!
>
> > > It's never fun for you in the end. I'm preparing that end for you as we speak.
>
> > You couldn't come up with anything meaningful to say, yet felt
> > compelled to say something. Thus we get the non-statement above.
>
> You really are so foolish to make an issue of whether or not I took
> the header from youtube? Why yes you are. You've tried to make
> adolescent "issues" of nothing before. This is worse than nothing.
> Just think, Richard Ratner of Somerville MA, you could have faced me
> on the merits of the issue, i.e., the merits of M & W's book.

You said

> > > > > > > > >> No I don't believe Israel "gives a shit" about that video.

to which I replied

> > > > > > > > > Hehe, I guess you forgot that your heading was "A video the Israelis
> > > > > > > > didn't want us to see".

You then tried to deny that that was your header, which I proved a
lie. I don't understand why we need to belabor it, but I am certainly
willing to go over it until it penetrates that poor, alcohol-sopped
cerebrum.

>
>
> > There are 2 issues in this little thread:
>
> > First, you were involved in a few discussions with me some months ago
> > re an interview by Tom Ashbrook of M.
>
> Of Mr. Mearsheimer. Try speaking his name. He is a renowned Professor
> of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

At this stage he is a laughingstock and a pariah. Just like your other
academic hero, Boyle. Hey, there's another thread you fled from -
couldn't face the truth about him either.

>
>  I will refresh your woefully
>
> > defective memory of what they were about: M contradicts one of the
> > main premises of his book, namely that Israel was responsible for the
> > US invasion of Iraq. Here is the message id of the first of a number
> > of mentions of it by me, every one of which you fled from, for your
> > reading pleasure:
>
> I do derive considerable pleasure from dealing with you,

Translation: yikes, drahcir, you get me every time! Regarding the
below, I would just love to spend time reading it, but they're showing
a rerun of I Love Lucy, so gotta go. Ta.

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 1:27 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Second, you haven't addressed this statement:
>
> > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> the context of which is above, specifically re the fact that the
> heading was clearly yours. I am sure most here would just love to know
> what was going on between those jumbled neurons of yours when you
> wrote it. You've now tried evasion by nonsense, what will be your next
> response? I predict flight. Let's see if I'm correct.
>
> ***
>
> You were incorrect, he chose insanity instead.

Exactly.

>
> He tried a similar tack with me a while ago, a video he linked to implied
> IDF soldiers were hitting someone with a rock.

Same thread that his header came from.

I challenged the implication
> by pointing out the soldiers gun's weren't IDF issue (among other reasons).
>
> He said they weren't carrying guns.
>
> I pointed out that they were carrying guns, and his reply was to say those
> weren't guns, they were rifles.
>
> I'm not kidding.
>
> At no time did he address the obvious point that the video he posted a link
> to contained a falsehood, presenting Palestinian militias beating a helpless
> Palestinian as IDF soldiers. The entire gun/rifle nonsense was a diversion,
> and then he ran from the thread.

He ran a number of times in that thread alone. If you go back to it,
you will see that he tried to claim that a post I made showing Boyle,
the professor in the viideo, to be a nutcase, was wrong, that Boyle
was "joking". I provided much evidence to the contrary, to which he
never replied. H's modus operandi - talk himself into a corner, then
run.

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

Prove ONE blunder in their book on AIPAC. Lies don't count.

[Count 1]

"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:199aa837-8b28-4f34...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

***

Getting on to more important things... I totally forgot Canada Day,
and I am shameful of that...because
online you, MHM, and Devon are some of the most delightful people that
I have ever met. I hope that when your
labour day shows up in a few, I will be more thoughtful, as I should
because we obviously share that one, although I am not familiar with
the particulars of that holiday.... At any rate.....

Good wishes towards you and yours..

***

Thanks DoD. I didn't put up something marking America's birthday, so we're
in the same doghouse.

All the best to you and yours for the coming year.

[Count 1]

***

He ran a number of times in that thread alone. If you go back to it,
you will see that he tried to claim that a post I made showing Boyle,
the professor in the viideo, to be a nutcase, was wrong, that Boyle
was "joking". I provided much evidence to the contrary, to which he
never replied. H's modus operandi - talk himself into a corner, then
run.

***

I've found the same thing on two other issues, appeasment of Islamic
terrorism and how his 'criticism' of Israel is predicated on anti-semitic
material.

I'm enjoying watching him squirm over the contradction you found. "You

really are so foolish to make an issue of whether or not I took the header
from youtube?"

1) That's not the issue, the issue is in the contradiction he supplied to
his header in the thread.
2) Everyone knows he's not smart enough to come up with a header on his own,
of course he got the material from somewhere else. The question is if he
agreed with it so much to not bother even using quotes why did he later in
the thread contradict his header?

His original error indicates senility, his ham-fisted rebuttals prove it.

[Count 1]

> He tried a similar tack with me a while ago, a video he linked to implied
> IDF soldiers were hitting someone with a rock.

Same thread that his header came from.

***

Further to this - Boyle made the news recently.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392983,00.html

"A veteran American lawyer and political activist says he will represent the
Iranian regime if it decides to sue the United States.
Iran's Press TV reports University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle
is urging Iranian leaders to sue Israel and the U.S. through the
International Court of Justice in an effort to block further sanctions on
its nuclear program and to discourage a military attack. He says, "Iran
should sue these states immediately, convene an emergency hearing by the
World Court and ask the court to indicate provisional measures of protection
on behalf of Iran... basically a temporary restraining order."

Boyle is legal counsel to the provisional government of the Palestinian
state. He published a book last year that encouraged the impeachment of
President Bush."

***

Awww - isn't that sweet - Prof. Boyle still has his head so firmly up his
ass he's actually willing to work for international protection of a
totalitarian theocracy who still conducts mass public executions. For some
people, there is no hope.

[drahcir]

A message id provided later in this thread provides nearly 20 reviews
that you are free to read. In addition, that by Leslie Gelb
in the NYTBR is here:

http://tinyurl.com/6s8w88

Now, regarding your challenge, it's indicative of one thing: you don't
know how to read. The blunder I referred to was not in their book, but
in an interview in which W contradicted a main premise of their book.
Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
escape you, but at least I must try, right?

[drahcir]

It doesn't take more than a few googles on this guy to comprehend the
primary motivation for his political views - jews killed christ.

[drahcir]

Exactly. The source is irrelevant. When it's in your header, it's
yours.
It is so pathetic watching him now squirm, I have no words.

> His original error indicates senility, his ham-fisted rebuttals prove it.

Not familiar with that term, ham-fisted. What does it mean? That he's
trying to squirm away with blunt force?

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 29, 10:33 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 9:08 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 9:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > the least.
>
> > Prove ONE blunder in their book on AIPAC.  Lies don't count.
>
> A message id provided later in this thread provides nearly 20 reviews
> that you are free to read. In addition, that by Leslie Gelb
> in the NYTBR is here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6s8w88

Zionist liars "review" things all the time. Try again,
I have already said lies don't count.

> Now, regarding your challenge, it's indicative of one thing: you don't
> know how to read. The blunder I referred to was not in their book, but
> in an interview in which W contradicted a main premise of their book.

Uh oh, are we hinting that Mearsheimer is really a Nazi here?

> Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
> then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
> My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
> escape you, but at least I must try, right?

I am not interested in any interview "blunders" you've come up with.
Their book (which I have read) speaks for itself.

[Count 1]

> His original error indicates senility, his ham-fisted rebuttals prove it.

**

Not familiar with that term, ham-fisted. What does it mean? That he's
trying to squirm away with blunt force?

**

Clumsy, awkward, inept.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ham%20fisted

[Count 1]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c5114f6-4277-459a...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

***

It doesn't take more than a few googles on this guy to comprehend the
primary motivation for his political views - jews killed christ.

***

Ahhhh - that explains it. Is he an adherent of that Catholic sect Mel Gibson
belongs to?

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 11:00 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 29, 10:33 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 9:08 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 9:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > > the least.
>
> > > Prove ONE blunder in their book on AIPAC.  Lies don't count.
>
> > A message id provided later in this thread provides nearly 20 reviews
> > that you are free to read. In addition, that by Leslie Gelb
> > in the NYTBR is here:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/6s8w88
>
> Zionist liars "review" things all the time.   Try again,
> I have already said lies don't count.

Nothing counts except jews suck. Yawn. Another Einstein for the board
to have fun with.

>
> > Now, regarding your challenge, it's indicative of one thing: you don't
> > know how to read. The blunder I referred to was not in their book, but
> > in an interview in which W contradicted a main premise of their book.
>
> Uh oh, are we hinting that Mearsheimer is really a Nazi here?

Sheesh. I state IN THIS THREAD the premise that he contradicts. You
are quickly proving too dull for me to waste much more time on.

>
> > Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
> > then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
> > My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
> > escape you, but at least I must try, right?
>
> I am not interested in any interview "blunders" you've come up with.

Who cares what you are interested in? YOU couldn't even comprehend the
blunders I referred to. That's YOUR problem. For any objective person,
the blunder indicates that, like most liars, M can't keep his story
straight.

> Their book (which I have read) speaks for itself.

That is an empty statement. All books speak for themselves. Then what
they say is analyzed by peers. Those that survive review are accepted,
those that don't aren't. I am not qualified to review such a book
because I don't have the knowledge to determine whether the sources
they cite and the conclusions they draw are valid, and I certainly
don't have the time to track down and validate the sources myself.
Thus, as with any other book, I rely on peer reviews to determine
whether or not the book is worth reading. The reviews I posted tell me
that it is not. You, on the other hand, want to run out and buy any
book that will make you feel better about the completely unfounded
conclusions you have drawn. Hell, you can't even understand a simple
usenet post, and you want readers to believe you have the capacity to
critically analyze and then accept a book more advanced than "See Spot
run"? Give me a break.

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 11:15 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Dunno. He considers himself first and foremost a Catholic and a
"citizen of Ireland" (he's american) who is of the "Irish race". What
I don't get about this type of antisemite is, it seems illogical. I am
on shaky ground here, but I understand christians believe that God
sent "his son" down to be killed to save humanity (as kooky as that
sounds). If christ were not killed, humanity would not be saved. So if
jews killed christ, didn't jews help save humanity? This is all
besides the point that all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God knew
about all of this presumably when jesus was just a little tyke, or
even before, and had it all planned out for him, so why is anyone
pissed at jews for simply fulfilling God's plan? My understanding is
that you can't just say no to God anyway - if you do, that's really
what he wants. I dunno, it's all beyond me. The world seems so much
simpler without god.

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 29, 11:19 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Zionist liars "review" things all the time.   Try again,
> > I have already said lies don't count.
>
> Nothing counts except jews suck. Yawn. Another Einstein for the board
> to have fun with.

Not all Jews suck. Just the ZioNazi variety.

> > Uh oh, are we hinting that Mearsheimer is really a Nazi here?
>
> Sheesh. I state IN THIS THREAD the premise that he contradicts. You
> are quickly proving too dull for me to waste much more time on.

Sorry, but your ilk are so predictable.

> > > Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
> > > then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
> > > My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
> > > escape you, but at least I must try, right?
>
> > I am not interested in any interview "blunders" you've come up with.
>
> Who cares what you are interested in? YOU couldn't even comprehend the
> blunders I referred to.

Sorry, I didn't read them. I don't have to read the lyrics to know
the tune.

> That is an empty statement. All books speak for themselves. Then what
> they say is analyzed by peers. Those that survive review are accepted,
> those that don't aren't. I am not qualified to review such a book
> because I don't have the knowledge to determine whether the sources
> they cite and the conclusions they draw are valid, and I certainly
> don't have the time to track down and validate the sources myself.
> Thus, as with any other book, I rely on peer reviews to determine
> whether or not the book is worth reading. The reviews I posted tell me
> that it is not.

Your peers are ZioNazis. A ZioNazi not wanting the smear M&W for
this book would be like starving grizz not wanting a sirloin steak.

>You, on the other hand, want to run out and buy any
> book that will make you feel better about the completely unfounded
> conclusions you have drawn.

The observation evidence that the current Israel/US relationship is
bad for America is overwhelming, but of course, that is only
a view shared by real Americans, not duel-loyalist ZioNazis.

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 3:24 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 29, 11:19 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Zionist liars "review" things all the time.   Try again,
> > > I have already said lies don't count.
>
> > Nothing counts except jews suck. Yawn. Another Einstein for the board
> > to have fun with.
>
> Not all Jews suck.  Just the ZioNazi variety.

Hmmm, now where have I heard that one before.....

>
> > > Uh oh, are we hinting that Mearsheimer is really a Nazi here?
>
> > Sheesh. I state IN THIS THREAD the premise that he contradicts. You
> > are quickly proving too dull for me to waste much more time on.
>
> Sorry, but your ilk are so predictable.

You mean it's predictable that a person of intelligence would find you
too dull to spend time on? Yes, you are probably right.

>
> > > > Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
> > > > then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
> > > > My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
> > > > escape you, but at least I must try, right?
>
> > > I am not interested in any interview "blunders" you've come up with.
>
> > Who cares what you are interested in? YOU couldn't even comprehend the
> > blunders I referred to.
>
> Sorry, I didn't read them.  

It's not an issue of just not having read them. You apparently didn't
comprehend that they were from interviews and not from the book.

I don't have to read the lyrics to know
> the tune.
>
> > That is an empty statement. All books speak for themselves. Then what
> > they say is analyzed by peers. Those that survive review are accepted,
> > those that don't aren't. I am not qualified to review such a book
> > because I don't have the knowledge to determine whether the sources
> > they cite and the conclusions they draw are valid, and I certainly
> > don't have the time to track down and validate the sources myself.
> > Thus, as with any other book, I rely on peer reviews to determine
> > whether or not the book is worth reading. The reviews I posted tell me
> > that it is not.
>
> Your peers are ZioNazis.   A ZioNazi not wanting the smear M&W for
> this book would be like starving grizz not wanting a sirloin steak.

Dolt, it has nothing to do with MY peers. It has to do with peers of
the authors.

>
> >You, on the other hand, want to run out and buy any
> > book that will make you feel better about the completely unfounded
> > conclusions you have drawn.
>
> The observation evidence that the current Israel/US relationship is
> bad for America is overwhelming, but of course, that is only
> a view shared by real Americans, not duel-loyalist ZioNazis.

Don't insult "real" americans by implying they have anything to do
with an obvious ignoramus like you. BTW, a duel is something you do
with swords or pistols.

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 29, 4:23 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 3:24 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 11:19 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Zionist liars "review" things all the time.   Try again,
> > > > I have already said lies don't count.
>
> > > Nothing counts except jews suck. Yawn. Another Einstein for the board
> > > to have fun with.
>
> > Not all Jews suck.  Just the ZioNazi variety.
>
> Hmmm, now where have I heard that one before.....

Dunno. Where? Hells bells, I wouldn't be afraid to tell you
all Jews suck. But doing so would hurt the feelings of
some Jews who happen to be decent, non-Zionazi
types. But you may spin on it all you like.

>
> > > Sheesh. I state IN THIS THREAD the premise that he contradicts. You
> > > are quickly proving too dull for me to waste much more time on.
>
> > Sorry, but your ilk are so predictable.
>
> You mean it's predictable that a person of intelligence would find you
> too dull to spend time on?

No, this is not what I mean.

>Yes, you are probably right.

Usually am.

> > Your peers are ZioNazis.   A ZioNazi not wanting the smear M&W for
> > this book would be like starving grizz not wanting a sirloin steak.
>
> Dolt, it has nothing to do with MY peers. It has to do with peers of
> the authors.

Who are? Most real and informed Americans agree with the M&W
viewpoint.
Check out the polls results on the US/Isreal relationship that they
include in their book. The ZioNazi-run media try to spin these
into something else.

> > The observation evidence that the current Israel/US relationship is
> > bad for America is overwhelming, but of course, that is only
> > a view shared by real Americans, not duel-loyalist ZioNazis.
>
> Don't insult "real" americans by implying they have anything to do
> with an obvious ignoramus like you. BTW, a duel is something you do
> with swords or pistols.

Well looky looky, he spotted a typo. You might be surprised
to learn that many Americans are a little more intelligent
than you give them credit for.

[fla...@verizon.net]

On 29-Jul-2008, drahcir <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 29, 9:08 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 9:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > the least.
> >
> > Prove ONE blunder in their book on AIPAC.  Lies don't count.
>

The cowardly bigot *wishes* Walt & Mearsheimer's lies don't count! :-P

> A message id provided later in this thread provides nearly 20 reviews
> that you are free to read. In addition, that by Leslie Gelb
> in the NYTBR is here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6s8w88
>
> Now, regarding your challenge, it's indicative of one thing: you don't
> know how to read.

Possibly, but the more important (in this instance)
fact is that he's in denial, & for a reason.

Susan

[HHW]

On Jul 29, 9:30 am, Richard Ratner, a/k/a "Count 1"

<omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He tried a similar tack with me a while ago, a video he linked to implied
> > IDF soldiers were hitting someone with a rock.
>
> Same thread that his header came from.

Talking to yourself again, Ratner?

> Further to this - Boyle made the news recently.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392983,00.html
>
> "A veteran American lawyer and political activist says he will represent the
> Iranian regime if it decides to sue the United States.

Notice that when not citing the Iranian press release, Fox deletes the
fact that like Dershowitz, Boyle is a Professor of Law. But where
Dershowitz displays unyielding devotion to a country not his own,
Boyle displays an unerring feel for the American national interest.

> Iran's Press TV reports University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle
> is urging Iranian leaders to sue Israel and the U.S. through the
> International Court of Justice in an effort to block further sanctions on
> its nuclear program and to discourage a military attack.

As Iran has an undisputed right to its nuclear program, and as
American sanctions against that program at the demand of the Israel
Lobby and Israel must therefore be violative of that right--and as
military attacks by Israel and America or by either will certainly be
criminal under international law, Professor Boyle's proposed
litigation can hardly be at cross purposes with these two isolated
countries' true interests. The deterrence of crime is an honorable
cause and in any event lawyers sue the Federal Government and file in
the World Court continuously. There are even provisions for
Declaratory Judgment built into the Federal Rules. (look it up) The
fact that some of the motive might be politicaI is irrelevant to the
right to do it. I will be very interested in following such
litigation. You will no doubt hear about it here whether you like it
or not. Any tiny contribution to dissuading the USA from attacking
Iran on Israel's behalf will be valuable. Professor Boyle can only be
respected for having the guts to make it. Lawyers file lawsuits. Let
us hope that he will do it in this case.

PS A good argument for doing it is that neofascist Fox News derides it
on "patriotic" grounds.

He says, "Iran
> should sue these states immediately, convene an emergency hearing by the
> World Court and ask the court to indicate provisional measures of protection
> on behalf of Iran... basically a temporary restraining order."

Perfectly rational procedure. The entire UN except the US, Israel and
maybe three quasi-independent islands in Micronesia are against
military action. Classic neoconservative American Zionism would demand
that America ignore law and court rulings and go ahead with the attack
in violation of them, so long as it was in Israel's interest..

Professor Boyle has the personal right as an American lawyer to file
such a suit.

>
> Boyle is legal counsel to the provisional government of the Palestinian
> state. He published a book last year that encouraged the impeachment of
> President Bush."

He was their legal counsel. I have the impression that that is no
longer true. I admire him for having done it, just as I admire the
courageous young lawyers who faced down the Klan in the American South
during the civil rights era..

>
> ***
>
> Awww - isn't that sweet - Prof. Boyle still has his head so firmly up his
> ass he's actually willing to work for international protection of a
> totalitarian theocracy who still conducts mass public executions. For some
> people, there is no hope.

You hate any regime which opposes Israeli racism, militarism and
territorial expansionism. You hate regimes who even criticize and
organize against the Israeli occupation. You do this despite the fact
the your homeland should be doing the same things and would not be
nearly in such a mess in the Middle East if she had had the guts to
stand up to the obligation..

Nothing is sweet about territorial aggression, mass murder and ethnic
cleansing of civilians. Israel is guilty of these crimes and we can
not work with the rest of the world to punish her. We can not even
acknowledge they are crimes. We can not even terminate our material
support for her. Yet Ratner thinks it appropriate for the lobby to
demand of us that we sanction and attack a third party, one with less
foreign blood on her hands than Israel. She continues in a forty year
illegal occupation the goal of which is illegal territorial
aggrandizement. Tell us, Ratner, why America should not demand of the
Israelis that it all end immediately?

And why, finally, should we have any respect for a foul-mouthed Jewish
Zionist who doesn't have to work for a living in a collapsing economy
and who spends his time on the net trying to intimidate those who
advocate a bottom-up change of Israel policy here in the United
States? A change in our Israel policy--and in our broader policy in
the Middle East--is obviously in the American national interest. You
know it and don't give a damn. In behaving this way you display a
shameful conflict of interest.

[Count 1]

Wow - you seem to be really worked up. No need to have a temper tantrum just
because someone has a different opinion than you. Lets just jump to the
stuff you address to me - your concerns about what the author wrote are
better placed in an email to him.

> Awww - isn't that sweet - Prof. Boyle still has his head so firmly up his
> ass he's actually willing to work for international protection of a
> totalitarian theocracy who still conducts mass public executions. For some
> people, there is no hope.

***

You hate any regime which opposes Israeli racism, militarism and
territorial expansionism. You hate regimes who even criticize and
organize against the Israeli occupation. You do this despite the fact
the your homeland should be doing the same things and would not be
nearly in such a mess in the Middle East if she had had the guts to
stand up to the obligation..

***

Not one word of that makes any sense. I would hate Israeli racism,
militari...blah blah blah if those things actually existed. As it is they
are just lies spouted by an old man who is ignorant of current events.

Probably old enough to have come of age before the socially progressive
mindset really began to set into North America - beginning in the mid 60's.
I came later, so I am not burdened with the prejudices of the much older
generation that raised you. Back in the days when you said 'chink' and
'kike' just as easy as you said 'get to the back of the bus'.

The Iranian regime is bad enough to be 'hated' - that's not the right word,
but I need to speak at your level - for many reasons. It rules through fear
and oppression, and to deflect attention from their numerous short comings
they employ the age old practice of scapegoating Jews.

It's pathetic and sad, and you should work to remove your ignorance.

***

Nothing is sweet about territorial aggression, mass murder and ethnic
cleansing of civilians. Israel is guilty of these crimes and we can
not work with the rest of the world to punish her. We can not even
acknowledge they are crimes. We can not even terminate our material
support for her. Yet Ratner thinks it appropriate for the lobby to
demand of us that we sanction and attack a third party, one with less
foreign blood on her hands than Israel. She continues in a forty year
illegal occupation the goal of which is illegal territorial
aggrandizement. Tell us, Ratner, why America should not demand of the
Israelis that it all end immediately?

***

There's that senility again. I'm Count 1, you old fart. But just so you know
it is appropriate for 'the lobby' to argue for an attack on Iran. Your
country is free and they have that right, just as Saudi lobbiests have every
right to argue against one. The nonsense about 'illegal occupation' and
'aggrandizement' again don't compute - so they are ignored.

Don't you find it interesting that for all this supposed power 'the lobby'
has no strike on Iran is forthcoming?

It hasn't happened. It's not gonna happen. No one is talking about it. Given
Ahmadinejad's interview with Brian Williams the other day it looks like the
regime is starting to show some give and take. (Maybe not - but we'll see).
The US is planning on opening up a Consulate office, US and Iran sat down
face to face not long ago.

Basically just about everything shows the relationship to be improving, not
deteriorating like you and the other anti semites keep telling us is the
inevitable outcome of 'the lobby's' Machiavellian machinations.

***

And why, finally, should we have any respect for a foul-mouthed Jewish
Zionist who doesn't have to work for a living in a collapsing economy
and who spends his time on the net trying to intimidate those who
advocate a bottom-up change of Israel policy here in the United
States? A change in our Israel policy--and in our broader policy in
the Middle East--is obviously in the American national interest. You
know it and don't give a damn. In behaving this way you display a
shameful conflict of interest.

***

Uh huh. And by behaving as if I'm someone I'm not you display a worrying
lack of sanity.

Possessing my sanity at least I could rationalize 'conflict of interest' -
even if it was true.

Basically that entire screed was meaningless. It was flawed from the first
sentence, and went even more askew with your bizarre description of me. The
hyperbolic bullshit about 'territorial expanism' only shows you remain
ignorant of current events.

Why you feel the need to solely demonize Israel - in essence acting as a
propaganda agent for Palestinians - is probably predicated on some
underlying irrational emotions you have towards jewish people, this
behaviour is also displayed when you rely on the anti-semitic canards of a
lobby even Michael Scheurer says pales in size and money to the Saudi lobby.

But I do enjoy watching you get all worked up....

[HHW]

On Jul 29, 10:19 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 11:00 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 10:33 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 9:08 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 9:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is, of all the
> > > > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where they blunder
> > > > > the least.
>
> > > > Prove ONE blunder in their book on AIPAC. Lies don't count.
>
> > > A message id provided later in this thread provides nearly 20 reviews
> > > that you are free to read. In addition, that by Leslie Gelb
> > > in the NYTBR is here:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/6s8w88
>
> > Zionist liars "review" things all the time. Try again,
> > I have already said lies don't count.
>
> Nothing counts except jews suck. Yawn. Another Einstein for the board
> to have fun with.

Does conflict of interest suck?

>
>
>
> > > Now, regarding your challenge, it's indicative of one thing: you don't
> > > know how to read. The blunder I referred to was not in their book, but
> > > in an interview in which W contradicted a main premise of their book.
>
> > Uh oh, are we hinting that Mearsheimer is really a Nazi here?
>
> Sheesh. I state IN THIS THREAD the premise that he contradicts. You
> are quickly proving too dull for me to waste much more time on.

You say so but what you actually do is display your complete
misunderstanding of the book which you will not read.

>
>
>
> > > Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
> > > then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
> > > My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
> > > escape you, but at least I must try, right?

"It" should escape him. It doesn't exist.

>
> > I am not interested in any interview "blunders" you've come up with.
>
> Who cares what you are interested in? YOU couldn't even comprehend the
> blunders I referred to.

Up to now there was one alleged blunder. Now you slip into the plural.
As is the case of the first you don't document the others. You can't
be trusted, Ratner.

That's YOUR problem. For any objective person,
> the blunder indicates that, like most liars, M can't keep his story
> straight.

But there was no blunder. It doesn't exist. You don't demonstrate it
to the people reading this. You didn't demonstrate it to me the first
time around.

>
> > Their book (which I have read) speaks for itself.
>
> That is an empty statement. All books speak for themselves.

If all books speak for themselves then of necessity it is a true
statement. In your case the evidence is that the book itself is
powerful and very painful for you zionists, as you are afraid to read
it. It is still being sold widely. Unlike the determinedly ignorant
such as you, hundreds of thousands of those who read reviews wanted to
read the book themselves. They did buy it and they are certainly
passing it around. Four or five of my friends have read my copy.

From a man who hasn't read the book and failed to do so so he would
not have to face people who have, this "argument" of yours is
despicable

Do books filled with quotations such as M & W's also speak solely for
themselves?

Then what
> they say is analyzed by peers. Those that survive review are accepted,
> those that don't aren't. I am not qualified to review such a book

You don't have the guts to review it. What you are talking about is an
internal process completely among scholars and for scholarly purposes.
That sort of professional review determines access to the university
presses and academic journals. Others written by famed scholars are
routinely reviewed outside that environment, especially when they are
being published for mass circulation, many of them in the finest non-
academic reviews in the West. You virtually never actually understand
what you're talking about. Frankly I don't think you're an educated
man.

> because I don't have the knowledge to determine whether the sources
> they cite and the conclusions they draw are valid, and I certainly
> don't have the time to track down and validate the sources myself.
> Thus, as with any other book, I rely on peer reviews to determine
> whether or not the book is worth reading. The reviews I posted tell me
> that it is not.

Dumb as a post. You don't read academic reviews in the university
press, nor do you read academic journals. They're not even available
to the public except by subscription. They aren't found on newstands
or in Borders.

You posted urls to journalism, to reviews by Jewish Zionists, many of
them in lobby rags, which make no pretense to scholarship at all. How
you became so arrogant without an education is a wonder. Is it what
you people call chutzpah?

You, on the other hand, want to run out and buy any
> book that will make you feel better about the completely unfounded
> conclusions you have drawn.

Have the readers ever seen anything like this? This idiot argues that
intelligent, educated laymen should never read academic work product
and should stick to journalistic reviews if anything. You don't have
an education, Ratner. It's doubtful you've experienced much if any of
the university environment, much less graduate school. One can become
widely read without that experience but simply can not come to
understand from the inside how it works. And you're not even widely
read.

BTW, I believe you got that list of urls from a zionist source. You
certainly did not read 20 reviews of the Mearsheimer and Walt book.

Hell, you can't even understand a simple
> usenet post, and you want readers to believe you have the capacity to
> critically analyze and then accept a book more advanced than "See Spot
> run"? Give me a break.

No breaks for you.

[HHW]

Not good tactics to attack members of the dominant religion, Ratner.

So Count 1 is also Jewish, by coincidence of course. Yet there are so
few in British Columbia.

[HHW]

drahcir and Count 1 and one and the same: Richard Ratner of Somerville
Mass. Ignore Count 1's Canadian address. It's Ratner just hollering
down another pipe.

[drahcir]

Listen, sherlock, unless I am mistaken, count has stated on numerous
occasions that he is not jewish. Why don't you go watch your shows,
you pathetic creature?

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 29, 7:56 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> drahcir and Count 1 and one and the same: Richard Ratner of Somerville
> Mass. Ignore Count 1's Canadian address. It's Ratner just hollering
> down another pipe

HAHAHAHAhardyharhar. Hey, don't it just figure! The sleazy little
ZioNazi carries on the weasel tradition they're known for! Oh, he's
Canadian, oh, he can trace his ancestors back 200 years in
his native land of Canada! This is too funny! The snivelly little
liar. Proving once again they're good for nothing but lies
and deception. Watch the miserable little squirt deny it.

Thanks for the tidbit H. I'm actually still chuckling!

[HHW]

On Jul 29, 8:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Hahahahahahahahahah.

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 4:35 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 29, 4:23 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 3:24 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 11:19 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Zionist liars "review" things all the time.   Try again,
> > > > > I have already said lies don't count.
>
> > > > Nothing counts except jews suck. Yawn. Another Einstein for the board
> > > > to have fun with.
>
> > > Not all Jews suck.  Just the ZioNazi variety.
>
> > Hmmm, now where have I heard that one before.....
>
> Dunno. Where?  

You probably really don't know, so I will tell you. As an example,
every poster on this board with a below average IQ says exactly that.
Now you know.

Hells bells, I wouldn't be afraid to tell you
> all Jews suck.   But doing so would hurt the feelings of
> some Jews who happen to be decent, non-Zionazi
> types.  

Yeah, like there's someone out there who cares what you think.

But you may spin on it all you like.
>

Again with the spin. Looks like our moron learned a new word. The
world looks like it's spinning to you because you're dizzy.

>
> > > > Sheesh. I state IN THIS THREAD the premise that he contradicts. You
> > > > are quickly proving too dull for me to waste much more time on.
>
> > > Sorry, but your ilk are so predictable.
>
> > You mean it's predictable that a person of intelligence would find you
> > too dull to spend time on?
>
> No, this is not what I mean.

Well, that's what you said.

>
> >Yes, you are probably right.
>
> Usually am.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. But you are in this case.

>
> > > Your peers are ZioNazis.   A ZioNazi not wanting the smear M&W for
> > > this book would be like starving grizz not wanting a sirloin steak.
>
> > Dolt, it has nothing to do with MY peers. It has to do with peers of
> > the authors.
>
> Who are?  Most real and informed Americans agree with the M&W
> viewpoint. Check out the polls results on the US/Isreal relationship that they
> include in their book.

"The polls"?? Tell me, what polls are they? Who conducted them? Where
are they published? Who reviewed the results? I would think they're on
the web, right? Got a url for me?

  The ZioNazi-run media try to spin these
> into something else.

Really? Got some proof of this spin? Some examples? Anything except
you, a moron, spewing time-worn nonsense on usenet?

>
> > > The observation evidence that the current Israel/US relationship is
> > > bad for America is overwhelming, but of course, that is only
> > > a view shared by real Americans, not duel-loyalist ZioNazis.
>
> > Don't insult "real" americans by implying they have anything to do
> > with an obvious ignoramus like you. BTW, a duel is something you do
> > with swords or pistols.
>
> Well looky looky, he spotted a typo.

No, I spotted a word misconception. Typos happen either from hitting a
key adjacent to what one meant, or from typing a common word which is
similar to the word intended (not for no, e.g.). In this case, you
just didn't know one word from the other.

 You might be surprised
> to learn that many Americans are a little more intelligent
> than you give them credit for.

Well, you couldn't be much less intelligent than I give you credit for.

[HHW]

As you are Count 1 why should it matter whether you deny it?

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 29, 8:33 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who are?  Most real and informed Americans agree with the M&W
> > viewpoint. Check out the polls results on the US/Isreal relationship that they
> > include in their book.
>
> "The polls"?? Tell me, what polls are they? Who conducted them? Where
> are they published? Who reviewed the results? I would think they're on
> the web, right? Got a url for me?

Calling Count1 from Canada, hello hello, are you receiving me?
HAHAHA, you sleazy little weasel. Get the book you lazy
little lying Zionazi dipshit. I've got their book near my desk,
but you ain't worth looking up the page number. There's
nothing but rock solid documentation and facts in the M&W
book, which is why you hate it.

Now tell me about those Canadian ancestors that go back
200 years! HAHAHAHA.

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

Man the laughs never end with USENET, which is why I love it.

This sick little turd is now TALKING TO HIMSELF!!!!

Have you seen this HHW? We're in a loony bin here!

HAHAHA. This is too beautiful man.

[drahcir]

Ah, I see, in your view I misunderstand a book I did not read. Very
interesting, H.

>
> > > > Go back and maybe ask your mommy to help you understand what I wrote,
> > > > then see if you can track down the Ashbrook interview all by yourself.
> > > > My guess, based on your post, is that the blunder will completely
> > > > escape you, but at least I must try, right?
>
> "It" should escape him. It doesn't exist.
>

If that makes all your hurt go away, you just go ahead and keep
repeating that.

>
> > > I am not interested in any interview "blunders" you've come up with.
>
> > Who cares what you are interested in? YOU couldn't even comprehend the
> > blunders I referred to.
>
> Up to now there was one alleged blunder. Now you slip into the plural.

Read the original sentence in this thread, H.

> As is the case of the first you don't document the others. You can't
> be trusted, Ratner.
>
>  That's YOUR problem. For any objective person,
>
> > the blunder indicates that, like most liars, M can't keep his story
> > straight.

Did you overlook the fact that now that I am into the part of the
sentence that refers to the actual blunder, it is singular? Hmmm, poor
little H?

> But there was no blunder. It doesn't exist.

There, there, H, of course the big, bad blunder doesn't exist. You
just forget all about that meanie blunder and go ask someone to get
you a snack.

You don't demonstrate it
> to the people reading this. You didn't demonstrate it to me the first
> time around.

The url is in the message for which I provided the id. Anyone can cut
and paste the id, scroll down to the url, and click. Well, anyone that
really wants to read it. You don't of course - that's why you have
fled probably 5 threads in which it was cited.

>
>
>
> > > Their book (which I have read) speaks for itself.
>
> > That is an empty statement. All books speak for themselves.
>
> If all books speak for themselves then of necessity it is a true
> statement.

I realize that the brain plaques make you think the above sentence
makes sense. So sad, so sad....

In your case the evidence is that the book itself is
> powerful and very painful for you zionists, as you are afraid to read
> it.

Nah, the book was very poorly reviewed. The vast majority of the
published reviews were negative. Do you remember that it was only
after my asking innumerable times that you cited a positive review.
Only problem was, you forgot what you cited and claimed it was about
Pappe. If you are having trouble remembering, let me know and, of
course, I will provide id's for that hilarious thread.

It is still being sold widely. Unlike the determinedly ignorant
> such as you, hundreds of thousands of those who read reviews wanted to
> read the book themselves. They did buy it and they are certainly
> passing it around. Four or five of my friends have read my copy.

Why do I not doubt that?

>
> From a man who hasn't read the book and failed to do so so he would
> not have to face people who have, this "argument" of yours is
> despicable

Um, what argument is that? That I judge which books to read based on
peer reviews? Yeah, how silly of me.

> Do books filled with quotations such as M & W's also speak solely for
> themselves?

What I glean from the reviews is that the their methods are so shoddy,
they couldn't possibly be explained by ineptitude.

>
>  Then what
>
> > they say is analyzed by peers. Those that survive review are accepted,
> > those that don't aren't. I am not qualified to review such a book
>
> You don't have the guts to review it.

Are you really that far gone? Who am I to review it? I have no
credentials to do so. If I make the decision to read a book, it is
after I have decided that, based on reviews, I can trust what it says.
Based on that evidence, there is simply no way an objective person can
trust what it says. Let's face it, the liar W couldn't even keep his
story straight with Ashbrook. You know, in that interview that doesn't
exist.

What you are talking about is an
> internal process completely among scholars and for scholarly purposes.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. The objective layman
uses peer review to make a decision about any non-fiction book. I have
done it innumerable times. I have mentioned here about stopping
reading From Time Immemorial after reading a damning peer review.

> That sort of professional review determines access to the university
> presses

What are you babbling about? University presses? After the book has
been published?

and academic journals. Others written by famed scholars are
> routinely reviewed outside that environment, especially when they are
> being published for mass circulation,

That is ALL we are talking about. You are confusing books with
scientific papers.

many of them in the finest non-
> academic reviews in the West. You virtually never actually understand
> what you're talking about. Frankly I don't think you're an educated
> man.
>
> > because I don't have the knowledge to determine whether the sources
> > they cite and the conclusions they draw are valid, and I certainly
> > don't have the time to track down and validate the sources myself.
> > Thus, as with any other book, I rely on peer reviews to determine
> > whether or not the book is worth reading. The reviews I posted tell me
> > that it is not.
>
> Dumb as a post. You don't read academic reviews in the university
> press, nor do you read academic journals.

Earth to H. Reviews are published in mass media.

They're not even available
> to the public except by subscription. They aren't found on newstands
> or in Borders.
>
> You posted urls to journalism, to reviews by Jewish Zionists, many of
> them in lobby rags, which make no pretense to scholarship at all. How
> you became so arrogant without an education is a wonder. Is it what
> you people call chutzpah?

On the other hand, after all of my asking, you came up with exactly
one positive review and couldn't even remember what it was about. Do
you remember, H? It was by Judt and you claimed for the longest time
it was of Pappe. That was when you made it crystal clear to all on
this board that you are friggin gone. I am tempted to go and get all
of the message id's so that you can relive your embarrassment.

>
>  You, on the other hand, want to run out and buy any
>
> > book that will make you feel better about the completely unfounded
> > conclusions you have drawn.
>
> Have the readers ever seen anything like this? This idiot argues that
> intelligent, educated laymen should never read academic work product
> and should stick to journalistic reviews if anything.

Newsflash - You apparently misunderstood. I claim that I will not
waste time reading a book that has been poorly reviewed by peers. Most
normal brains could from that infer that I will spend time reading a
book that has had good reviews by peers. Of course, to H, any negative
review of his bible must ipso facto be by a zionist. He states so
above. Then he starts blabbering about journals and "academic"
reviews. Problem is, once a book is published, it's not in the realm
of academia anymore. And neither are the reviews which criticize or
support it.

You don't have
> an education, Ratner. It's doubtful you've experienced much if any of
> the university environment, much less graduate school. One can become
> widely read without that experience but simply can not come to
> understand from the inside how it works. And you're not even widely
> read.
>
> BTW, I believe you got that list of urls from a zionist source.

You believe? You can't remember what you had for breakfast. You don't
have to "believe", you imbecile. Just plug in the message id. Sheesh,
the moron tries to claim he didn't write the header of the first post
in a thread he started, and now talks about "believe" with a list of
reviews that is clear for all to see. Try to get a grip, will you?
?

You
> certainly did not read 20 reviews of the Mearsheimer and Walt book.

I said "nearly" 20. With Gelb, I think it was about 17 if memory
serves. Anyway, how would you know? You fled from the original thread,
H. The reason is clear for all to see.

>
>  Hell, you can't even understand a simple
>
> > usenet post, and you want readers to believe you have the capacity to
> > critically analyze and then accept a book more advanced than "See Spot
> > run"? Give me a break.
>
> No breaks for you.

No soup for you.

[drahcir]

Listen, it's time for me to come clean. I know this is going to be
hard for you to swallow, but I am not really Count1. I am really.....

YOU!!! BOOGABOOGABOOGA!!!

[drahcir]

Translation: There are no polls.

[Count 1]

<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8e986fd-8f12-4dad...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 29, 7:56 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> drahcir and Count 1 and one and the same: Richard Ratner of Somerville
> Mass. Ignore Count 1's Canadian address. It's Ratner just hollering
> down another pipe

***

HAHAHAHAhardyharhar. Hey, don't it just figure! The sleazy little
ZioNazi carries on the weasel tradition they're known for! Oh, he's
Canadian, oh, he can trace his ancestors back 200 years in
his native land of Canada! This is too funny! The snivelly little
liar. Proving once again they're good for nothing but lies
and deception. Watch the miserable little squirt deny it.

Thanks for the tidbit H. I'm actually still chuckling!

***

I am Canadian - I can trace my family back over 200 years in this country
(since before it was a country - to be precise) - I am not Drahcir, nor is
Drahcir I.

If you're smart enough you can learn to do NNTP traces and verify this
information for yourself.

BTW - HHW doesn't really believe Drahcir and I are the same, it's just a
deflection he uses when his lies and bullshit catch up to him. Drahcir and I
are just very good at making sure it does.

[drahcir]

What you hereby prove is that you are willing to believe anything
anyone tells you so long as it matches your preconceived idea. Deep
down H knows that the count and I are not the same person, but he dug
himself so deep into that hole that he can't now back out. And you,
you silly little twit, swallow it just as easily as you swallow M&W.

[drahcir]

On Jul 29, 9:22 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I have an admission to make. I am really HHW. I pose as him to show
that antisemites are mostly senile morons. I hope you will forgive
that I tried to deflect any attention to that fact by pretending that
I was accusing you of being me.

[HHW]

And not just Canadian but "Anglo Saxon" too. Then he's got the
chutzpah to denigrate Christianity and pretend he does it from the
position of a non--believer rather than from inside the Judaic
tradition. The guy is single, he lives alone, like DoD no sign of any
contact with the other sex, lives on dollops from a trust fund and and
generates his self-respect by pretending to be a composer. He claims
opposite me he works for a living. I don't believe it.

[HHW]

Except that we have to go to war on behalf of the whiner nation.
That's getting a little old.

[Count 1]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:948d5e69-ac49-4549...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

***

I have an admission to make. I am really HHW. I pose as him to show
that antisemites are mostly senile morons. I hope you will forgive
that I tried to deflect any attention to that fact by pretending that
I was accusing you of being me.

***

I'm pretty sure I understand, and I think I forgive you.

I too have an admission to make. I'm James Bond.

[DoD]

On Jul 29, 11:48 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

I thought you were Q....

[B. H. Cramer]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:86fda729-2e03-4e56...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 11:36 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:37 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 10:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 28, 5:09 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 28, 5:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 28, 6:29 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:13 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I suppose, perhaps what H means by "the best interview" is,
> > > > > > > > of all the
> > > > > > > > interviews of the oafs he has read, this is the one where
> > > > > > > > they blunder
> > > > > > > > the least.
>

> > > > > > > If you could point out a "blunder" they've made in any
> > > > > > > interview your
> > > > > > > credibility might improve. I say might.
>
> > > > > > You are a joke, H. One of the numerous discussions with me you
> > > > > > fled
> > > > > > from was about that very topic. Specifically, it was about the
> > > > > > interview in which M made an absolute fool of himself with Tom
> > > > > > Ashbrook.
>
> > > > > You're the absolute fool, Ratner. Nothing like that happened.
>
> > > > > Any bells ringing, or has the alzheimers put you into a
>
> > > > > > blissful fog? If the latter, just let me know, and I would be
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > than happy to provide a message id.
>
> > > > > I looked at it. There was nothing there.
>
> > > > A liar in addition to a senile fart. What a great combo!
>
> > > > > > (kinda reminds me of the monty python routine where a reporter
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > interviewing a notorious criminal. He says something like, "is
> > > > > > it true
> > > > > > you murdered Mr. Smith and then stole his money? To which the
> > > > > > interviewee replies, in a cockney accent, "no, never!". "But the
> > > > > > police actually have you on tape firing the gun at him, him
> > > > > > falling,
> > > > > > and you taking the cash." "Oh, yeah, I did that.")
>
> > > > > See above.
>
> > > > > > > It's the best because it is relatively long, features both of
> > > > > > > them and
> > > > > > > is filled with detail not likely to have been heard by this
> > > > > > > audience.
>
> > > > > > My, my, how the mighty have fallen. From the NYTBR to <chuckle>
> > > > > > Counterpunch. Justice is served.
>
> > > > > Who has fallen Richard?
>
> > > > > > Listen, speaking of unfinished business, could you please
> > > > > > comment on
> > > > > > this:
>
> > > > > > From Message-ID: d9df7a8a-a440-4337-8311-f755b4183109@
> > > > > > z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > > What do you want me to comment on?
>
> > > > > > On Jul 12, 2:21 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:10 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I figured you went to the beach or something, yet now I see
> > > > > > > > you have
> > > > > > > > been here all day, posting away, and not having the courtesy
> > > > > > > > to grant
> > > > > > > > me a reply. I guess you don't want to face this:
> > > > > > > > >> No I don't believe Israel "gives a shit" about that
> > > > > > > > >> video.
> > > > > > > > > Hehe, I guess you forgot that your heading was "A video
> > > > > > > > > the Israelis
> > > > > > > > didn't want us to see".
> > > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> > > > > > Really? Hmmm, well, maybe you can educate me regarding usenet
> > > > > > headers.
> > > > > > Here is the infoirmation from your post:
>
> > > > > > Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> > > > > > 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> > > > > > From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> > > > > > ***As you can see, it is from you
>
> > > > > > Newsgroups:
> > > > > > soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa
> > > > > > Subject: A video the Israelis didn't want us to see
>
> > > > > Had you thought I had changed the subject?
>
> > > > H thinks he can escape by playing dumb. The truth is there for all
> > > > to
> > > > see, H.
>
> > > > > > ***And here is your header. Would you please educate me as to
> > > > > > how this
> > > > > > could not be your heading? Thanks.
>
> > > > > > Still waiting for your explanation, H.
>
> > > > > Do you think I wrote it or not?
>
> > > > Nice try, H. You're not fooling anyone here. Normally, you would
> > > > just
> > > > slink away as you did the last time this was posted. Now you will
> > > > try
> > > > silliness instead. This is fun!
>
> > > It's never fun for you in the end.
>
> > You couldn't come up with anything meaningful to say, yet felt
> > compelled to say something. Thus we get the non-statement above.
>
> > There are 2 issues in this little thread:
>
> > First, you were involved in a few discussions with me some months ago
> > re an interview by Tom Ashbrook of M. I will refresh your woefully
> > defective memory of what they were about: M contradicts one of the
> > main premises of his book, namely that Israel was responsible for the
> > US invasion of Iraq. Here is the message id of the first of a number
> > of mentions of it by me, every one of which you fled from, for your
> > reading pleasure:
>
> > 1194623772.260402.100190
> > @19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com

>
> > Second, you haven't addressed this statement:
>
> > > > > > > Not my heading.
>
> > the context of which is above, specifically re the fact that the
> > heading was clearly yours. I am sure most here would just love to know
> > what was going on between those jumbled neurons of yours when you
> > wrote it. You've now tried evasion by nonsense, what will be your next
> > response? I predict flight. Let's see if I'm correct.
>

> What makes you think I wrote it"

>Um, maybe the fact that the header says you did? That's why I supplied
>it, H. Looks like you prefer trying more nonsense to flight, just to
>prove me wrong, I guess.

It's never difficult to prove you wrong, RATner.

[drahcir]

Found a friend to swallow your alcohol-induced fantasies?

[drahcir]

If you read the interview with Ashbrook, you will see that M disagrees
with you. Sometimes.

[Count 1]

"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c342370c-cef0-46a3...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

***

I thought you were Q....

***

Shhhh... I'm trying to keep that quiet.

[HHW]

I want you especially to contemplate the quotation from the Hague
Prosecutor in the third substantive paragraph of the article:

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

Karadzic Arrives in Hague After Protest by Loyalists

By MARLISE SIMONS and DAN BILEFSKY
Published: July 31, 2008

THE HAGUE — Long one of the most-wanted fugitives in the world,
Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader blamed for inciting his
followers to join him in a brutal ethnic war, was delivered Wednesday
to a prison cell in The Hague for eventual trial by a United Nations
war crimes tribunal.

Mr. Karadzic, who was arrested in Serbia last week, was taken from the
Belgrade war crimes court at roughly 3:45 a.m., escorted by masked
Serbian security officers, according to the Serbian war crimes
prosecutor, Vladimir Vukcevic. Mr. Karadzic’s plane landed in
Rotterdam a few hours later and he was transferred by helicopter to
the Scheveningen penitentiary in The Hague, where the United Nations
has its own modern cellblock. He is the highest-level politician to be
transferred to the court dealing with war crimes committed in the
former Yugoslavia since Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian
president, who was arrested in 2001 and died in his cell there in 2006
before the end of his trial. Mr. Karadzic was scheduled to appear for
the first time in court Thursday afternoon for what is expected to be
a brief hearing in which he will be asked to enter a plea.

“The arrest of Radovan Karadzic is immensely important for the victims
who had to wait far too long for this day,” the tribunal’s chief
prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, said at a news conference Wednesday. “It
is also important for international justice because it clearly
demonstrates that there is no alternative to the arrest of war
criminals and that there can be no safe haven for fugitives.”

With Mr. Karadzic now jailed, two more top-level Serbian fugitives
remain, Gen. Ratko Mladic, the wartime military commander of Bosnia,
and Goran Hadzic, leader of a short-lived Serbian ministate inside
Croatia.

The indictment of Mr. Karadzic charges that, as president of the
Bosnian Serb republic in the early 1990s, he helped orchestrate a 43-
month siege of the city of Sarajevo, devised a systematic campaign to
kill or drive out tens of thousands of non-Serbs from Serbian towns
and villages, set up concentration camps and was an engineer of the
massacre of nearly 8,000 unarmed men and boys captured at the United
Nations-protected enclave of Srebrenica, in Europe’s worst mass
execution since World War II.

Court officials expected it would be six months before the case goes
to trial. The transfer of Mr. Karadzic came during the busiest period
in the tribunal’s history, with eight current trials involving 27
defendants. His presence in The Hague is expected to prolong the life
of the tribunal, which had been due to close in 2010.

To avoid too much commotion at the prison, Mr. Karadzic may be kept
separate from the other inmates for a few days, a court official said.
Ahead of his arrival, the cellblock had held 37 men, among them former
foes, allies and even subordinates of the former Bosnian warlord. The
United Nations Security Council created the war crimes tribunal in
1993 in the middle of the violent breakup of Yugoslavia. In 1995, as
the tribunal prosecutor prepared his indictment of Mr. Karadzic and
General Mladic, there was diplomatic hand-wringing, with Western and
Russian officials warning that this would complicate the operations of
the U.N. peacekeepers in the region and threaten a tenuous cease-fire.

Later, NATO troops in Bosnia who knew Mr. Karadzic’s whereabouts had
orders to avoid arresting him, because Western politicians feared this
could destabilize the region where he still had a large following. In
the late 1990’s, when NATO stepped up arrests of Bosnian Serbs wanted
by the tribunal, he seemed to disappear. As is now known, he fled
across the border to Serbia, beyond the reach of NATO soldiers.

Mr. Karadzic, a former psychiatrist, evaded arrest for more than a
decade, living openly in Belgrade for at least part of that time as an
ascetic New Age guru with an assumed name, a bushy beard, a mistress
and a fake family in the United States.

Before his transfer to The Hague, about 15,000 of his supporters, some
bused in from across Serbia and Bosnia by the far-right Radical Party,
gathered in Belgrade on Tuesday to protest the new government that
arrested him on July 21.

Loyalists wearing T-shirts emblazoned with Mr. Karadzic’s image waved
Serbian flags and chanted “Long Live Radovan!” and “Uprising!
Uprising!” About 100 ultranationalists wearing masks, who had
separated from the group, burned flares, attacked traffic lights with
clubs and hurled stones at storefront windows. The police responded
with tear gas, and the Serbian news media said more than 45 people
suffered minor injuries.

“Karadzic is a hero because he defended Serb lives during the terrible
wars of the 1990s,” said Elena Pavovski, 24, a supporter of the
Radical Party, whose members sang patriotic songs next to a banner on
Republic Square that threatened Serbia’s pro-Western president, Boris
Tadic. “Everyone knows that the war crimes tribunal in The Hague was
designed to try Serbs while the war criminals who killed Serbs are set
free.”

The rally was seen as a test of the new government, which is made up
of Mr. Tadic’s Democrats and the Socialist Party of the former Serbian
strongman, Mr. Milosevic, which controls the Interior Ministry and the
police.

Before the rally began, Mr. Tadic implored the protesters to remain
peaceful. He was determined to avoid a repeat of demonstrations in
February, when thousands of radicals rampaged through Belgrade to
protest Kosovo’s declaration of independence, looting shops and
setting part of the United States Embassy on fire.

The embassy warned Americans to stay away from central Belgrade on
Tuesday night, while the embassy itself was guarded by troops with
machine guns.

Belgrade had made clear it was determined to send Mr. Karadzic to The
Hague as swiftly as possible to prevent an escalation in tensions and
to satisfy the European Union, which considers handing over war crimes
suspects a prerequisite for Serbia to join the union. Diplomats for
the European Union said Brussels postponed a trade deal with Serbia on
Tuesday to wait for Mr. Karadzic’s transfer to take place.

Serbian analysts said the emotional and violent outpouring of support
for Mr. Karadzic showed that Serbia had yet to reckon with its role in
Srebrenica, 13 years after the massacre.

“Our elites refuse to confront openly what Serbia did, for fear of
being branded as traitors,” Brankica Stankovic, one of the country’s
leading television journalists, said Tuesday.

The demonstration coincided with an announcement by Bosnia’s war
crimes court that it had sentenced seven Bosnian Serbs to prison terms
ranging from 38 to 42 years for taking part in the mass killing of
Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.

Ms. Pavovski, the Radical Party supporter, said she was unmoved by
what had happened at Srebrenica.

“Nobody has proved that a massacre took place,” she said. “Srebrenica
is the product of a media war against Serbia and the Serbian people.
Karadzic was fighting to defend Serbia.”

An opinion poll published three years ago by Strategic Marketing
Research in Belgrade found that more than half of 1,200 respondents
either did not know about war crimes in Bosnia, or did not believe
they had taken place..

The failure to grapple with the past, analysts said, has been
exacerbated by the belief of some Serbs that the United Nations
tribunal in The Hague is an unjust entity meant to prosecute Serbs.

According to legal experts, as of early this year, 45 Serbs, 12 Croats
and 4 Muslims were convicted of war crimes in connection with the
Balkan wars of the 1990s. More Croats and Muslims have been indicted
on war crime charges, but several were acquitted because of
insufficient evidence, the experts said.

Mr. Karadzic’s supporters said they were incensed by the recent
release of high-profile suspects accused of war crimes against Serbs,
including Naser Oric, a Bosnian Muslim, and Ramush Haradinaj, an
ethnic-Albanian former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army.

Western diplomats said public perceptions of war crimes in Serbia
would be critical to the country’s drive to rejoin the Western fold by
demonstrating a willingness to cooperate with the court.

Natasa Kandic, director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade,
said the Serbian public had been graphically confronted with the facts
of Srebrenica for the first time in June 2005, when Serbian television
broadcast a video of the killing of six Muslim men by members of a
Serbian paramilitary unit.

But while the video showed irrefutable proof that Serbia’s police had
taken part in the massacre, she said there remained public amnesia
about the killings.

“Srebrenica is not taught in our history books in schools, it is not
widely shown in popular culture,” Ms. Kandic said. “This country needs
to have a historical reckoning about the past.”

Dan Bilefsky reported from Belgrade, Serbia.

[HHW]

>“The arrest of Radovan Karadzic is immensely important for the victims
> who had to wait far too long for this day,” the tribunal’s chief
> prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, said at a news conference Wednesday. “It
> is also important for international justice because it clearly
> demonstrates that there is no alternative to the arrest of war
> criminals and that there can be no safe haven for fugitives.”

And also suggest that you take a look at this series of policy
disasters:

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

The Full Measure of Bush’s Legacy
By CHRIS SUELLENTROP

Bush’s “considerable legacy”: An article on the op-ed page of The
Boston Globe by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and
international relations at Boston University, is bouncing around
blogland. Bacevich says that “in crucial respects, the Bush era will
not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration’s many failures, especially
those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy.” He continues:

Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

· Defined the contemporary era as an “age of terror” with an open-
ended “global war” as the necessary, indeed the only logical,
response;

· Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby
creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;

· Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the
primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power
projection;

· Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as
Ronald Reagan used to declare, “defense is not a budget item”;

· Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters
pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system
of checks and balances;

· Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the
manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff;

· Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold
War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole
superpower exercising “global leadership”;

· Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and
toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now
supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and
would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.

By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if
almost entirely malignant, achievement.

Clip-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next step should be an analysis of the lobby and Israel's role in
these changes in traditional American policy.

[last_per...@yahoo.com]

On Jul 29, 10:39 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:06 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 8:33 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Who are?  Most real and informed Americans agree with the M&W
> > > > viewpoint. Check out the polls results on the US/Isreal relationship that they
> > > > include in their book.
>
> > > "The polls"?? Tell me, what polls are they? Who conducted them? Where
> > > are they published? Who reviewed the results? I would think they're on
> > > the web, right? Got a url for me?
>
> > Calling Count1 from Canada, hello hello, are you receiving me?
> > HAHAHA, you sleazy little weasel.   Get the book you lazy
> > little lying Zionazi dipshit.  I've got their book near my desk,
> > but you ain't worth looking up the page number.   There's
> > nothing but rock solid documentation and facts in the M&W
> > book, which is why you hate it.
>
> > Now tell me about those Canadian ancestors that go back
> > 200 years!   HAHAHAHA.
>
> And not just Canadian but "Anglo Saxon" too. Then he's got the
> chutzpah to denigrate Christianity and pretend he does it from the
> position of a non--believer rather than from inside the Judaic
> tradition.

Oh, the little retard ZioNazi rat does that too? So surprising.
Lies, deceit and ZioNaziism; goes together like baseball,
apple pie and hotdogs doesn't it.

>The guy is single, he lives alone, like DoD no sign of any
> contact with the other sex, lives on dollops from a trust fund and and
> generates his self-respect by pretending to be a composer. He claims

> opposite me he works for a living. I don't believe it.-

Good work on exposing this particular grubworm HHW!
Man, what a pathetic retard.

[drahcir]

On Jul 30, 10:14 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:04 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 10:40 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 8:10 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 29, 11:03 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > His original error indicates senility, his ham-fisted rebuttals prove it.
>
> > > > > **
> > > > > Not familiar with that term, ham-fisted. What does it mean? That he's
> > > > > trying to squirm away with blunt force?
> > > > > **
>
> > > > > Clumsy, awkward, inept.
>
> > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ham%20fisted
>
> > > > Man the laughs never end with USENET, which is why I love it.
>
> > > > This sick little turd is now TALKING TO HIMSELF!!!!
>
> > > > Have you seen this HHW? We're in a loony bin here!
>
> > > > HAHAHA. This is too beautiful man.
>
> > > Except that we have to go to war on behalf of the whiner nation.
> > > That's getting a little old.
>
> > If you read the interview with Ashbrook, you will see that M disagrees
> > with you. Sometimes.
>
> I want you especially to contemplate the quotation from the Hague
> Prosecutor in the third substantive paragraph of the article:

H, I realize that your condition may have led you to believe that the
post of mine to which you here purport to reply was about serbian war
crimes, but actually it was about an interview by Tom Ashbrook with M
where M contradicts himself. Try to concentrate.

> taken part ...
>
> read more »

[drahcir]

H, I am sure that inside that skull you have your reasons for posting
the below, maybe it's the last sentence about "presidents" and Israel.
I have posted on numerous occasions that I consider bush the worst
president in our history. I hate the stupidity, religiosity,
arrogance, and presumptuousness of the man. I have also voiced my
opposition to the war. Anyone with a non-defective brain who has read
my posts knows that. You knew it too, but you forgot it. I was
listening to your favorite, Tom Ashbrook, this morning. His guest was
Nancy Pelosi. She recited a succinct, if not complete, list of Bush
disasters. Listen to it if you want. BTW, since you refuse to listen
to the M interview, you may not know that Ashbrook is on WBUR, the
station of Boston University.

[HHW]

On Jul 30, 7:04 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:

And if you watch this you will understand day to day life in the
occupied territories. You are a disgusting swine, Ratner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/jul/30/beaumont.palestine

[HHW]

Everybody, go listen to Tom Ashbrook. I've already done it. You read
what I said about it.

[HHW]

Oh, you thought I posted it to highlight Serbian war crimes? How
strange. They're so passe today.

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

Overheard in Sderot's beauty salon: "It's a lie, it's a lie. Jews
never lie. Jews never shoot except in self-defense. I bet it a was a
Palestinian disguised as an IDF officer. But I have to run now. I'm
investigating an exclusive NY Times story on Moroccan blintzes."

2nd polygraph finds commander lied about shooting of bound Palestinian

07.29.2008 | Haaretz
By Yuval Azoulay and Shahar Ilan, Haaretz Correspondents

The Israel Defense Forces officer accused of ordering a soldier under
his command to shoot a bound and blindfolded Palestinian detainee
failed his second polygraph test on Monday, after having passed the
first test in a private institute last week.

The results of Monday's lie-detector test, held under the auspices of
the military police, prove that Lieutenant colonel Omri Fruberg,
commanding officer of IDF regiment 71, lied in his testimony, and
suggest he did in fact give order to open fire at the Palestinian
detainee.

The investigation began after the soldier, who was filmed shooting a
Palestinian protester during a demonstration in the West Bank village
of Na'alin, said he was just carrying out an order by Fruberg.

In the video, Fruberg is shown holding the arm of the Palestinian,
Ashraf Abu-Rahama, 27, while a soldier under his command opens fire at
close range. Abu-Rahama sustained light wounds to his foot in the
incident.

The incident in Na'alin was filmed by a Palestinian girl from a window
of her home and sent to military authorities by the Israeli human
rights group BT'selem in earlu July.

The soldier was released from police detention last week and sent back
to join his unit after telling investigators that his regiment
commander had ordered him to fire.

[HHW]

On Jul 30, 8:21 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

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

Bil’in Palestine commences legal proceedings in Canada
July 12th, 2008 | Posted in Boycott, Israel, Quebec, Canada,
Palestine, Solidarity, Independent Media, Politics, Racism, Community
Organizing
Press Release: Bil’in announcs that it has commenced legal proceedings
in Canada.

Photo: Palestinian village of Nilin through a window smashed by the
Israeli army.

Bil’in, West Bank, Palestine: The Village of Bil’in, in the West Bank,
Occupied Palestinian Territories, announced today that it has
commenced legal proceedings in Canada against two Canadian Companies
for committing war crimes. The case has been filed in the Quebec
Superior Court sitting at Montreal, Canada. A full copy of the claim
is attached.

Bil’in alleges that Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount
International Inc., both registered corporations in the Province of
Quebec, acting as agents for Israel, are illegally constructing
residential and other buildings on lands under the municipal
jurisdiction of the Village and are marketing and selling condominium
units to the civilian population of the State of Israel. Bil’in
further alleges in its claim that its land and the defendants are
subject to the rules and obligations of international law because the
West Bank is occupied territory arising from an act of war that took
place in 1967.

Bil’in claims that Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount
International Inc. have violated international law and Canadian
domestic law. Bil’in claims protection under the Fourth Geneva
Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Those statutes both prohibit an occupying power from transferring its
civilian population into territory that it has occupied as a result of
war. Bil’in also relies on the Canadian Geneva Conventions Act and the
Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act which contain the same
prohibition. These statutes have jurisdiction over Canadians
regardless of where in the world the offence has taken place.

Bil’in is seeking an immediate Order from the Canadian court stopping
the illegal construction, punitive damages and other relief as set out
in the claim. Upon obtaining such an Order in Canada, Bil’in intends
to petition the Israeli Court to enforce the Canadian Court Order in
Israel and the West Bank.

A Quebec Registry search has revealed that the Green Park companies
have appointed a single director who resides in the Montreal Region.
It is believed that this director is likely a nominal director having
no direct involvement with Green Park and at this time Bil’in has no
direct evidence implicating or linking this director personally to any
of the civil wrongs set out in the claim.

The legal claims of Bil’in are not related in any way to the business
or undertakings of Greenpark International Inc., “Canada’s Largest
Homebuilder” , located at 8700 Dufferin Street, Vaughan, Ontario or
its affiliated companies.

To obtain background information on Bil’in please visit.

[drahcir]

Get it through your numb skull: lies and nonsense won't work.

[drahcir]

H, you are replying to a post about Ashbrook. Does it directly deal
with that topic? If not, I am not interested. Go start another thread.
Choose your subject wisely this time.

[drahcir]

Yet more avoidance from H. What else is new?

[drahcir]

Looks like you got yourself a teenage fan, H. Tell him the "pathetic
retard" cut me to the quick.

[B. H. Cramer]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5a819d47-bac3-48ae...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

To a mirror you should be talking RATner.

[B. H. Cramer]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:bf179bfc-38fd-4518...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Guess you epitomise the old saying "No sense - No feelings" RATner.

[Count 1]

***

Bil’in Palestine commences legal proceedings in Canada

***

Nonsequitur. But since you posted it I'll give you my thoughts.

It is excellent news. Finally the Palestinians are beginning to realize that
detonating teenagers in pizza parlors and blowing up buses in downtown
Jerusalem isn't working. They need to take their allegations to court - they
need to use the laws in place to their advantage - and they need to
'elevate' their battle to the arena of words, discussion, and eventually
politics.

It's a dual edged sword. If they win they will garner the kind of legitimacy
they can't get hurling Kassams at farmers and children. If they lose their
'enemies' will have fewer reasons to discontinue settlement building.

I don't care who 'wins' this case. What will be important is the reaction of
the losing side, and what's already important is the symbolism of
Palestinians using legitimate means to voice their greivances.

I think they should use all that international development money they get,
and ask Iran for money instead of arms, to hire thousands of lawyers and try
to tie up the Israelis in courts for so long they force Israel to a
settlement through the shear volume of paperwork and the horrors of endless
litigation.

At least that way both sides will bury less people.

[HHW]

Ratner, you lack subtlety. I'm right on your Ashbrook bullshit. You
just don't know where we're going yet. I'm the driver. You're the
Queen sitting in the back seat uttering various shrieks of fear and
advice. You will bolt at one of the next few stoplights.

Yes, to shoot a bound man in the foot from less than two meters away
with a massive rubber bullet at maximum velocity. He's now wheel chair
bound and back to demonstrating! Such a bright-shining future you
people have in the West Bank. You know just what's in the interests of
Israel don't you? Of course you do. Anything she can get however she
can get it. And no matter how injurious the process is to the American
people.

You're expressly invited, Richard Ratner/Sock Count 1 of Somerville,
Mass. I am starting a new thread focused on your incessant
misrepresentations about Mearsheimer and Walt as we speak. I'll
dedicate it to you.

Let us know when you start having fun---and suppress the fact that it
rhymes with run.

[HHW]

Go back and get it Oh Queen of Somerville.

[HHW]

Your lying makes your "quick" vulnerable, Ratner. Talk to him. He's
apparently tired of your bullshit too.

It's time for you to move to the new thread, the one dedicated to you
and addressed to soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel and
soc.culture.usa, not just to soc.culture.jewish. Don't play games now,
we've got serious deliberations ahead of us.

[HHW]

On Jul 31, 6:48 am, "B. H. Cramer" <Iyamh...@themoment.yo> wrote:
> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Rather to a polygraph examiner.

[drahcir]

You're "right"?? Are you joking? You have never addressed it, except
in alzheimer-speak.

You
> just don't know where we're going yet. I'm the driver. You're the
> Queen sitting in the back seat uttering various shrieks of fear and
> advice. You will bolt at one of  the next few stoplights.

Ok, whatever. It's obvious you have nothing of substance to say about
the Ashbrook interview. The reason is clear: you can't explain it
away. You have tried lies, you have tried alzheimers nonsense,
anything except to address the issue. That's ok, H. We understand.

I just barely skimmed this absurd post of yours. Implicit in it is
that there was a wrong which was investigated by the israelis,
discovered, and presumably punished. Do I have that right? The
question is, how come you never post stuff about arabs attacking buses
and pizza parlors? The answer is obvious.

Such a bright-shining future you
> people have in the West Bank. You know just what's in the interests of
> Israel don't you? Of course you do. Anything she can get however she
> can get it. And no matter how injurious the process is to the American
> people.
>
> You're expressly invited, Richard Ratner/Sock Count 1 of Somerville,
> Mass.

What's with mentioning my name and town over and over? Are you that
afraid of me that you feel you might be able to scare me away by
mentioning personal data? Hasn't it sunk into that diseased brain that
it's not going to work? All it does is show you for what you are - a
rather feeble debater who wants to try any dirty technique he can
(lying, personal data, fleeing, indecipherable nonsense) to attempt to
gain the upper hand. It just never works, H. You always, always lose.
Proof of that can be seen in nearly any discussion you and I have had
- you always flee. A recent example is Boyle - I proved your
attribution of this nutcase's antics to joking was false. What
happened to you? You fled. Over and over the same thing. What a creep
you are, H.

I am starting a new thread focused on your incessant
> misrepresentations about Mearsheimer and Walt as we speak.

Hmm, "incessant misrepresentations", whatever could you be referring
to? Perhaps the famous Ashbrook interview that you are scared of? You
think a new thread is going to mask that fear? Good luck.

I'll
> dedicate it to you.
>
> Let us know when you start having fun---and suppress the fact that it
> rhymes with run.

I have NEVER run from a debate with you.

[drahcir]

More alzheimer-speak from H.

[HHW]

On Jul 31, 9:40 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***
> Bil’in Palestine commences legal proceedings in Canada
> ***
>
> Nonsequitur.

Where have we heard that before, Ratner? You don't even have the wit
to change your style.

But since you posted it I'll give you my thoughts.
>
> It is excellent news. Finally the Palestinians are beginning to realize that
> detonating teenagers in pizza parlors and blowing up buses in downtown
> Jerusalem isn't working.

Fool. It would have "worked" longer and *better* if it had continued
to be possible. The Apartheid wall is in the way now. It's a 21st
Century WAR of constantly changing tactical gimmics which has been
going on since 1947. And listen up, Ratner, Palestinian suicide
bombing is of GREATER legitimacy than equivalent tactics which the
lavishly armed Israelis have been using against essentially
defenseless people ever SINCE that date, including ethnic cleansing
and repeated massacres of prisoners. You're proud, I suppose, of
Israeli bombing and rocketing of terribly crowded apartment complexes,
shelling beaches, torture as routine policy, THE TECHNIQUES OF WHICH
YOU TAUGHT TO US, imprisonment of thousands, assassinations, blockades
using starvation as a political tool, rocketing crowds trying to come
to the aid of people hit by a previous rocket just minutes before,
shooting teenaged girls between the eyes through their mother's
kitchen windows while they study for classes the next day, etc., etc.
And all this so "you" can steal the West Bank, a result which will
have terrible effects for America unless we abandon Israel long before
it happens and join the rest of the world in sane and humane policies
re the Middle East. It's people like you who are going to make that
happen. I'm the moderate here. I still struggle to recognize a purely
defensive obligation to Israel on behalf of world Jewry.

They need to take their allegations to court - they
> need to use the laws in place to their advantage - and they need to
> 'elevate' their battle to the arena of words, discussion, and eventually
> politics.

Taking the high road are you? On behalf of Israel, the occupier whose
troops kill people virtually every day in the West Bank and Gaza. More
hypocrisy.

> It's a dual edged sword. If they win they will garner the kind of legitimacy
> they can't get hurling Kassams at farmers and children.

Israeli Zionists don't give a damn about their own legitimacy, much
less that of their Palestinian victims. Accordingly, what you call for
is Palestinian surrender while still occupied, while still not having
a viable state, while still facing a rapacious, greedy enemy. You are
a slimy hypocrite. But you do unwittingly get right to the center of
the American quandry. We support an Israeli regime which is
*profoundly* illegitimate and on ITS behalf we continue to pander to
the criminal faction of its political class as if we were sleep
walking. We have in fact been corrupted by a narrow but extremely
powerful special interest. We've lost our democratic sovereignty over
the most important single part of our owr Middle Eastern policy.
That's what the courageous book you are afraid to read or admit you've
read is about. Yes, you are a very slimy hypocrite. You don't want
these issues even discussed in public. There is only one reason.
Discussion of them invites, nay, demands, reform. You don't want
reform. You want us to keep feeding that criminal political and
military class in Israel so that it eventually gets away with the
crime of taking what it wants in the West Bank, leaving the
Palestinians without a viable state, without actual independence,
without elemental dignity, all in hopes that they will abandon the
struggle for their patrimony but not giving a damn about the long
range security of her "Great Benefactor" which will have to be
perpetually on a war footing in this mendaciously named "war on
terror." What it is is a war on the Muslim world on behalf of Israelis
in an increasingly nuclear environment. Oil is a factor but secondary
and that motive too demeans America.

We don't owe such slavishness to Armenians, to Ukrainians, to Don
Cossacks, even to the American Indian. We don't owe that to Israelis--
or to Jews as a culture or a race either.

Were it not for the Holocaust and its 6,000,000 European victims,
there would be no Israel. Jews would be assimilating into the cultures
of western democracies and doing very well indeed if past history is
any judge. The choice of the Middle East for the imposition of a
Jewish State was obviously unwise and we Americans can not even
ameliorate the situation by influencing Israeli policy. The state of
affairs must change. We must tell the Israelis to settle on OUR terms
or they will lose their Great Benefactor. America did not perpetrate
the Holocaust. We have no guilt for it. Absolutely none.

If they lose their
> 'enemies' will have fewer reasons to discontinue settlement building.

The World Court has already spoken in the wall case. Do you expect it
to reverse itself when Israel didn't even deign to dignify a legal
solution in the first place. Israel defaulted, knowing it could not
prevail on the facts or law.

>
> I don't care who 'wins' this case.

Of course you don't. Israeli policy is not affected by adherence to
legal principles. It follows an ideology which attempts to legitimate
theft of real estate by war. That ideology flies in the face of all
principles of law and humane principle.

What will be important is the reaction of
> the losing side, and what's already important is the symbolism of
> Palestinians using legitimate means to voice their greivances.

Profoundly hypocritical. Devious. Dishonest.

>
> I think they should use all that international development money they get,
> and ask Iran for money instead of arms, to hire thousands of lawyers and try
> to tie up the Israelis in courts for so long they force Israel to a
> settlement through the shear volume of paperwork and the horrors of endless
> litigation.

Leave that to Professor Boyle. The Israelis don't do "courts". Like
Carl Rove they won't even deign to show up. The only thing which will
affect the Israeli political class is what comes from the American
government and people. Things are changing. We are going to find the
statesmen too.

>
> At least that way both sides will bury less people.

The Israelis will kill until they attain their territorial and
political goals--unless the United States of America stops it. The key
is in Washington. That's why Professors Mearsheimer and Walt are
heroes in this humiliating struggle.

[HHW]

Whatever, you've got a fresh one coming. We'll see if you run.

[Count 1]

I typed out a long point by point rebuttal, but realized I was just
repeating the same things that you've always run away from in previous
threads. But something at the end of your reply struck me as interesting -
especially as it pertained to the beginning of your reply.

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

> It is excellent news. Finally the Palestinians are beginning to realize
> that
> detonating teenagers in pizza parlors and blowing up buses in downtown
> Jerusalem isn't working.

***

Fool. It would have "worked" longer and *better* if it had continued
to be possible. The Apartheid wall is in the way now.

***

<Snip internals>

> At least that way both sides will bury less people.

***

The Israelis will kill until they attain their territorial and
political goals--unless the United States of America stops it. The key
is in Washington. That's why Professors Mearsheimer and Walt are
heroes in this humiliating struggle.

***
-------------------------------------------------------

I think the difference between you and I is that I support peace and
anything that leads to less killing. You - quite clearly - are very
concerned that Palestinians have been hampered in their capacity to kill,
and constantly provide Palestinians with a context to their killing with
your hyperbolic demonization of Israel as - basically - just a killing
machine.

Now this allows us to put comments you've made about 'punishing' Israel in
greater focus. You don't mean 'punishing' them at the negotiating table -
you're talking about killing them. You want more Israelis to die. And -
undoubtedly - you haven't given one second's thought to the Palestinians who
will die as Israel defends herself.

I guess when people get to your age human life really does lose value.

[drahcir]

"My lying" has never happened on this or any other board. I have
caught you so many times lying that you essentially feel now the only
way to try to even the score is to make stuff up. You have no
reputation or character, so you have nothing to lose.

Talk to him. He's
> apparently tired of your bullshit too.
>
> It's time for you to move to the new thread, the one dedicated to you
> and addressed to soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.israel and
> soc.culture.usa, not just to soc.culture.jewish. Don't play games now,
> we've got serious deliberations ahead of us.

Big friggin announcement. I have seen your silly thread. Flaccid, just
like its author.

[drahcir]

That's not fair. There are plenty of people his age and older who
would greatly resent your statement, who not only are in possession of
all of their faculties, but are empathetic humanitarians who maintain
their dignity and command respect. H's age has a lot to do with his
senility, but little to do with his character. He's a lowlife now and
probably always was one.

[Truth Will Out]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:02461f4b-3c96-4114...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Good God, Ratner. You're obsessed with this fellow and consumed by hatred.

From my observations he commands much respect, but none from you or your
crowd. I don't see that as being a negative in any way. You and your lot are
professional liars and haters, deserving of NO respect in any way.

Get a life, you stupid person.

[drahcir]

On Jul 31, 9:35 pm, "Truth Will Out" <Truthwillout@all_times.net>
wrote:
> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

I'm obsessed? H has been futilely attempting to "get me" in any non-
debate way he can: by creating separate threads, using my personal
data, etc., and I am obsessed? Someone needs some objectivity
lessons.

>
> From my observations he commands much respect,

As I have just demonstrated, your observations are hardly worth the
bandwidth they're written through.

but none from you or your
> crowd. I don't see that as being a negative in any way.

Let's try and figure out what Truth is trying to say, shall we? You
begin by saying that "he" (HHW) commands much respect. but none from
me or my crowd. I can only assume that the "none" refers to "respect",
so he commands no respect from me or my crowd. (One wonders, then,
precisely whom it is that H commands much respect from. I guess we'll
just have to be kept in suspense.) Anyway, it is very true that he
commands no respect from me and my crowd - that was a very astute
observation, indeed. Let's move on. You don't see "that" (presumably,
the fact that he commands no respect from me or my crowd) as being
negative. Well, it's nice that my crowd and I have your approval, but
one wonders at this stage where this brilliant essay of yours is
leading.

You and your lot are
> professional liars and haters, deserving of NO respect in any way.

Whoa, we have gone from having your approval to being objects of your
scorn. By any chance, are you one of those bipolars who has recently
decided to discontinue his medication? Anyway, let's try and recap.
Truth is establishing that in his opinion, HHW commands respect from
some as yet unnamed person(s), but doesn't command it from me and my
crowd. He doesn't see the fact that we don't respect H as a negative,
and then somehow jumps to a completely unprepared, unfounded and
uncited accusation of lying and hating. Just to make how he feels
about us at this particular juncture clear, he says that we deserve NO
respect in any way. (Gosh, those caps on "no" really drove home his
point.) Well, ok, he's entitled to his opinion.

>
> Get a life, you stupid person.

Ouch, you got me good with that one! What's next, Truth, you gonna
pull out your secret weapon and call me a lardass?

Before I bid you adieu, I would like to express an opinion of my own.
You think that by calling me a "stupid person", you have demonstrated
to the group what an erudite debater you are. When your head is on
your pillow tonight, and you reminisce about your triumphs in the
newsgroups, you will sport a small grin of self-satisfaction, so very
proud of the fact that you resisted calling me an asshole.

[Count 1]

"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:02461f4b-3c96-4114...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

***

That's not fair. There are plenty of people his age and older who
would greatly resent your statement, who not only are in possession of
all of their faculties, but are empathetic humanitarians who maintain
their dignity and command respect. H's age has a lot to do with his
senility, but little to do with his character. He's a lowlife now and
probably always was one.

***

You're right, and I apologize. Just because someone is of advanced years
does not make them a warmongering anti-semtic sleazeball like HHW.

[drahcir]

Well, ok, I guess there's a first time for just about anything. I do
think it's fascinating how this most recent obsession with my non-
existent "running" has come so close to my mentioning that you have
fled from so many of our debates. How do you figure, H?

[HHW]

You, Ratner, support the dominant Israeli political class, radical
Zionists to the man who are determined even to destroy the United
States if it stands in the way of their territorial political
objectives.

You - quite clearly - are very
> concerned that Palestinians have been hampered in their capacity to kill,

I want no killing whatever. However, I also know that until the faux
conservative Israeli Zionists are thwarted in their determination to
take the West Bank, or that part of it which they choose and which
will render the remainder non-viable as a Palestinian Homeland, we
Americans will have no peace. Unless, of course, we abandon Israel.

> and constantly provide Palestinians with a context to their killing with
> your hyperbolic demonization of Israel as - basically - just a killing
> machine.

It may be more than that. If so why does it kill so much?

>
> Now this allows us to put comments you've made about 'punishing' Israel in
> greater focus.

That's exactly what she needs, and what some of her political notables
need.

You don't mean 'punishing' them at the negotiating table -

What I meant, though I'm flexible, is punishing them in criminal
courts.

> you're talking about killing them.

Not at all. For the criminal elite long criminal terms after full due
process will de just fine, thank you very much. The same is true with
individuals guilty of crimes against humanity the world over.

You want more Israelis to die.

I want no more to die. The only to accomplish that is for the Israelis
to get the Hell out of the West Bank. They neitheer need it nor
deserve it.

 And -
> undoubtedly - you haven't given one second's thought to the Palestinians who
> will die as Israel defends herself.

You're threatening Palestinians with what what has been happening to
them since 1967 at minimum? Get it together, Ratner. Logic matters.
History matters. Basic decency matters.

> I guess when people get to your age human life really does lose value.

Decent human values have nothing to do with age. Yours are obviously
defective even though you are ten years younger than I. Such values
have to do with moral fiber, a learned characteristic in which you are
woefully deficient. You would sell your country for a mess of pottage.

[HHW]

Fool, there are two authors, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt. You are
terrified of them. You lay the ground for flight right here.

[HHW]

On Jul 31, 8:14 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:55 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I typed out a long point by point rebuttal, but realized I was just
> > repeating the same things that you've always run away from in previous
> > threads.

You typed out what you would like to represent as a point by point
rebuttal, but then realized that you would be humiliated if you posted
it. And by whom? This old man. You're a coward, Ratner. I'm your
master both intellectually and morally.

But something at the end of your reply struck me as interesting -
> > especially as it pertained to the beginning of your reply.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > It is excellent news. Finally the Palestinians are beginning to realize
> > > that
> > > detonating teenagers in pizza parlors and blowing up buses in downtown
> > > Jerusalem isn't working.
>
> > ***
> > Fool. It would have "worked" longer and *better* if it had continued
> > to be possible. The Apartheid wall is in the way now.
> > ***
>
> > <Snip internals>

Here's what you snipped as "internals" whatever that means:

Fool. It would have "worked" longer and *better* if it had continued

to be possible. The Apartheid wall is in the way now. It's a 21st
Century WAR of constantly changing tactical gimmics which has been
going on since 1947. And listen up, Ratner, Palestinian suicide
bombing is of GREATER legitimacy than equivalent tactics which the
lavishly armed Israelis have been using against essentially
defenseless people ever SINCE that date, including ethnic cleansing
and repeated massacres of prisoners. You're proud, I suppose, of
Israeli bombing and rocketing of terribly crowded apartment
complexes,
shelling beaches, torture as routine policy, THE TECHNIQUES OF WHICH
YOU TAUGHT TO US, imprisonment of thousands, assassinations,
blockades
using starvation as a political tool, rocketing crowds trying to come
to the aid of people hit by a previous rocket just minutes before,
shooting teenaged girls between the eyes through their mother's
kitchen windows while they study for classes the next day, etc., etc.
And all this so "you" can steal the West Bank, a result which will
have terrible effects for America unless we abandon Israel long
before
it happens and join the rest of the world in sane and humane policies
re the Middle East. It's people like you who are going to make that
happen. I'm the moderate here. I still struggle to recognize a purely
defensive obligation to Israel on behalf of world Jewry.

Are you proud out here in the bright light of day at having snipped
those "internals?"

>
> > > At least that way both sides will bury less people.

No chance of that unless the israelis declare Zionism fulfilled at the
Green Line. You also forget that America has lost almost as many
"defending" Israel as Israel has lost defending herself. That reeks,
Ratner. Would you like to discuss why?

Talking to yourself again, Ratner. You're beneath contempt. People who
know how far into this mire we've been dragged by the undue influence
of the Israel Lobby are growing in numbers exponentially. You're the
little Zionist boy with his finger in the dyke. You're not going to
save the day. You and your co-conspirators will only reap the
whirlwind. Where is this great intelligence of the Jewish race being
displayed in YOU? Your stupidity as to what's in the Israeli interest
alone surpasses most everything I've ever seen.

[HHW]

On Jul 31, 8:35 pm, "Truth Will Out" <Truthwillout@all_times.net>
wrote:
> "drahcir" <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

If they would just address the issues honestly.

[HHW]

You lie constantly, Ratner. Go ahead, recreate MY "lies." Just
remember that no one who represents our homeland's interests and
rejects Israeli crimes has to misrepresent anything. That and your
innate failure of a moral sense will continue to kill you here. Yet,
perhaps you actually think that you're accomplishing something "good
for the Jews" in this mess you've created. If you weren't that foolish
you might be able eventually to understand that AIPAC DOES NOT
represent the best interest of either Israel or world Jewry. You're
just too opaque, too frenzied, too essentially unread to understand
it.

And remember, no quarter. Until and unless, and counter-intuitively,
you become a civilized human being willing to focus on the merits of
the issues, you're going to be beaten black and blue every day. I
promise you there will be no end to it.