Archive for the 'AIPAC' Category

Oct 09 2007

ISRAEL’S FINGER ON OUR TRIGGER

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

shron2

By Peter Chamberlin

10/9/07

“But the book [The Israel Lobby], and the response to it, open up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies… They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments… the stifling of dissent… Even Walt and Mearsheimer, who are getting plenty of exposure, couldn’t have asked for better proof of their point that the lobby works to stifle dissent… Unless this atmosphere of intimidation is confronted, Americans will continue to lack access to information and perspectives necessary to formulate effective Middle East policies, virtually ensuring that Israel and the United States will be at war for many years to come.”

“Dissenting at Your Own Risk” http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/255318.html 

By CECILIE SURASKY, Jewish Voice for Peace http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ 

Time is running out for the Zionists, time is catching up with them. If they panic now, everything is exposed; all their big dreams threaten to fail.

Continue Reading »

6 responses so far

Sep 30 2007

The Ideological Struggle of the Twenty-first Century

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

zionism_g_highrez

By Peter Chamberlin

9/30/07

“To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That’s just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them.”

—Michael Parenti, author http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism.html 

All of us who read these pages, on this side of the Internet, are stuck on the same unanswerable question: How can we stop this new war against Iran, before the “decider” pulls the trigger? The closest that anyone can come to an answer is expressed in the idea of rousing the American majority to take democratic action to oppose this rapidly approaching heinous act of pure evil. This leads to the question of “how?” Because Americans have been raised in a controlled illusory environment (which has been fabricated by decades of corporate/government brainwashing), like rats in cages, and because of the very effective “filtering” system on all public communications systems, it is practically impossible for the “Paul Reveres” of the Internet to awaken the town.

Continue Reading »

One response so far

Sep 07 2007

The politics of blind hatred: Who are the fanatics?

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

iraqpain

“The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation.”

BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Dateline: September 5, 2007

President Jimmy Carter was demonized for pointing out in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that there are actually two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Distinguished American scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have suffered the same fate for documenting the excessive influence the Israel Lobby has on US foreign policy.

Americans would be astonished at the criticisms in the Israeli press of the Israeli government’s policies toward the Palestinians and Arabs generally. In Israel facts are still part of the discussion. If the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, could replace Fox “News,” CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, Americans would know the truth about US and Israeli policies in the MIddle East and their likely consequences.

On September 1, Haaretz reported that Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents 900 Congregations and 1.5 million Jews, “accused American media, politicians and religious groups of demonizing Islam” and turning Muslims into “satanic figures.”

Rabbi Yoffie is certainly correct. In America there is only one side to the issue. An entire industry has been created that is devoted to demonizing Islam. Books abound that misrepresent Islam as the greatest possible threat to Western Civilization and seek to instill fear and hatred of Muslims in Americans. For example, Norman Podhoretz proclaims “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.” Daniel Pipes shrieks that “Militant Islam Reaches America.” Lee Harris warns of “The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.”

Think tanks have well-funded Middle East programs, the purpose of which is to spread Islamophobia. Fear and loathing pour out of the Middle East Forum and the American Enterprise Institute.

Continue Reading »

2 responses so far

Jul 25 2007

ACADEMIA UNDER FIRE AS DEPAUL DENIES TENURE

Published by cyrano2 under Zionism, AIPAC, Academic Freedom

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

zioni

By George Beres

7/25/07

When an outspoken professor at DePaul University was denied tenure in June, it was an important national story. Yet few publications outside Illinois gave it more than passing notice. Or it was minimized by placement, such as at the New York Times, where denial to Political Science Professor Norman Finkelstein was placed in the Arts Section.

Those who bypass the story ignore the underlying issue—growing influence of Zionism– which knows no geographic nor cultural boundaries. It is a warning to academia, whose faculty everywhere need be concerned when a teacher is attacked by a colleague because of his views on Israel.

Finkelstein, who happens to be Jewish, wrote the book, “The Holocaust Industry.” He is not a so-called holocaust denier, his parents having survived the Nazi death camps. But he suggests public image of the horror has been manipulated in behalf of illegal Israeli expansion. That got an orchestrated response from a professor 1,000 miles east of DePaul, Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, who urged denial of tenure because of supposed inconsistencies in Finkelstein’s research.

Continue Reading »

4 responses so far

Jul 12 2007

The Unopposed War Lobby

Cyrano’s Journal Online, Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop are initiating a weekly email which will include links to the latest high quality content available on our very diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

bushataipac

BY JAMES PETRAS

“The US is the only country in the world where the peace movement is unwilling to recognize, publicly condemn or oppose the major influential political and social institutions consistently supporting and promoting the US wars in the Middle East. The political power of the pro-Israel power configuration, led by the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), supported within the government by highly placed pro-Israel Congressional leaders and White House and Pentagon officials has been well documented in books and articles by leading journalists, scholars and former President Jimmy Carter. The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has over two thousand full-time functionaries, more than 250,000 activists, over a thousand billionaire and multi-millionaire political donors who contribute funds to both political parties. The ZPC secures 20% of the US foreign military aid budget for Israel, over 95% congressional support for Israel’s boycott and armed incursions in Gaza, invasion of Lebanon and preemptive military option against Iran.”

US Middle East Wars: Social Opposition and Political Impotence | DATELINE: July 4 2007

“You cannot win the peace unless you know the enemy at home and abroad,”

–US Marine Colonel from Tennessee.

Everywhere I visit from Copenhagen to Istanbul, Patagonia to Mexico City, journalists and academics, trade unionists and businesspeople, as well as ordinary citizens, inevitably ask me why the US public tolerates the killing of over a million Iraqis over the last two decades, and thousands of Afghans since 2001? Why, they ask, is a public, which opinion polls reveal as over sixty percent in favor of withdrawing US troops from Iraq, so politically impotent? A journalist from a leading business journal in India asked me what is preventing the US government from ending its aggression against Iran, if almost all of the world’s major oil companies, including US multinationals are eager to strike oil deals with Tehran. Anti-war advocates in Europe, Asia and Latin America ask me at large public forums what has happened to the US peace movement in the face of the consensus between the Republican White House and the Democratic Party-dominated Congress to continue funding the slaughter of Iraqis, supporting Israeli starvation, killing and occupation of Palestine and destruction of Lebanon?

Absence of a Peace Movement?

Just prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 over one million US citizens demonstrated against the war. Since then there have been few and smaller protests even as the slaughter of Iraqis escalates, US casualties mount and a new war with Iran looms on the horizon. The demise of the peace movement is largely the result of the major peace organizations’ decision to shift from independent social mobilizations to electoral politics, namely channeling activists into working for the election of Democratic candidates – most of whom have supported the war. The rationale offered by these ‘peace leaders’ was that once elected the Democrats would respond to the anti-war voters who put them in office. Of course practical experience and history should have taught the peace movement otherwise: The Democrats in Congress voted every military budget since the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. The total capitulation of the newly elected Democratic majority has had a major demoralizing effect on the disoriented peace activists and has discredited many of its leaders.

Absence of a National Movement

As David Brooks (La Jornada July 2, 2007) correctly reported at the US Social forum there is no coherent national social movement in the US. Instead we have a collection of fragmented ‘identity groups’ each embedded in narrow sets of (identity) interests, and totally incapable of building a national movement against the war. The proliferation of these sectarian ‘non-governmental’ ‘identity’ ‘groups’ is based on their structure, financing and leadership. Many depend on private foundations and public agencies for their financing, which precludes them from taking political positions. At best they operate as ‘lobbies’ simply pressuring the elite politicians of both parties. Their leaders depend on maintaining a separate existence in order to justify their salaries and secure future advances in government agencies.

Continue Reading »

One response so far