It’s apparently the season for revivals of the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion or variations thereof. This is the time worn paranoia that the Jews, while a miniscule fraction of the world’s population, nonetheless run it. The unspoken (and unexamined) implication is that the non-Jewish remainder of the human race is too stupid or too pathetic to thwart these designs. Obviously center stage in this conspiracy pageant for the moment is occupied by Walt and Mearsheimer’s new book The Israel Lobby, which is about the Hebrew puppeteers who pull the strings that make Bush and Cheney jump, and who also shape the media culture that persuades them. (Too bad someone forgot to tell the Hollywood Jews to make a film about Islamo-fascism or one supporting the neo-cons’ adventure in Iraq). But the impressive pervasiveness of this mind-set throughout the “liberal” political spectrum may be better judged by a column that appeared in Huffington Post by former FBI agent, former Republican and now Jew sleuth, Coleen Rowley.

Ms. Rowley’s article is delicately titled “Never Doubt That a Small Group of Thoughtful, Neo-Cons Can Destroy The World.” Her thesis is Jew-conspiracy boilerplate: The right wing ruling Likud Party in Israel wanted a war with innocent, fragile and harmless Iraq. Therefore Likud’s amen corner in America went to work on the Bushies (and the media) to make it happen. Citing aleftwing blog authority, Rowley lists the top twelve neo-cons in America – or “dirty dozen” -- including Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Perle, Bolton, Podhoretz, Kagan and Ledeen. I have to interject a personal disclosure here: I did not make the top twelve. But I did make the “second tier” which includes Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, John Podhoretz, Jackie Mason, Ron Silver, Ted Koppel and Ken Pollack.

To explain the list she approvingly quotes from the blogger who provided it: “Neo-cons are conservative Jewish journalists and politicians linked to the right-wing Israeli Likud who support United States corporate, political, cultural and military imperialism with the use of pre-emptive World War if necessary … to rid themselves of the Muslim Menace.” In other words, the Great Satan and the Little Satan are out to persecute Muslims world-wide – and that’s what the war on terror is really about. And the Little Satan is really the force behind it.

To be fair to Miss Rowley, she makes a half-hearted attempt to qualify the extreme Jewophobia reflected in the list. According to Rowley it is “mostly” Jews who are the root of all evil. But “mostly” doesn’t really do justice to the design of the list: Jackie Mason but not Dennis Miller; Ron Silver but not Jon Voight; Ted Koppel (Ted Koppel?!) but not Sean Hannity, David Horowitz but not Christopher Hitchens or Victor Davis Hanson; and there’s Ken Pollack, a supporter of the surge in Iraq, but not his co-author Michael O’Hanlon, who qualifies only as his “buddy.” If this selectivity is not anti-Semitism, what is?

And then there’s the theory– Jews are responsible for the war in Iraq. In fact, the Likud government was opposed to the war with Iraq, since its main concern was Iran and Iran’s proxy army Hizbollah situated on Israel’s northern border. Rowley’s principal concern in writing the article, of course, is to protect Iran from any Neo-con pressures that would reign in its genodical, jihadist ambitions. According to Rowley – and this is the imminent threat -- the Neo-Con’s are revving up a new aggression: “They’ve given the ticket this time to first-string and first rate warmonger Michael Ledeen with his Iranian Time-Bomb book set to hit the airwaves and newsstands conveniently on the eve of 9/11.”

How does Huffington Post come to print this ignorant and toxic garbage? It does so because it believes it. Of course if a patriotic Jew were to point out that Rowley and Huffington are merely parroting the propaganda of the Islamo-fascists themselves, there would be howls of outrage from progressives everywhere. How dare you question their loyalties in this war?

Jew-Hatred on Campus
By Asaf Romirowsky
JewishExponent.com | Wednesday, September 19, 2007
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2D73D4CA-BC7D-4377-BB16-5C7DF2274E99

Today, pro-Israel students confront a demoralizing challenge on campus defending Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish state, as well as expressing views that would be labeled as “conservative.”

Some examples:

· Natana DeLong-Bas, a lecturer in theology at Boston College, as well as in the Department of Near East and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, says that she does “not find any evidence that makes me agree that Osama bin Laden was behind the attack on the Twin Towers. All we have heard from him was simply praise and commendation of those who had carried out the operation.”

· Joseph Massad, a Columbia University professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history, writes that “all those in the Arab world who deny the Holocaust are, in my opinion, Zionists.”

· Hatem Bazian, a senior lecturer in Islamic studies at University of California, Berkeley, states that “it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here.”

On the Horizon

You might think these statements were made somewhere in the Arab world or perhaps in 1930s Europe. Yet they are found today in U.S. classrooms. Tellingly, these scholars represent what is happening in the halls of academia and illustrate the type of scholarship used to mold future generations.

Moreover, with the release of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, students face another challenge as it relates to the American-Israeli alliance. The authors contend that that there are no genuine or compelling motives for America’s support for Israel, which they refer to as a “strategic burden.”

In addition, they argue that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked by the pro-Israel camps and works against the interests of America itself. They even went as far as claiming that one of the results of AIPAC’s work was to start the war in Iraq.

Their narrative recounts every colorful report of Israeli “cruelty” toward Palestinians as an indisputable fact. But conveniently, they leave out the rise of Palestinian terrorism before 1967, as well as the 1972 Munich Olympics, Black September and countless cases of suicide bombings against Jews and Israelis.

In an attempt to defuse this, the Jewish Policy Center has organized a panel of experts — including Daniel Pipes, Cliff May and David Horowitz, and moderated by radio commentator Michael Medved — to address “The Fight Against Radical Islam and the New Anti-Semitism on Campus.” The event will take place at 7 p.m.Wednesday, Sept. 19, at Temple Beth Hillel/Beth El in Wynnewood.

‘A Full-Blown Crisis’

When asked about the reason and the importance for holding such an event, Dick Fox, chairman of the Jewish Policy Center, stated that the center “has been addressing the problem of radical Islam and anti-Semitism on campus for several years. Organizationally, this issue has been a top priority for us. Now, it has become a full-blown crisis.”

The brouhaha over the “Israel lobby” as a Jewish conspiracy controlling America has been challenged; unfortunately, that has produced even more virulent rhetoric against Israel.

Academia has unconsciously exposed Jews and Israelis as the canaries in the coal mine. If universities are indicators of social trends, then anti-Semitism is becoming more acceptable in the guise of anti-Zionism. The thesis of Israel-bashers is basically that only Jews are unworthy of having a sovereign state.

These attitudes are pervasive on university campuses and are protected by what’s called “academic freedom.” But if we are to become better advocates for Israel, then we deserve to hear a balanced representation of Israel and the Middle East in our educational institutions.

We can start by seeking out those voices that until Sept. 11, 2001, had been predominantely marginalized by the academy.

Never Doubt That a Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Neocons Can Destroy the World (If We Let Them)

Posted September 6, 2007 | 11:59 PM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/never-doubt-that-a-small-_b_63408.html

I don't think this is what Margaret Mead had in mind but I admit it was the first thought that popped into my mind when I saw this composite photograph and read some of the accompanying blog commentary on DownWithTyranny! back on August 9th (a portion of which follows):

Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby

John Bolton, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, Frank Gaffney Jr.

The above "Dirty Dozen" are listed as the top 12 Neocons in America. They are enabled by the secondary tier of Neocons: Senator Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, John Podhoretz, Ted Koppel, Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Pipes, Max Boot, David Horowitz, Ron Silver, Jackie Mason . . . [Editor's Note: What's in italics is taken directly from the prior blog pieces at DWT! and Kick! Making Politics Fun. I therefore do not take credit or blame for the accuracy or completeness of their lists. In fact one can quickly spot a few omissions--James Woolsey, for instance, who is often publicly described as "neoconservative" but who didn't make the listing. Also if I had written this myself, I would have certainly inserted some qualifiers like "mostly"; as in "Neocons are (mostly) conservative Jewish journalists and politicians..."]

Neocons believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power-- forcefully if necessary-- to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

. . . Neocons are conservative Jewish journalists and politicians linked to the Right-wing Israeli Likud who support United States corporate, political, cultural and military imperialism with the use of preemptive World War if necessary-- without ruling out preemptive nuclear strikes-- to rid themselves of the Muslim Menace. This is understandable, but it is also the worst example of foreign policy in American history.

No matter. Time and time again, this group, going back to their beginnings, even before their Project for the New American Century in 1997, has shown the power of truly persistent and well organized Machiavellianism. When the more pragmatic Iraq Study Group, for instance, said the war on Iraq was not going well, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick got busy cranking out "Surge" strategy and naturally the neocon's idea prevailed against the combined intelligence of almost all other American foreign policy and military experts. A few months later, when surge news wasn't looking so rosy, the group sent neocon second stringer Kenneth Pollack and his buddy O'Hanlon on a day-or-two trip to Iraq to generate fresh propaganda to save the surge. Cheney praised their efforts liberally and, what d'ya know, the surge immediately turned into a long-term escalation.

No matter what you may think of their ideology or ethics, one cannot help being shocked and awed at the ability of this relatively small group to control the papers and politics of our country against all odds and against all reality. So they are hardly ready to Rest In Peace despite such predictions after the 2006 elections --see Salon article "Neoconservatism-RIP" for good analysis but lousy prediction. They have, in fact, proven so pre-eminently powerful that their next apparent task of rolling out this new campaign for pre-emptive massive bombing of Iran, seems nothing but a formality, a cakewalk if you will. Yes, while the rest of us mere mortals were caught up in the real reality of these first two terrible war quagmires, the neocons were already bent on making a third new war our reality.

They've given the ticket this time to first string and first-rate warmonger Michael Ledeen, with his "Iranian Time Bomb" book set to hit the airwaves and newsstands conveniently enough on the eve of 9/11. Folks may recall Ledeen as being the neocon with all that curiously coincidental but never quite proven connection to the forgery of documents about Saddam's seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger, the forged documents that Bush used to lie us into pre-emptively invading Iraq; that led to Plamegate and one other neocon (Scooter Libby's) conviction and pardon. The FBI of course couldn't solve the underlying mystery of the crude forgery. And how much do you want to bet that author Ledeen's talking head will not face one question on any news shows about his probable role in the yellowcake misadventure as he argues for new and improved war?

Sadly, you don't find hardly anyone asking the hard questions or exposing the neocons' "noble lies" except on blogs like DWT! (and Kick! which was DWT!'s original source for first and second tier neocons)--those not afraid of being politically incorrect (and, it goes without saying, from bloggers unafraid of being smeared as anti-Semite which is this "cabal's" preferred method of suppressing those who would expose them). The original blog piece, by the way, continued with the insight that "Neocons differ from old school conservatives in that they are so consumed with bombing the crap out of people all over the world that they have little inclination to bother with the social issues of guns, abortion, homos, religion and race. I suppose they could be considered the Vikings version of Rockefeller Republicans."

So do we all stand here, like helpless bystanders awaiting more world destruction from these Viking pillagers and plunderers? Or do we remember some wisdom learned the hard way, from the sign on the Holocaust Museum: "Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander." And, similarly phrased by Albert Einstein: "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." These quotes certainly don't mean that any one bystander is worse than any particular perpetrator. All they mean is that the perpetrators are few in number while the bystanders are many and could easily stop the perpetrators if they only tried.

On page 362 of the Epilogue of his insightful book Chain of Command, Seymour Hersh asked the question back in 2004 that I predict will become the major question all historians will have to answer: "How did they do it? How did eight or nine neoconservatives who believed that a war in Iraq was the answer to international terrorism get their way? How did they redirect the government and rearrange long-standing American priorities and policies with so much ease? How did they overcome the bureaucracy, intimidate the press, mislead the Congress, and dominate the military? Is our democracy that fragile?"

Historians may soon have to extend this question to include neocon-produced war on Iran. Their answer will probably not be that democracy was that fragile. Only that we had too many bystanders. Who preferred to shut their windows and close their ears so they wouldn't hear as our poor democracy was being strangled in the alley. Just like Kitty Genovese.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.