EASTERN MEDIA

"IT HAS BEEN SAID & SUPPOSEDLY DOCUMENTED THAT A FEW CORPORATIONS ARE RULED BY A HANDFUL OF KOSHER ELITE WHO RULE THE PUBLIC MINDS" THRU THEIR CONTROLS OF NEWSPAPER, TV & MAGAZINES - MAKE US THINK AS THEY WANT US TO - MAKE US REACT AS THEY WANT US TO DO

Films produced by seven of the firms mentioned above accounted for 94% of the total box-office receipts for the year 2002.

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America.

New York Times- With a 2002 circulation of 1,194,000 the times have become quite influential.

Wall Street Journal- sells 1,820,000 copies each weekday & is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other newspapers.

New York Daily News- Owned & operated by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Jewish Les Goodstein, is the president & chief operating officer. Jewish Zuckerman also publishes U.S. News & World Report.
Top Radio Jewish- Ultrazionist & Billionaire Norman J. Pattiz, is founder & chairman of Westwood One, the largest radio network in the United States with 7,500 stations.

1948 - The state of Israel is declared; the first Arab-Israeli conflict results [May 1948 to January 1949] - forcing Palestinians off their own land - later subjecting them to military occupation [condemned by the United Nations & most countries; but in time steadily gains USA & British support for most Israeli decisions].

Israeli's invasion of Arab countries mirror the USA's invasion of Iraq; no war at first, just killing & occupying.

1964 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is founded with the designation of liberating Palestine

1987/8 first real Palestinian controlled uprising begins in the West Bank & Gaza; the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas emerges.

2002 January the 1st female suicide bomber, Wafa Idris, struck. This 28 year old refugee, also driven out of her home, was an ambulance volunteer. "What turns an ambulance volunteer into a suicide bomber? She related someone had been killed & she'd seen his brains splattered all over the place; another's stomach shot out; another lost a leg; pregnant women were forced to give birth at the checkpoints, some seeing their babies die there; she was also injured by rubber bullets. & these led her to avenge her people.

IS ISRAEL'S TREATMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE AMERICAN COALITION'S TREATMENT OF IRAQ'S

What is now installed in Islamic minds is that Israel & the USA are now officially ONE & the same - to the Moslem, we North Americans are Christians, acting no differently than the Jews, steadily invading their lands - YET WE CONDEMN THEM FOR PROTECTING THEIR STRONGHOLDS

From Israeli historian Professor Ilan Pappe, "The suicide bombs are presented to the Israeli public as an insane act by an insane people ... with whom there is no chance for peace. ............ While everybody condemns them, & rightly so, there is a way out of it. & the way out of it is to provide the circumstances in which these young people would find avenues of hope instead of avenues of despair. "

To Maintain its Monopoly on Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, Israel Hints at Preparation for Military Action to Stop Iran's Nuclear Program

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran By JOSEF FEDERMAN Associated Press Writer Jan 22, 2006, 1:22 AM EST

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open. Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat & accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions & international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."

In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, & they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States & Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks & transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi & Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran & Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

TEHERAN - Iran on Sunday ignored Israeli military threats & termed them "childish behaviour."

"These kind of efforts to put pressure on Iran are childish behaviour from the Israeli side," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi told reporters in Teheran.

Israel's Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz hinted Saturday that his country was even prepared for military action to stop Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

"Israel knows quite well what severe consequences such a mistake (military action) would have," the Iranian spokesman said.

ONE MIGHT WONDER IF THERE COULD HOLD ANY TRUTH TO THIS ARTICLE AS TO WHO WAS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS - excerpts from the Exclusive To American Free Press - By Michael Collins Piper

http://www.ppsmo.org/e-website/PPS-Reports/Collective%20Reports%20from%20PPS%20(July%202003).htm

In 1987, the Arabs living in the territories occupied by Israeli in the 6-Day war began a series of riots & violent confrontations known as the Intifadeh, a movement quite independent from PLO leadership. Soon after, Islamic militants founded the Hamas movement, which was at first given some encouragement by Israel, as a means of countering the influence of the PLO, & perhaps because the opposition of the Hamas to an international conference that would adjudicate the problem of Palestine, coincided with the policies of the Shamir government.

The Hamas has a 'military' wing or wings that engages in terrorist acts & a 'civilian' wing that supposedly confines itself to education & 'good works,' under the leadership at present (1999) of the aging & ailing Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Israeli Occupation Government Bars Hamas Leader, Khaled Mesha'al Access into Gaza, Cripples Hamas' Deputies Movement

Major General Amos Gilad, head of the political-security branch in the Israeli Defense Ministry, said that Israel will bar Hamas politburo Khaled Mesha'al who is at this time in Damascus to enter Gaza Strip & if he wants entry to Israel "we will arrest & inquire him".

Gilad told Israel Radio on Saturday that Israel would not allow Hamas parliament members to pass from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank to take part in parliamentary debates. He said "Israel should not give passage to someone who represents a murder & terror organization, who seeks to destroy us."

He also added "in our part we have to understand that the authority which did not disarm Hamas will turn under Hams government & Authority into a military socio-economic Authority, a thing entails the need to implement the Road map which mandated the continuation of peace process."

"Otherwise, it will be a terror authority which necessitates a new pursuit dealing with it, "Gilad said.

He also told Israeli radio "we heard Hamas' leaders saying the road map pronounced dead if this is case so we have no partners & we must look at them as terrorists."

Gilad held the president Mahmoud Abbas full responsibility for because he is the elected President "if the authority turned into a terror & fully backed by Abu Mazen , Israel has to firmly act towards this. "

Questioned about the possibility Mohammed Deif, key leader of Hamas military wing, to take the office of interior minister in PNA, Gilad said "every thing is possible but his hands are still tainted with the Israelis blood, he is still remained murderer."

Agence France Press asked a senior Israeli official in premiership, who was speaking on condition of anonymity, about the movement of deputies between Gaza & West Bank, he said "we will examine each case separately. Those who directly embroiled in terror would not be able to travel. "

He recalled that in the past Israel disallowed the deputies to move from Gaza Strip to Rammallah after being indicted with involvement in "terror activities.

"They were forced to take part in the parliament sessions via video conference, "the Israeli official told AFP.

On the other hand, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Saturday that if Hamas continues involvement in "terrorist" activities, Israel will continue a policy of targeted assassinations against Hamas officials.

"No one is immune to a military response, even if they are in the ruling party," Mofaz said on Channel Two's "Meet the Press."

Benjamin Netanyahu, the rightist Israeli Likud party leader, called on the international community to impose economic sanctions on Palestine.

In his statement to British BBC television, former Prime Minister Netanyahu said Hamas needs to make considerable long-term changes before a meeting can be planned with the movement, adding that no country should negotiate with the Hamas administration.

Netanyahu terming the HAMAS administration as an illegal regime noted, "I think international pressure is necessary, including economic sanctions on the new government in order to adopt peaceful politics."

To this point, the radical Eve Etam, member of National Union party demanded to assassinate all Hamas deputies in the Palestinian legislative council.

He also called for putting the Palestinian residents into squeeze through the sealing off crossings at stages & inform the Quartet' envoy of no opened crossings between Gaza Strip & West Bank unless Hamas government disarms itself & agrees on road map.

The Israeli proposals call for collective punishment against the Palestinians in particular cutting off power & water & more crippling to the Palestinian economy.

Oh no, not more democracy again! Didn't we award this to those Algerians in 1990? & didn't they reward us with that nice gift of an Islamist government - & then they so benevolently canceled the second round of elections? Thank goodness for that! True, the Afghans elected a round of representatives, albeit that they included some warlords & murderers. But then the Iraqis last year elected the Dawa party to power in Baghdad, which was responsible - let us not speak this in Washington - for most of the kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut in the 1980s, the car bombing of the (late) Emir & the US & French embassies in Kuwait.

& now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the wrong party to power. They were supposed to have given their support to the friendly, pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely pro-American Fatah, which had promised to "control" them, rather than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. &, bingo, they have chosen the wrong party again. Result: 76 out of 132 seats. That just about does it. God damn that democracy. What are we to do with people who don't vote the way they should? Way back in the 1930s, the British would lock up the Egyptians who turned against the government of King Farouk. Thus they began to set the structure of anti-democratic governance that was to follow. The French imprisoned the Lebanese government which demanded the same. Then the French left Lebanon.

But we have always expected the Arab governments to do what they were told. So today, we are expecting the Syrians to behave, the Iranians to kowtow to our nuclear desires (though they have done nothing illegal), & the North Koreans to surrender their weapons (though they actually do have them, & therefore cannot be attacked).

Now let the burdens of power lie heavy on the shoulders of the party. Now let the responsibilities of people lie upon them. We British would never talk to the IRA, or to Eoka, or to the Mau Mau. But in due course, Gerry Adams, Archbishop Makarios & Jomo Kenyatta came to take tea with the queen. The Americans would never speak to their enemies in North Vietnam. But they did. In Paris.

No, Al-Qaeda will not do that. But the Iraqi leaders of the insurgency in Mesopotamia will. They talked to the British in 1920, & they will talk to the Americans in 2006. Back in 1983, Hamas talked to the Israelis. They spoke directly to them about the spread of mosques & religious teaching. The Israeli Army boasted about this on the front page of the Jerusalem Post. At that time, it looked like the PLO was not going to abide by the Oslo resolutions.

There seemed nothing wrong, therefore, with continuing talks with Hamas. So how come talks with Hamas now seem so impossible? Not long after the Hamas leadership had been hurled into southern Lebanon, a leading member of its organization heard me say that I was en route to Israel. "You'd better call Shimon Peres," he told me. "Here's his home number." The phone number was correct. Here was proof that members of the hierarchy of the most extremist movements among the Palestinians were talking to senior Israeli politicians.

The Israelis know well the Hamas leadership. & the Hamas leadership know well the Israelis. There is no point in journalists like us suggesting otherwise. Our enemies invariably turn out to be our greatest friends, & our friends turn out, sadly, to be our enemies.

A terrible equation - except that we must understand our fathers' history. My father, who was a soldier in World War II, bequeathed to me a map in which the British & French ruled the Middle East. The Americans have tried, vainly, to rule that map since World War II. They have all failed. & it remains our curse to rule it since.

How terrible it is to speak with those who have killed our sons. How unspeakable it is to converse with those who have our brothers' blood on their hands. No doubt that is how Americans who believed in independence felt about the Englishmen who fired upon them.

It will be for the Iraqis to deal with Al-Qaeda. This is their burden. Not ours. Yet throughout history, we have ended up talking to our enemies.

We talked to the representatives of the emperor of Japan. In the end, we had to accept the surrender of the German Reich from the successor to Adolf Hitler. & today, we trade happily with the Japanese, the Germans & the Italians.

The Middle East was never a successor to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, despite the rubbish talked by Messrs Bush & Blair. How long will it be before we can throw away the burden of this most titanic of wars & see our future, not as our past, but as a reality? Surely, in an age when our governments no longer contain men or women who have experienced war, we must now lead a people with the understanding of what war means. Not Hollywood. Not documentary films. Democracy means real freedom, not just for the people we choose to have voted into power.

What is the effect of political violence on Palestinian children? What is it like for children to have Israeli soldiers enter one's home in the dead of night with remote controlled dogs that attack them in their beds? How do children feel when trapped by a three story high wall with armed guard towers which encases their village, town or city, with only one gate in or out & the gate is mostly locked? How do Palestinian children of Hebron remain sane when marauding gangs of Israeli settler children & adults attack them on their way to school? How does a small child react when their father, or uncle or brother is slain before their eyes by Israeli soldiers, & armed tanks roam the streets? How do children feel when their homes are demolished with all their possessions inside to make way for illegal Israeli settlements, or when Israeli attack jets & helicopters invade the skies & strafe their communities with missiles?

These are not rhetorical questions but literal realities that face the children of Palestine. Death or injury is a not a random occurrence but a realistic possibility during a curfew or at a check-point. Israeli jets fly by with regularity in Gaza exploding sound bombs that disrupt sleep & increase the possibility of their mother suffering a miscarriage or father having a massive stroke or heart attack.

Israel complains that Palestinian media feeds Palestinian children anti-Israeli propaganda. No, Israel creates chaos, confiscates farmlands & water supplies, creates a dizzying array of permits & policies that block food & medical supplies & barricade the normal flow of life as a method of fascist control. The Arab media merely reflects this reality. These incidents weave into the fabric of a Palestinian child's life & lay the foundation for what clearly Israeli policy makers hope will someday result in a broken, submissive society. But instead, what they are creating is an emerging society that has nothing left to lose. & that society's population is likely to far outstrip that of Israel. Children make up 53 per cent of the Palestinian population.

According to the U.S. State Department's annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2004, (the latest available figures) the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories stands at over 5.3 million. Israel's population is 6.8 million, of whom 5.2 million are Jews & 1.3 million Arabs. Most of Israel's Arab population is also of Palestinian origin, & according to recent reports filtering out of Israel, plans call for the ethnic cleansing of the Arab Israelis occupying their former lands & villages to make way for Jewish settlements.

Arab Israelis lost control of their land & property when fledgling Israel created the racist Absentee Property Laws in 1948 & the early 1950s, declaring Arab Palestinians living in Israel "absent" from the land they owned & occupied. This land grab was & continues to be a highly illegal maneuver. Compensation was demanded by UN resolutions & international law yet, unlike Jewish victims of the holocaust, this recompense has not been paid. Today the Arab Israeli indigenous people living in so-called unmarked villages are denied water & electricity by the Israeli government while Jews moving to the area are immediately supplied with both plus other amenities common to full rights of citizenship. Paranoia about the Arabs within Jewish midst is driving the Israeli agenda for further Arab containment within Israel. How might this affect the sensitivities of the Arab Israeli population, especially their children who might resent attempts to be beaten into submission? Might they too rise someday in rebellion?

Add the 5.3 million in Occupied Palestine to the 1.3 million Palestinian Israelis & you've got 6.6 million Palestinians within historic Palestine, a.k.a. Israel & Palestine. However, when factoring the real Palestinian population statistics one must also take into account the millions of Diaspora Palestinians living in exile, whether in despicable refugee camp conditions in nearby countries as well as those living overseas. Unfortunately, not all Palestinians settled in Europe & North America are doing well, many live in a no-man's-land of exile with no rights guaranteed under international law, except the Right of Return.

What terrifies Israel more than Palestinian suicide bombers is that every Palestinian that exists on the planet has one inalienable right - as do all people - to return to their place of (recent) origin. Not long ago, I read that figure now tops 9 million. & if I know the Palestinians, despite all the horror & hardship wrought by Zionist Israel, each has a longing to go home at a time when lots of folks who one-upon-a-time couldn't wait to claim their so-called Israeli birthright can't wait to leave. Bottom line, Palestinians have a sense of belonging that needs no propaganda campaign to instill. They are the people of the Holy Land whether Muslim, Jew or Christian. Many Israelis however are pretenders to the throne, playing a role driven by religious fanaticism not an innate sense of belonging. Poverty & violence are on the rise. Others are lost souls who have been truly oppressed elsewhere & are desperate for a sense of belonging. When I was in Israel, I met several people that met that description, & my heart went out to them. But Israel is quick to promise & often doesn't deliver, because what they are after is not to secure a safe place for Jews (if they are they've failed miserably) but rather warm, Jewish bodies (hey, anyone can convert), to drive out the indigenous population. In terms of nations, the modern state of Israel is less than 6 decades old, highly unstable & constantly in extreme flux. A common need for security is maintained by provoking Palestinian resistance. Racism & its resulting blow-back known as terrorism are the ties that bind.

(There are, of course, Israelis that are at peace with themselves & their surroundings & living elsewhere is beyond their comprehension. I have met many non-racist Israelis who reach out in peace to the Palestinians & if allowed to flourish could become the future mainstay of Israeli coexistence with the Palestinians.)

Recently I found myself thinking back to a Conference on Palestine I attended at the United Nations in 2004 where I heard Adah Kay speak. She is the co-author of "Stolen Youth." Kay is a Professor at City University, London. Last December, I was on a trip to England to conduct research on a book I'm writing on early colonial New England, & we arranged to meet for lunch at a cafe in the British Library. Months earlier I had written an article where I quoted Kay as saying, "Israel portrays the children of Palestine as terrorists, faceless stone throwers, but due to Israeli policies, it's highly complex matrix of control, the health, education & overall well-being of the 1.8 million children of Palestine are at severe risk."

I suspect she was using statistics that were derived several years earlier when the book was first developed. Based on the 2004 stats & the .53 ratio of children to adults, there are 2,809,000 children living in Occupied Palestine. Add to those stats the millions of children that are victimized in the refugee camps & the disgruntled Arab Israeli children living in a very unequal society & you've got one heck of a problem if Israel continues its rabidly anti-Arab (anti-Semite) ways. (The election of Amir Peretz as head of the Labor Party was an aberration & my, my how the non-Arab leadership fled once his victory was apparent.)

During lunch, Adah Kay & I spoke of her Jewish-Zionist upbringing & of her father who was at one time promoted for a leadership position in Israel, which he declined. We also spoke of anti-Semitism & how Israel's cruelty & oppression is provoking the reaction they most dread. Adah & her husband volunteer as much time as they are able to Palestine, as do several of their other friends within the London Jewish community. Kay co-authored "Stolen Youth," with Catherine Cook & Adam Hanieh, former staff & volunteers with Defense for Children International/Palestine Section. Published in 2004 by the University of Michigan Press & subtitled, "The Politics of Israel's Detention of Palestinian Children," "Stolen Youth" is the first book to explore Israel's incarceration of Palestinian children based on first-hand information from international human rights groups & NGO workers in the West Bank & Gaza Strip.

Since the publication of "Stolen Youth," Kay has given talks where she speaks of the particularly harsh punishment handed out to Palestinian children in violation of Article 3, the Rights of Children. "Through law, politics & economic restrictions Israel governs Palestine with thousands of military orders controlling every aspect of their lives, down to what plants are allowed to be grown," according to Kay.

The principles espoused in Article 3 first appeared in international law in 1924 as the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, & were later adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 & recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights in 1989. Article 3 states that "the child, by reason of his physical & mental immaturity, needs special safeguards & care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." The article also acknowledges that "the family, as the fundamental group of society & the natural environment for the growth & well-being of all its members & particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection & assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community."

"The use of prison is central to the occupation," Kay said. Underscoring that reality is the fact that Israel has detained more than 600,000 Palestinians from the time when the occupation began in 1967. Since 2000 over three thousand children have been arrested & imprisoned. Under Israeli jurisdiction, Palestinian children have no right to a lawyer nor are they permitted to know what the charges are. "Children of 16 & 17 are treated by the military as adults, contrary to international law," Professor Kay explained.

"Palestinian children once arrested are subject to torture including severe beatings, exposure to extreme temperatures & forced into extreme positions. They are blindfolded, shackled & put into detention centers in military camps or in settlement outposts where the Israelis force them into signing confessions & attempt to recruit them as collaborators. They are almost always sent on to prison." Sounds like Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo!

According to Kay, once incarcerated, children have no access to formal education which historically has been highly valued in Palestine. However, most problematic are the conditions in Israel prisons which are overcrowded & unsanitary, where medical care is rare. Children are isolated, lonely & abused & endure lasting symptoms. Abuse in prison is systematic & amounts to torture. Many attempt suicide & are subject to disease, Kay reports.

If you read articles on Palestine or have visited as I have, you quickly learn that Palestinian education in general is under attack where every possible means is employed to restrict the movement of children as well as their teachers. Last January, I attended a FFIPP (Faculty for Israeli & Palestinian Peace) conference at Al Quds University in East Jerusalem. We waited for a delegation of students & adults to joins us from the Gaza Strip. Some couldn't make it because tanks had gotten in their way & they feared they would be killed. Others were detained for many hours at the check point. When they finally arrived & spoke the following day we heard tales of brothers & sisters & other family members shot at by the IDF for no reason in particular, except as a bizarre means of crowd control. All had had family members killed.

As a case in point illustration, the following day, two of the teenagers were arrested by the Israeli police while strolling in Jerusalem's Old City during the conference lunch break. Despite having all the necessary permits & doing absolutely nothing wrong, these children were thrown in a jeep & brought to police headquarters where they were incarcerated. I was part of a spontaneous delegation that assembled to track them down & fight for their release. What was particularly painful for me, having spent hours chatting with them, was that these jailed students were among the sweetest kids I have ever met. I would personally adopt them in a heartbeat. Yet somehow Israeli society views them as a threat? Why? The reason I keep hearing & reading about & have witnessed is that certain orthodox rabbis & others in power in Israel are offended because they are Arabs, whom they claim usurped the land from them (when they were in Europe over the past 2 thousand years). Of course, these individuals have twisted historic reality to suit their Zionist cause, but that aside, what is expressed is raw, brutish racism & when it inspires violence, it is a blot on the society that promotes & sustains it.

Adah Kay writes & speaks of children & teachers who are stopped at checkpoints & of the mounds of dirt that block roadways. "They are gassed, shot at & injured going to & from school," she explains. Hundreds of students have been killed or injured on their way to & from school.

"Schools & universities have been broken into, shelled & bulldozed by the military. Because of the constant disruptions there has been a decline in concentration. Absent-mindedness, panic attacks & requests for frequent breaks are on the increase," she said. Military orders have been used to close down schools & universities. Under these conditions, it is difficult to maintain standards & the arts & physical education have suffered as drop-out rates increase.

Lack of access to safe water also increases health risks for children suffering from malnutrition. Part of the purpose of Israel's racist, Apartheid Wall is to insure that Palestinian aquifers are kept away from Palestinian control. There is method to the madness of the erratic route of the Wall as it snakes in to grab lands far from the established 1948, or even the 1967 borders. With Israel in control of Palestine's water, costs have risen by 80 per cent since 2000. "Electricity is cut to clinics so medical supplies, including vaccines, are spoiled & mobile clinics are prevented from reaching their destinations. Palestinians lack access to safe water & must live with open sewers," Kay has documented.

The over-all health of Palestinian children is also deteriorating with death, injury & disability on the rise. Though previously a middle class society, poverty has significantly increased along with severe malnutrition, she states. Nigel Roberts of the World Bank, recently described conditions within Palestinian as being "on the verge of functional bankruptcy," with a stunning unemployment rate of over 70% of young Palestinians between the ages of 16 to 25.

But despite the occupation, Palestinians still display a remarkable resiliency & strong coping mechanisms. However, social opportunities are rare for these children & their vision for a future is bleak, Kay maintains.

Today, because Israel manages to control the message, the media gives the impression that since the summer of '05 when the 7,000 illegal Israeli settlers were removed from the Gaza Strip, somehow the occupation has been eased. But nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, the brutishness of the occupation has intensified as the Apartheid Wall moves toward completion, & Europe & America threaten Palestine with ceasing their promised financial support unless they "turn away from violence." Talk about blaming the victim! No wonder Palestinian support for Hamas is on the rise. Hamas has not only been steadfast in attempting to resist but have served their communities through charitable works that help sustain the population despite all attempts to strangle it. Let's face it, in democracies who do we vote for other than those who promise to protect us & provide the foundation for a viable life.

Before we parted, Adah asked me as a Jew speaking to a Christian involved in the issue of Palestine how I kept from becoming anti-Semitic. My answer was simple. "Because of people like you, Adah," I said. People in the Jewish community who devout their lives to working with the Palestinians & exposing the Truth so that someday, somehow justice will prevail deserve respect. Jews, Christians & Muslims are equally capable of good as well as evil. But when hidden agendas involving extreme wealth & power come into play, we all need to be on guard.

What we didn't discuss is what I truly believe is at the root of the evil. Securing the Zionist agenda was totally dependant at the turn of the century on British & European & later American support. Simultaneous to its rise the developed nations were switching to an oil-based economy. Geologist had discovered that the largest oil reserves were in the Middle East. The trick was getting the Middle Eastern countries in the pockets of the power elite, that's where the European Ashkenazi (non-Semite) Jews came in handy - by setting up shop in the region - by claiming Palestine. The Zionist agenda is one of power, domination & control, & an iron-clad belief in their supremacy - perfect qualifications if you want to rile-up & then clamp down on an indigenous population so that you can divide & conquer. Many Jews openly opposed their agenda; some were killed because of their opposition. At heart it's a White Makes Right belief system. But within the Jewish Zionist movement (which also has a more benign side united by a sense of victim-hood) there had to be an inner circle so convinced of their entitlement they would stop at nothing. Enter the Stern Gang & other Fighters for Israel who violated what many True Torah & other Jews believe to be the Jewish innate sense of righteousness by practicing terrorism long before the Arabs knew what hit them.

In my opinion, as long as we are oil dependant & supplies are being depleted, the game of musical chairs will continue, the rich will grab the prize & the poor will fall to the side. There will be conflict in Palestine & Israel & throughout the oil rich regions. But once the move is made to renewable energy resources, the need to support Israel will dwindle as fast as the region's oil. Of course, that's when they might see fit to rear their ugly Nuclear War Heads, just as America rears its nuclear threat while renouncing any other country that might join the unholy club. But what would be best is if the world threw off the yoke of foolish, racist, elitist oppression & matured so that we can unite in cleaning up the environment & recognize that all the children of the world have an inalienable right to experience the best that life can offer.

As the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "In an ugly & unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness & unhappiness."

Iran says it will launch medium-range missiles if attacked, & accused Britain & the United States of arming rebels in its south, as international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear plans grow.

"If we come under a military attack, we will respond with our very effective missile defence," Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guard, told state television.

Western states suspect Iran of secretly aiming to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear facilities are intended to produce only electricity.

The United States & Israel have said they would prefer to solve the standoff through diplomacy but have not ruled out a military strike.

Military experts reckon the Revolutionary Guard's Shahab-3 missiles have a range of about 2,000 km, meaning Israel, US bases in the Gulf & foreign troops in Iraq lie within their range.

Safavi repeated Tehran's allegations that Britain & the United States are arming rebels in the south-western province of Khuzestan, which has most of Iran's abundant oil reserves.

"Occupying forces in Iraq, particularly those in the south, provide Iranian agents with material for bombing," he said. "British & US intelligence services should avoid interfering in our affairs."

Bombs ripped through a bank & government building in Khuzestan on Tuesday, killing eight people.

A group fighting for the independence of Iran's Arab minority claimed responsibility, but the claim could not be verified.

Defence analysts say Iranian ballistic missiles owe much to North Korean & Russian know-how.

"Iran produces its own ballistic missiles & does not draw on any foreign assistance for technology," Safavi said.

The Revolutionary Guard is a parallel military answerable directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The official Israeli excuse (that is blindly used by the US-EU officials) is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. It doe not recognize Israel. It has not disarmed its militia.

If terrorism is killing civilians for political purposes, it has been the practice of the Israeli government since its inception. With regard to Hamas, it has observed a year-long truce, that Israel has never observed. So, it should be Israel which should be demanded to stop terrorism, not Hamas.

Leaders of Hamas addressed the other issues in a clear way that does not leave to Israel or its supporters any excuse to exact punishment on the Palestinian people.

The leader of Hamas, Khaled Mesha'al answered the three demands posed by US Secretary of States, Condoleezza Rice, which are also Israeli demands in the first place.

First, he said that the Hamas Charter does not include any statements about the destruction of Israel. So, the US Secretary of State has to be more accurate than just repeating the propaganda of the Israeli leaders & the Western corporate media machine supporting them.

Second, with regard to disarming the Hamas militia members, Mesha'al said that Hamas is willing to do just that by absorbing them, together with members of other militias, in the Palestinian national army, which is going to be under the government control, like all armies in the world.

Third, concerning recognition, it has to be mutual just like what happened before between the PLO & the Israeli government. When the two parties agreed to talk to each other, it was an automatic de facto recognition that was later formalized by signing agreements which included formal recognition.

Fourth, Hamas leaders, including Mesha'al & Haniyeh, announced that Hamas would uphold all the international agreements the Palestinian Authority signed, including those signed with the Israeli government. This means that Hamas has accepted the peace process & agreed to follow it.

Thus, there's no need for all this fuss, Ms. Secretary. Just calm down & use your diplomatic channels to communicate to Hamas leaders what you want them to do EXACTLY.

I'm sure you can do it, & if you need help ask George Shultz or his aids how they did it with the PLO in 1988. If you don't find anybody to ask, you may want to look at the State Department archives. Just try to do your job as a US Secretary of State, for God's Sake, not as those parrots in the pro-Israel corporate media who just repeat the baseless claims of Israeli leaders, without any verification.

Rice Urges No Aid to Hamas Government By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer Jan 30, 2006, 8:16 AM EST

LONDON (AP) - The United States wants other nations to cut off aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian government, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said ahead of an international strategy session on Mideast peace prospects.

Humanitarian help to the Palestinians, many of whom are poor & unemployed, is likely on a "case-by-case basis," Rice said Sunday. She indicated that the administration would follow through on aid promised to the current, U.S.-backed Palestinian government led by President Mahmoud Abbas.

"The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence & that refuses its obligations," under an international framework for eventual Mideast peace, Rice said.

Rice was meeting other members of the so-called Quartet of would-be Mideast peacemakers Monday. The group, which includes the United States, Russia, the European Union & the United Nations, is already on record as saying "there is a fundamental contradiction between armed group & militia activities & the building of a democratic state."

In Gaza meanwhile, a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, called on the international community to continue funding the Palestinian Authority.

"We assure you that all the revenues will be spent on salaries, daily life & infrastructure," he said at a news conference, addressing international concerns that aid would be used to fund violence.

Diplomats here said ministers with the European Union were ready to jointly call on Hamas to recognize the state of Israel, renounce violence & disarm.

Warder reports Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is promising to cut off U-S aid to the Palestinian government once the Hamas Islamic Resistance Movement takes over

While EU officials are barred from contact with the Islamic resistance group, which it considers a "terrorist" organization (but never considered Israeli government as terrorist when it targeted Palestinian civilians - Al-Jazeerah), the EU statement was to make clear that the EU would keep diplomatic channels open with the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is not a member of Hamas, diplomats said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the talks.

Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, won a decisive majority in last week's Palestinian legislative elections. The group, which has political & military wings, will now take a large role in governing the Palestinians.

Hamas' unexpected electoral victory raised questions about the future of the peace process between the Palestinians & Israel, & how the United States can influence such efforts or help impoverished Palestinians.

"We're going to review all of our assistance programs, but the bedrock principle here is we can't have funding for an organization that holds those views just because it is in government," Rice said.

"It is important that Hamas now will have to confront the implications of its covenant if it wishes to govern," Rice said. "That becomes a primary consideration in anything that we do."

It is not clear that all European nations or the United Nations would cut off aid, let alone Arab governments that do not recognize Israel.

"I just think that anyone who is devoted to trying to bring Middle East peace between two states has an obligation now to make sure that anybody that is going to be supported is going to have that same" goal, Rice said.

U.S. aid is a small part of the $1.6 billion annual budget of the Palestinian Authority.

About $1 billion comes from overseas donors - more than half of that from European nations. The rest is a mix of funds from international donor agencies, Arab & Asian governments, & the U.S., which gave $70 million in direct aid to the Palestinian Authority last year.

Separately, the U.S. spent $225 million for humanitarian projects through the U.S. Agency for International Development last year, & gave $88 million for refugee assistance.

Islamic Resistance Hamas movement appealed the international Quartet, met in Davos for an open dialogue without preconditions with a big deal of commitment & fairness. The movement also is looking forward to building trust & cooperation with the all freedom loving countries overseas.

In a bid by the Movement offered by Hamas key leader Ismael Hanyia in a press conference in Gaza today , he called upon the free world to bond respect to the results of democracy , & the willingness of the Palestinian people that clearly shown in ballot boxes & should deal with the Palestinian people on such a basis.

"Our electoral program is change & reform & we are intended to implement it & well done in running funds in order reconstruct out homeland & ease the suffering of our people, we will make substantive reforms & clamp down the finance & management fraud, "Hanyia said in a press conference.

Hamas' message passed on to the Quarter said "we are seeking to build a political structure based on political pluralism, upholding democracy & respect human rights in the shadow of prevalent law."

"It's known to every body a fact that the Palestinian people is still under occupation & suffer ongoing aggression, land seizure, relentless siege, & ongoing construction of Apartheid wall & judiazing Jerusalem, building illegal Jewish settlements, unremitting arrest raids, which worsen the suffering of the Palestinian people & give the Palestinians the rights to defend themselves in the tyranny of the occupation, "the massage reads.

In conclusion, Hamas's message to the Quartet stressed on the need for funds "We call on you to transfer all aid to the Palestinian treasury. all the revenues will be spent on salaries, daily life & infrastructure."

Hamas leader & elected PLC member Mahmoud Al Zahar told CNN & CBS on Monday that George W. Bush has the key to achieve peace in the region & we accept a long-term truce (hudna) with Israel is possible if Israel withdraws to pre-1967 borders & releases prisoners.

"We can expect to establish our independent state on the 1967-occupied territories & we can give a long-term (calm) hudna," Zahar told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

He said that if Israel "is ready to give us the national demand to withdraw from the 1967-occupied land; to release our detainees; to stop their aggression; to make geographic link between Gaza Strip & West Bank, at that time, with assurance from other sides, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, & give us one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that."

Mahmoud Al Zahar told CNN that the United States is not an enemy & President George W. Bush has the key to accomplish peace in the area.

Zahar added "Believe me, there is a link between people & what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, & Palestine, this will not serve the American interests."

He confirmed that the elected Hamas is ready to establish an independent state on any area that liberated from the Israeli occupation, & also said "Give us chance to live as the other people, & then we stop our military operations against Israel".

"Bush has the key to peace & no one in the Israeli government has a serious intention to go on negotiations," Al Zahar concluded.

The EU Foreign Ministers' Council held today a meeting in Brussels the capital city of Belgium to reassess & rethink PNA funding, particularly, after Hamas' winning the majority of the parliament (PLC) seats.

The meeting tackled several questions over the influence of the new situation on the EU aid to Palestinians.

"European Union would cooperate with the PNA if the newly- elected government abided by the agreements signed with Israel & went on serious negotiations to push the peace process forward," EU officials said.

European spokeswoman, Emma Edwin said "European Union cooperates with PNA not with a political party." She added that the relationship between the EU & PNA came in accordance with a Partnership Treaty signed in February, 1996.

Edwin stated last Friday that the EU financial aids to the PNA reached annually 500-million euro (649-million dollar), she said "The EU is the largest donor to the Palestinian people besides other international parties."

In a press conference, Edwin said "The financial aid to PNA has not yet been decided because of internal Palestinian reasons & measures."

The EU also aided the PNA about 70 million euro throughout the World Bank for reform projects but about 35 million euro was withheld because PNA had not fulfilled all commitments over the reform projects.

About 70 million euro , out of 280 million euro were allocated in 2005 by the EU states to support that Palestinians, included 64 million euro to support the UNRWA projects & 40 million were assigned to rehabilitate Gaza's infrastructure after the Israeli withdrawal.

The UN aids to the PLC elections, the electoral campaign, & the Central Election Commission CEC amounted to 81.5 million euro in 2006.

The fund was established in the year of 2004 to support the Palestinian people as the UN states, Saudi Arabia, Japan, USA, Norway & many others contributed with the fund to aid Palestinians.

The Guardian, January 31, 2006

Palestinians voted for Hamas because of our refusal to give up their rights. But we are ready to make a just peace

Palestine Observer to UN Calls for Security Council Intervention to Stop Israeli War Crimes and Assassinations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

NEW YORK, March8, 2006 (IPC)--

In a letter to the United Nations Security Council, delivered on Monday by Dr. Riyad Mansour, Ambassador and Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, he called for intervention to stop the latest Israeli extrajudicial executions (state assassinations) perpetrated across the occupied Palestinian territories as well as the Israeli government's intention to take unilateral steps regarding final borders of Israel.

The letter , which came in follow-up of previous 223 letters since the crisis has erupted in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) in September 28, 2000, constitutes a basic record of the crimes committed by Israel, the occupying power, against the Palestinian people since September 2000.

On Monday, 6 March, Israel, the occupying power, killed five Palestinians, including three children in an extrajudicial attack, after the Israeli occupying forces fired missiles from a helicopter gunship on a car traveling on the crowded street of Salah Eldin in the Gaza Strip, the letter explained.

The letter pointed out that the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, declared on Monday, 6 March, 2006, that the Israeli government would unilaterally "determine its final borders by itself".

Such a declaration is considered a blatant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Internationally-endorsed Road Map peace plan, the letter maintained.

Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, in a statement, said that that "security would only come through negotiations, not unilateral action and aggression.

The letter, in accordance with the rules and principles of international law, including the international humanitarian law, called on the international community to immediately cease such violent attacks and condemn the latest escalation of military aggression by Israel.

Illegal Israeli Settlers Terrorizing Palestinians with Impunity, Attacking Children on their Way to School, and Destroying Farmers' Trees and Crops, According to a UN Report

U.N.: Jewish Settlers Harass Palestinians

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER Associated Press Writer

Mar 8, 2006, 7:35 AM EST

GENEVA (AP) -- (Illegal Israeli) Jewish settlers are terrorizing Palestinians with impunity, attacking children on their way to school and destroying farmers' trees and crops, a U.N. expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict said in a report.

John Dugard, a South African lawyer, called the withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip last summer a positive step. But the Jewish state effectively controls Gaza through targeted killings and sonic booms from warplanes flying over the region, Dugard said in a report prepared ahead of next week's annual meeting of the 53-member U.N. Human Rights Commission.

Dugard's report "is guided by a clear political agenda, and bears little relation either to the facts or existing principles of international law," Levanon said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press.

Dugard said settler violence has been particularly egregious in the West Bank city of Hebron. His 22-page report made no reference to Palestinian resistance, but said Hebron settlers "terrorize the few Palestinians that have not left the old city and assault and traumatize children on the way to school."

"It seems that (Israeli) settlers are able to terrorize Palestinians and destroy their trees and crops with impunity," Dugard said, adding that he himself was a victim of settler abuse while visiting the city in June 2005.

Dugard prepares regular reports for the U.N.'s human rights watchdog during visits to the region, but receives no cooperation from the Israeli government.

Dugard said Israel's actions in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions on warfare, which forbid "all measures of intimidation or of terrorism" against civilians in time of war.

In the first three months after the Gaza withdrawal, targeted assassinations by Israeli defense forces in the territory killed 18 civilians and injured 81, in addition to killing 15 activists.

(In retaliation to the Israeli assassinations), Palestinians have launched rockets from Gaza against southern Israeli towns, and Israelis have retaliated (to the retaliation) with artillery fire and airstrikes.

Hamas has observed a yearlong moratorium on suicide and shooting attacks. But Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Tuesday that Hamas leaders, including the incoming Palestinian prime minister, will not be immune from pinpointed Israeli killings if the group were to resume attacks.

(Mofaz's warning could be understood that there's an Israeli plan to provoke Hamas to retaliate, then Israel uses that as a pretext to kill Hamas leaders, as it is doing now to Islamic Jihad - Al-Jazeerah comment on the news).

U.N.: Jewish Settlers Harass Palestinians

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER Associated Press Writer

Mar 8, 2006, 7:35 AM EST

GENEVA (AP) -- (Illegal Israeli) Jewish settlers are terrorizing Palestinians with impunity, attacking children on their way to school and destroying farmers' trees and crops, a U.N. expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict said in a report.

John Dugard, a South African lawyer, called the withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip last summer a positive step. But the Jewish state effectively controls Gaza through targeted killings and sonic booms from warplanes flying over the region, Dugard said in a report prepared ahead of next week's annual meeting of the 53-member U.N. Human Rights Commission.

Dugard's report "is guided by a clear political agenda, and bears little relation either to the facts or existing principles of international law," Levanon said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press.

Dugard said settler violence has been particularly egregious in the West Bank city of Hebron. His 22-page report made no reference to Palestinian resistance, but said Hebron settlers "terrorize the few Palestinians that have not left the old city and assault and traumatize children on the way to school."

"It seems that (Israeli) settlers are able to terrorize Palestinians and destroy their trees and crops with impunity," Dugard said, adding that he himself was a victim of settler abuse while visiting the city in June 2005.

Dugard prepares regular reports for the U.N.'s human rights watchdog during visits to the region, but receives no cooperation from the Israeli government.

Dugard said Israel's actions in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions on warfare, which forbid "all measures of intimidation or of terrorism" against civilians in time of war.

In the first three months after the Gaza withdrawal, targeted assassinations by Israeli defense forces in the territory killed 18 civilians and injured 81, in addition to killing 15 activists.

(In retaliation to the Israeli assassinations), Palestinians have launched rockets from Gaza against southern Israeli towns, and Israelis have retaliated (to the retaliation) with artillery fire and airstrikes.

Hamas has observed a yearlong moratorium on suicide and shooting attacks. But Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Tuesday that Hamas leaders, including the incoming Palestinian prime minister, will not be immune from pinpointed Israeli killings if the group were to resume attacks.

(Mofaz's warning could be understood that there's an Israeli plan to provoke Hamas to retaliate, then Israel uses that as a pretext to kill Hamas leaders, as it is doing now to Islamic Jihad - Al-Jazeerah comment on the news).

An Open Letter to President Bush and US State Department: You Demand Hamas to Recognize Israel, But at What Land Borders?

By Ronald Douglas Kennedy

Al-Jazeerah, March 8, 2006

Contact Us at the U.S. State Department http://www.state.gov/ (ask State Department)

Greetings:

This is my second request for an Answer. I am working on a letter to Al-Jazeerah.Info and want my information to be accurate.

Question: The United States is Demanding that Hamas Recognize THE STATE OF ISRAEL. What are the actual land borders of " The Israel State" that you Demand Hamas to Accept and Recognize?

Are you referring to:

A. The 1947 UN Partition Plan?

B. The 1949 Armistice Line?

C. The 1967 Green Line (borders) after there "Preemptive" Strike?

D. The Lands held at this time by the State of Israel?

E. Their latest Coveted demand for the Jordan Valley together with D above?

My first request was on February 21 and the second request was on February 28. I have also asked my Congressman If he can find the answer to this demand by Bush and His State Department. But it seems too difficult to find the answer to date? Maybe this Open Letter will ferret out an answer from the Bowls of these deep thinkers or the lobbyists who seam to give them their Marching Orders in Middle East related Affairs.

How did the USA and Britain give aid to Israel after the King David Hotel was blown up by Terrorists in 1946 (By Blood and Fire, by Thurston Clarke, G.P.Putnam's Sons, Click here: By Blood and Fire (review) ) by Menahem Begin. who later became "Prim Minister" of Israel?

Why not let Hamas make it's case regarding Palestine lands as recognized in Resolutions by the UN. And the USA at the time of the UN Votes as rightfully theirs?

And the Questions of the 1967 Preemptive Attack by the State of Israel ALSO Attacking the American NSA Ship USS. LIBERTY still has not had an open hearing Click here: USS LIBERTY Memorial forcing the Crew to resort to "File a formal Report of war Crimes committed Against U.S. Military Personnel. June 8, 1967. By elements of the Israeli military forces." Was this Attack to cover the Butchering of Egyptian prisoner of war by Israeli soldiers under orders of their Butcher commander? And as it turns out another past "Prim Minister" just inland of the Beach of the USS. Liberty and in their radio Listening Area. "And there would be coping all transmissions for review at a later time by NSA".

Hamas did not attack America or Britain. Why is their new Elected Government not given a chance to Govern and protect their people on Palestinian lands?

Maybe the True Answers will help set the USA free And bring our Finest Home.

Ronald Douglas Kennedy, CA, USA.
----------

No Immunity: Israel's Policy of Targeted Assassinations

By Mike Whitney

Al-Jazeerah, March 8, 2006

Gangland violence is making us safer.

That's the message we hear today from Israel's Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, who not only defended the practice of "targeted assassination" but threatened to use the controversial tactic against Palestine's new Prime Minister-designate, Ismail Haniya.

"We will continue the targeted killings at this pace," Mofaz stated. "No one will be immune."

Mofaz's comments were made in response to Israel's air-strike against two Palestinians yesterday in Gaza City. The attack killed three bystanders—one child and two teenagers.

The Defense Minister used the attack to warn the new Hamas cabinet that the same strategy will be applied to leading members of the government if suicide-bombings in Israel resume.

Is Mofaz right? Is gangland violence making Israelis safer?

There's reason to suspect that he is not only wrong, but that he may be putting Israeli citizens at greater risk. Targeted assassination is a disastrous policy; a policy which defines the parameters of extremism and lawlessness.

Let's forget for a moment that innocent people are invariably killed in these incidents and that these planned executions take place on city streets where passersby are forever traumatized by bloody state-sponsored murder. Let us simply address the issue of whether or not the safety of Israelis or anyone else is ever enhanced by discarding the law and conferring absolute power on the state to decide who lives or dies?

We already know that hard-right members of the Likud as well as their American counterparts believe strongly in the practice. The Bush administration has never wavered in its support for the arbitrary killings even though a botched missile attack in Pakistan last month by an unmanned CIA-drone killed nine innocent villagers. The administration stubbornly refused to even issue an apology for their mistake.

The tragic loss of life never stirred any debate as to whether the practice was morally or legally justifiable. And, why would it?

The ability to kill according to one's own discretion is a fundamental requirement of absolute power. What government official doesn't seek that implicit authority?

But how does the citizen benefit?

Are Israelis reassured by a regime that flaunts universally-accepted standards of international law? Are they soothed by the fact that their own government disregards the shield the law normally provides for its citizens?

Even a fool can see the insidiousness of state-assassinations. Its corruptive influence creeps into every area of the body-politic. If assassination can be justified then why not torture? Why not strip the citizen of every recognizable defense and allow the state to do with him as it chooses?

Isn't that what targeted assassination means; the end of the law?

It is not surprising that Mofaz would defend the practice; we expect our military personnel to think in simple terms. But it would be disturbing to find out that a majority of Israelis actually believe that the state has the inherent right to exterminate the leaders of a democratically-elected government, or that assassination is a viable form of foreign policy.

It is not. It is barbarism.

Government-ordered killings are an attack on the underlying threads that knit civilization together. It's an assault on the basic principle that all people deserve some protection from the violence of the state. No one is safer when the law is abandoned.
---------

Pakistan Won't Be Party to Action Against Iran, Says Aziz

Arab News, Agencies

LONDON/ISLAMABAD, 8 March 2006 —

Pakistan would oppose any military action taken by its ally the United States against Iran over its disputed nuclear program, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said here.

"Pakistan's view is that there should not be any military intervention and we would certainly not be party to any such action," Aziz told BBC television late Monday during a visit to London.

The BBC had asked him about Washington's refusal to rule out military action against Iran's nuclear program which US and European diplomats fear may be used for nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is peaceful.

He said Pakistan has always supported a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's uranium enrichment program, especially through the forum of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

"We think Iran should not proliferate. We're against production of any nuclear weapons in the region. We think Iran does have the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under IAEA safeguards and guidelines," he said.

"We also feel negotiation is the way to go and we oppose any armed conflict in the region to settle the matter," he said.

"We remain cautiously optimistic that they (negotiations) will produce results," he said.

Unlike Iran, Pakistan was entitled to build a nuclear bomb once India set off such a weapon in 1974, he said.

"Once this happened ... we had to create a minimal credible deterrence to ensure peace in south Asia. In Iran's case, we believe this is not necessary," he said.

Aziz was in London for a two-day "Asia 2015: Promoting Growth, Ending Poverty" meeting, which gathered some 150 delegates from the worlds of politics, business and civil society.

Pakistan, Spain to Work Together

Spain agreed yesterday to work with Pakistan toward drafting a resolution at the United Nations against the defamation of religions and religious symbols, in the wake of the publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

"We understand and respect the sufferings of Muslims and the Islamic countries after the publication of the cartoons," Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told reporters after meeting his Pakistani counterpart Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri in Islamabad at the end of his two-day visit to the country.

While supporting freedom of expression, the Spanish foreign minister emphasized that it has to be observed with responsibility.

Kasuri said Pakistan has proposed to host a meeting of the so-called "Alliance of Civilization" initiative, co-sponsored by Spain and Turkey, to promote understanding among different cultures and beliefs.

Dr. Hassan A. El-Najjar is an Associate Professor of Sociology, who has been teaching at Dalton State College, Georgia, since 1991. He was born in Gaza, Palestine in 1950. He received the first eleven years of formal education in Dair El-Balah. In 1967, he left Gaza Strip to Amman, Jordan, in order to complete the twelfth year of his education. Between 1968 and 1972, he attended Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt. After obtaining his B.A. in English Education, in June 1972, he accepted a teaching job in Tripoli schools, Libya. He also participated in some journalistic activities there. In 1976, he left Libya with his family to the United Arab Emirates, where he accepted another teaching job in Ras Al-Khaimah schools. In 1986, he attended the Graduate School at the University of Georgia, where he received his M.A. in Cultural Anthropology, in 1988, and his Ph.D. in Sociology in 1993. In 1999, he and his family became American citizens.

Copyright © 2002, 2001 by Hassan Ali El-Najjar. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

1. Iraqi claims of Kuwait. 2. Gulf Crisis--Saudi role. 3. Treatment of immigrants in Kuwait. 4. Arab nationalism. 5. Gulf Crisis—Western interests. 6. Iraqi invasion. 7. Gulf Crisis—-Peace initiatives.

8. Mother of All Battles—-Excessiveness. 9. Palestinians in Kuwait-—Discriminated against and terrorized. 10. Terror Campaign 1991.

Saddam Hussain, Yasser Arafat, Dennis Ross, and Highway of Death: From CNN.com. Sam Nunn: From Georgia Trend.

An Editorial Note From Al-Jazeerah: News articles may be reduced in size or slightly changed to conform to the Conflict Terminology guide adopted by Al-Jazeerah. Changes also include correcting Arabic names and editing. So, readers are advised that news articles may not represent their original form in verbatim or size, according to the mentioned original sources.
Iran says the US has the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain
Iran threatens U.S. with 'harm and pain'
By GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press Writer
Mar 8, 8:49 AM EST

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.
But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to ask for Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and nations which oppose its enrichment plans sticking to their positions, reflecting the deadlock that prompted the IAEA board to seek Security Council intervention.
"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."
The statement did not elaborate on what Iran meant by "harm and pain," and Iranian officials were not immediately available to comment.
But diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon.
Iran is the second-largest producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a boycott could target Europe, China or India.
Iran also could cause difficulties in southern Iraq. On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Tehran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq.
Iran's statement was unusually harsh, reflecting Tehran's frustration at failing to deflect the threat of Security Council action against it in the coming weeks. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.
"Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Iran. "We have made our choice."
Iran also attacked "warmongers in Washington" for what it said was an unjust accusation that Tehran's nuclear intentions were mainly for military use. It also suggested America was vulnerable, despite its strength.
"Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," the statement said. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath."
It also threatened broader retaliation, without being specific, saying Iran "will adapt our policy and adjust our approach to conform with the new exigencies."
Earlier, U.S. delegate Gregory Schulte insisted in comments to the board that "the time has now come for the Security Council to act."
He ticked off Iran's decision to curtail agency inspections, its expanding uranium enrichment program and worrying conclusions by IAEA inspectors that suggest at least past interest in nuclear arms as contributing to "mounting international concerns" about Tehran's nuclear intentions.
"Iran has still not come clean," he said.
Schulte listed Tehran's possession of plans that could only be used to make nuclear warheads, links between its nuclear programs and the military, and its determination to develop a large-scale enrichment program that could be misused to make nuclear arms.
"IAEA inspectors have no doubt this information was expressly intended for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components," Schulte said of documents showing how to form fissile material into warheads.
Separately, France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."
It also spoke of "indicators of a possible military dimension to Iran's (nuclear) program" as "a legitimate source of intense concern."
"We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" of the IAEA and its board, the European statement said.
Ahmadinejad's comments - and U.S. and Russian statements the day before rejecting any compromise allowing Tehran to enrich uranium domestically - set the stage for Security Council action once the IAEA board meeting hears about the latest investigations into Iran's nuclear program and debates the issue.
Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing appealed Tuesday for more negotiations and suggested Security Council involvement was not needed.
The Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement.
Associated Press reporter Palma Benczenleitner contributed to this report.

Sa'adat Rejects Israeli Interrogation as Illegal, Israeli Government Violated Agreement by Kidnapping & Re-Trying Palestinian Prisoners

A Palestinian leader seized by Israeli occupation forces in a raid on the Jericho, where he was imprisoned in the West Bank jail, denied any responsibility for his group's 2001 assassination of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, his lawyer said yesterday.

"I reject the accusations," Ahmed Sa'adat was quoted as saying by his attorney, who met the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) chief at an Israeli detention center in Jerusalem.

Four members of a PFLP cell convicted by a Palestinian court in 2002 of carrying out the assassination were also seized by Israeli troops at the jail after a daylong siege.

Sa'adat was jailed by the Palestinian Authority in connection with the assassination but was never convicted of the charge.

At a news conference Sa'adat's attorney, Mahmoud Hassan, relayed defiant comments he said his client made to Israeli interrogators.

"I told the interrogators I do not recognize any interrogation," Hassan quoted Sa'adat, 51, as saying. "This is illegal. I rejected my presence in their jails as illegal." Chief Palestinian negotiator Sa'eb Erekat told a separate news conference he had asked the United States and Britain to press Israel to hand "the abducted men" back to the Palestinian Authority immediately rather than put them in trial.

Under a 1995 interim peace deal, Israel cannot re-try Palestinians if they have already been tried by a Palestinian court for the same offense, he said.

Israeli forces besieged the Jericho prison, where Sa'adat had been held since 2002 under an international agreement, to bring him to Israel for a re-trial after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was prepared to free him.

The troops moved in minutes after US and British monitors supervising Sa'adat's incarceration left the jail. The United States and Britain said they had told Abbas a week ago the monitors could be withdrawn immediately.

1 Palestinians remain in Israeli custody following a massive army raid on a prison in the West Bank town of Jericho, Palestinian Interior Minister Nasr Yussuf said yesterday.

"Sixty-one prisoners are in Israeli hands," the minister told reporters as he toured the site of the destroyed prison compound in Jericho. "We call on Israel to release all the prisoners."

A punch-up broke out during Yussuf's visit after PFLP members called for the minister's resignation over Saadat's capture and exchanged blows with Palestinian police officers, a reporter said.

Meanwhile, Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli soldier taking part in a West Bank operation yesterday in which five wanted men were detained, the Israeli army said.

Elsewhere in the occupied territory, gunmen shot and wounded two Israeli motorists near an illegal Israeli settlement.

Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters battled for more than an hour at a building the troops surrounded in the West Bank city of Jenin.

"One of the men emerged running from the building and an exchange of fire immediately erupted between the forces and the gunmen during which one of the soldiers was killed," the army said in a statement.

WASHINGTON - Ismail Haniya, the Hamas leader set to become prime minister in the new Palestinian government, said on Thursday he hoped he would sign a peace agreement with Israel.

In a television interview with CBS News, Haniya, who has been threatened by Israel with assassination, said he personally had no blood on his hands and had never ordered military action against Israel.

Asked if he could imagine a day when he would be asked to come to the White House to sign a peace accord with Israel, the prime minister-designate of the Palestinian Authority replied: "Let's hope so."

Haniya, looking polished in a business suit, was interviewed on the US network as Hamas officials worked to draft a program for a coalition government after talks with other factions Monday failed to reach agreement on the formation of a broad-based cabinet.

The Islamist Resistance Movement triumphed in legislative elections in January, a shock victory that is rocking the Middle East peace process.

Haniya, asked what he would say if one of his children told him he wanted to be a martyr, said: "We are not bloodthirsty people. We want to stop the bloodshed."

Adopting a statesman-like tone, Haniya said: "I've never sent anyone on a suicide mission.

"If one of my sons came to me and asked me that, I wouldn't even consider giving him my blessing."

Asked what Hamas would require to stop armed resistance to the Israeli occupation (described by Israelis and their supporters as "renunciation of violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist while still occupying Palestinian territories), he placed the onus on Israel.

"That depends on Israel's recognition of a Palestinian state within the boundaries of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem," he said. "Only then can there be room for talks."

Palestinian Human Rights Activists and Journalists Say Israel and US are Above Law

Palestinian journalists and human rights activist refuted what was mentioned in the US annual report released on March 8, 2006. The US report told that Israel is not one of the countries that violate human rights laws.

Moreover, Head of Al Mezan Center for Human Rights Esam Younis said this US declaration is not new, especially when the American Administration always provides political and lawful protection and cover for the Israeli occupation's crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

For his part, advocate and analyst Karim Nashwan said that this report is not authentic and silly. In addition, it contradicts with all international organizations' reports released that confirmed that Israel violated human rights laws and described the Israeli acts as a state terrorism.

He mentioned the Jericho jail raid as a clear-cut example that Israel violated human rights by storming Palestinian territories and arresting Palestinians from jails dominated by the PA, describing it as an Israeli violation of human rights, international law and all previous signed agreements.

For his part, Ashraf Al Ajrami agreed with Nashwan and said that US Administration is adopting a double standard policy. He said," By the time the US condemns certain countries for violations of human rights, it violates these rights and it ignored what is happening here in Palestine and the crimes committed by the last occupation state in the twenty-first century which is Israel."

"It is not difficult to show the Israeli violations of human rights against Palestinians because they are doing these activities on a daily basis by killings, land confiscation and arrests campaigns," he added.

Moreover, the Israeli newspaper Yedeouth Ahronoth quoted excerpts from the US annual report.

The report's writers mentioned Israel as regards the security forces crackdown on Palestinian detainees, bad circumstances in certain jails and detention camps, social and formal racial discrimination practiced against Arab-Israelis as well as personal and civil discrimination against citizens who are not Jews or orthodoxies, social violence, and discrimination against women. In addition, the report discovered women trade, persecuting foreign workers, discrimination against handicapped and governmental corruption.

Whereas, Israeli violations and preaches on the ground prove the contrary to the report's account that proved that Israel is clear and above suspicion and it is not included among countries that violate human rights and laws. Furthermore, a recent report about the Israeli violations of human rights and laws mentioned that Israel violated human beings, stones, and trees in the Palestinian territories since the outbreak of Al Aqsa Intifada on September 28, 2000 until February 28, 2006 namely 4298 Palestinians were killed by Israeli occupation forces (IOF), and 46353 Palestinians were wounded 8435 of them received field treatment. The number of children killed less than 18 years old was 801 children. In addition, the number of Palestinians who were extra-judicially executed reached 394 Palestinians.

Moreover, according to the PNIC's report released by the State Information Service (SIS), the number of the prisoners and the detainees who are still imprisoned reached 9200, 560 of them were imprisoned before Al-Aqsa uprising distributed among 28 detention camps. Whereas, the number of the school and university students prisoners reached 1389, and 319 children out of this number are held in custody.

1200 Male prisoners suffer from chronic diseases. The number of the Female prisoners reached 116, whereas, 67 prisoners of them are tried, 43 are on remand and 6 prisoners are administrative detainees.

The number of the buildings belongs to the public sector and the security facilities that were completely and partially are 645.

PNIC's report referred also that the gross total of the houses that were completely and partially damaged reached 71470. 7628 houses of them were damaged completely, 4785 of them locate in Gaza Strip. Whereas, the number of the houses that were damaged partially reached 63842, and 23622 houses of them locate in Gaza Strip.

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel - are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel's side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy 'step-by-step' process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: 'Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel's lawyer.' Finally, the Bush administration's ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel's strategic situation.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America's proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America's relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel's armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by 'rogue states' that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America's enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

'Terrorism' is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or 'the West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons - which is obviously undesirable - neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel's nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from 'targeted assassinations' of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called 'a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers'. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also 'conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally'. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

Israel's strategic value isn't the only issue. Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 - all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, 'the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.' If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel's opponents.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests - it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and discriminatory' manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.

A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel's early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians' national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir famously remarked that 'there is no such thing as a Palestinian.' Pressure from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak's purportedly generous offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what it does.

Israel's backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground, Israel's record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments - which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that '23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.' Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha'aretz to declare that 'the IDF . . . is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.' The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that 'neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.'

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions. As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he 'would have joined a terrorist organisation'.

So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use 'the Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either 'not very' or 'not at all' emotionally attached to Israel.

Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups - such as Jewish Voice for Peace - strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, 'it is routine for us to say: "This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think." We as a community do it all the time.' There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of 'perfidy' when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial 'security fence'. His critics said that 'it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.'

Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as 'irresponsible': 'There is,' his critics said, 'absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.' Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced that 'the word "pressure" is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.'

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington 'muscle rankings'.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby's task even easier.

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the 'smart' choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.

A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: 'My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.' One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel's interests.

Another source of the Lobby's power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, 'there are a lot of guys at the working level up here' - on Capitol Hill - 'who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.'

AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby's influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff's shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had 'displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns'. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: 'All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message.'

AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, 'it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.' More important, he notes that AIPAC is 'often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes'.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, 'you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.' Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, 'when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: "Help AIPAC."'

Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.

Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy establishment.

When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more 'even-handed role' in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was 'irresponsible'. Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a letter criticising Dean's remarks, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported that 'anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the email inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning - without much evidence - that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel.'

This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than those of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely suggested that to 'bring the sides together', Washington should act as an honest broker. This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn't tolerate even-handedness.

During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits the country. These men were among Clinton's closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators complained that they were 'negotiating with two Israeli teams - one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag'.

The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis ('Scooter') Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by organisations in the Lobby.

The Lobby doesn't want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do most to shape popular opinion.

The Lobby's perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is 'dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising Israel'. He lists 61 'columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and without qualification'. Conversely, he found just five pundits who consistently criticise Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.

'Shamir, Sharon, Bibi - whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me,' Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers like the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs editorials that strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.

Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In his memoirs the paper's former executive editor Max Frankel acknowledges the impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: 'I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.'

News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel's actions on the ground. To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets 6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May 2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic to Israel. Boston's NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1 million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on NPR has come from Israel's friends in Congress, who have asked for an internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.

The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel's agenda.

The Lobby's influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.

Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings's coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The centre's director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.

Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger with Oslo's collapse and Sharon's access to power, becoming quite vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.

The Lobby moved immediately to 'take back the campuses'. New groups sprang up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now sought to put Israel's case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on programmes to monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to 'vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the national pro-Israel effort'.

The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report 'anti-Israel' activity.

Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. 'One can be sure that any public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either sanction or fire him,' Jonathan Cole, its former provost, reported. When Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from Chicago, the same thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced a few years later when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.

A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred towards the end of 2004, when the David Project produced a film alleging that faculty members of Columbia's Middle East Studies programme were anti-semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who stood up for Israel. Columbia was hauled over the coals, but a faculty committee which was assigned to investigate the charges found no evidence of anti-semitism and the only incident possibly worth noting was that one professor had 'responded heatedly' to a student's question. The committee also discovered that the academics in question had themselves been the target of an overt campaign of intimidation.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the importance placed on controlling debate.

A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic administrators emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that they are intended in large part to promote Israel's image. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub Foundation, makes it clear that his foundation funded the NYU centre to help counter the 'Arabic [sic] point of view' that he thinks is prevalent in NYU's Middle East programmes.

No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby'. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of.

Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticise Israeli policy, which some people attribute to a resurgence of anti-semitism in Europe. We are 'getting to a point', the US ambassador to the EU said in early 2004, 'where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s'. Measuring anti-semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points in the opposite direction. In the spring of 2004, when accusations of European anti-semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of European public opinion conducted by the US-based Anti-Defamation League and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that it was in fact declining. In the 1930s, by contrast, anti-semitism was not only widespread among Europeans of all classes but considered quite acceptable.

The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community said that 'France is not more anti-semitic than America.' According to a recent article in Ha'aretz, the French police have reported that anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by a Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets to condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin both attended the victim's memorial service to show their solidarity.

No one would deny that there is anti-semitism among European Muslims, some of it provoked by Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians and some of it straightforwardly racist. But this is a separate matter with little bearing on whether or not Europe today is like Europe in the 1930s. Nor would anyone deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous anti-semites in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their numbers are small and their views are rejected by the vast majority of Europeans.

Israel's advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that there is a 'new anti-semitism', which they equate with criticism of Israel. In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that this would 'have the most adverse repercussions on . . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain', while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: 'There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist - verging on anti-semitic - attitudes emerging in the grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.' But the Church was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy.

Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of human rights, to international law and to the principle of national self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.

In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very significant means of persuasion at his disposal. He could have threatened to reduce economic and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American people would almost certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60 per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among the 'politically active'. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States should not favour either side.

Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel's own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised the situation: 'Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.' The main reason for this switch was the Lobby.

The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon to show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to allow Israel's foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser Arafat, even though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat's leadership. Bush even said publicly that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying 'to appease the Arabs at our expense', warning that Israel 'will not be Czechoslovakia'.

Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the White House press secretary called Sharon's remarks 'unacceptable'. Sharon offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to persuade the administration and the American people that the United States and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said, should isolate the Palestinians' elected leader and have nothing to do with him.

The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter 'stemmed' from a meeting two weeks before between 'leaders of the American Jewish community and key senators', adding that AIPAC was 'particularly active in providing advice on the letter'.

By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby's efforts, but also to America's initial victory in Afghanistan, which reduced the perceived need for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida. Sharon visited the White House in early December and had a friendly meeting with Bush.

In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel's actions would damage America's image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon 'halt the incursions and begin withdrawal'. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted Israel to 'withdraw without delay'. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, told reporters: '"Without delay" means without delay. It means now.' That same day Colin Powell set out for the Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.

Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president's office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having 'virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists'. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.

The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April - a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces - when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was 'a man of peace'. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell's return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.

Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode the administration's objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the United States 'stands in solidarity with Israel' and that the two countries were, to quote the House resolution, 'now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism'. The House version also condemned 'the ongoing support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat', who was portrayed as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200 million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby backed it and Powell lost.

In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, reported that Sharon's aides 'could not hide their satisfaction in view of Powell's failure. Sharon saw the whites of President Bush's eyes, they bragged, and the president blinked first.' But it was Israel's champions in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in defeating Bush.

The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little to help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a unilateral settlement on the Palestinians, based on 'disengagement' from Gaza coupled with continued expansion on the West Bank. By refusing to negotiate with Abbas and making it impossible for him to deliver tangible benefits to the Palestinian people, Sharon's strategy contributed directly to Hamas's electoral victory. With Hamas in power, however, Israel has another excuse not to negotiate. The US administration has supported Sharon's actions (and those of his successor, Ehud Olmert). Bush has even endorsed unilateral Israeli annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the stated policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.

US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has Bush 'wrapped around his little finger', the former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to distance the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates understand that these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry went to great lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004, and why Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing today.

Maintaining US support for Israel's policies against the Palestinians is essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States have worked together to shape the administration's policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the 'real threat' from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The 'unstated threat' was the 'threat against Israel', Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. 'The American government,' he added, 'doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.'

On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that 'Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein.' By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached 'unprecedented dimensions', and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq's WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, 'Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities.'

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. 'The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,' Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. 'Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.'

At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that 'the greatest risk now lies in inaction.' His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: 'The Case for Toppling Saddam'. 'Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,' he declared. 'I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime.' Or as Ha'aretz reported in February 2003, 'the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.'

As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel's leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, 'Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.' In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel's behalf.

Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby's major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. 'As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,' the Forward reported, 'America's most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.' The editorial goes on to say that 'concern for Israel's safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.'

Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that 'a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.' Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on 'Jewish influence'. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby's influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.

The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners with developing concrete plans for an invasion.

Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power. We don't have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though neo-conservatives on his staff - Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration - also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.

Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and their allies published another open letter: 'Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack,' it read, 'any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.' The letter also reminded Bush that 'Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against international terrorism.' In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: 'The war on terrorism will conclude in Baghdad,' when we finish off 'the most dangerous terrorist regime in the world'.

This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin Powell's now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese-American with close ties to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans, was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long-standing ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported directly to Douglas Feith.

Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the 1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he wrote the famous 'Clean Break' report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that Netanyahu 'focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right'. It also called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha'aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle 'are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests'.

Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as 'the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration', and selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who 'have consciously pursued Jewish activism'. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as 'devoutly pro-Israel', named him 'Man of the Year' in 2003.

Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives' prewar support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established close ties with Jewish-American groups and had pledged to foster good relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: 'The INC saw improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part, the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing Saddam Hussein's regime.'

Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was 'pervasive' in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did - including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran - were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that 'the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.' The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite. There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It's a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: 'President's Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.'

Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the US military more directly involved in the Middle East. But they had limited success during the Cold War, because America acted as an 'off-shore balancer' in the region. Most forces designated for the Middle East, like the Rapid Deployment Force, were kept 'over the horizon' and out of harm's way. The idea was to play local powers off against each other - which is why the Reagan administration supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran during the Iran-Iraq War - in order to maintain a balance favourable to the US.

This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton administration adopted a strategy of 'dual containment'. Substantial US forces would be stationed in the region in order to contain both Iran and Iraq, instead of one being used to check the other. The father of dual containment was none other than Martin Indyk, who first outlined the strategy in May 1993 at WINEP and then implemented it as director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the burden of containing both. But it was a strategy the Lobby favoured and worked actively in Congress to preserve. Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz, noted at the time, 'Israel is but a tiny element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot influence those within the Beltway.'

By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential. By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued, the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the 'Clean Break' study the neo-conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of faith in neo-conservative circles.

Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel's advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha'aretz (17 February 2003):

Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel's other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.

Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put 'very heavy' pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister, interviewed in Ma'ariv, said: 'We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done through the Americans.' Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP audience that it was now important for the US to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post reported that Israel was 'fuelling the campaign' against Syria by feeding the US intelligence reports about the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian president.

Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz declared that 'there has got to be regime change in Syria,' and Richard Perle told a journalist that 'a short message, a two-worded message' could be delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: 'You're next.' In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria 'should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and defiant behaviour could end up sharing his fate'. On 15 April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled 'Next, Turn the Screws on Syria', while the following day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled 'Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too'. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on 21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America.

Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel had reintroduced the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by the Lobby - by AIPAC especially - and 'framed', according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, 'by some of Israel's best friends in Congress'. The Bush administration had little enthusiasm for it, but the anti-Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398 to 4 in the House; 89 to 4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on 12 December 2003.

The administration itself was still divided about the wisdom of targeting Syria. Although the neo-conservatives were eager to pick a fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed to the idea. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasised that he would go slowly in implementing it. His ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian government had not only been providing important intelligence about al-Qaida since 9/11: it had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf and given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardise these valuable connections, and thereby undermine the larger war on terrorism.

Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence. 'Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,' the defence minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the 'centre of world terror', and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran 'the day after' it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha'aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was 'not enough'. In his words, America 'has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.'

The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. 'The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great battle - not, we hope, a military battle - will be for Iran,' William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.

The administration has responded to the Lobby's pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran's nuclear programme. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a 'terrorist' regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington's attention on the issue.

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran's nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel's security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel's enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world's only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby's point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat's death and the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the region.

But that is not going to happen - not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

The Lobby's influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face - including America's European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

Equally worrying, the Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don't need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby's hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington's efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.

Besides, the Lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts - or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites - violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.

Finally, the Lobby's influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities - including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords - that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.

There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby's influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel's well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well.

10 March