Is that an argument, or a love letter? if the latter, then I’m not sure this is the right place for you to be posting these.

AS to who the fool is, you’re the one providing pages as sources. Primary data please. Access it and supply it, or drop out of the debate. The onus is on you to prove these claims. “Jews provide x%” is quite vague and provides no context;

Pages as sources — imagine that! What are you going to ask for next? A spaceship for me to prove to you that the earth is not flat?

As Achcar notes, the notion that the pro-Israel lobby is decisive in policy formation is “phantasmagoric”.

No shit, he said that? Damn! I should lay all facts and arguments (based on ‘pages as sources’) aside since some ignorant dogmatist called reality ‘phantasmagoric’.

They also humiliated Israel by forcing them to write a letter of apology to the United States, lol if that is not revealing, then there is no hope for either of you.

Speaking of humiliations — ‘lol’ — perhaps you slept through the year 2002. Remember the year Sharon went from ‘enough is enough’ to being the ‘man of peace’?

P.s. out of curiosity, can you read?

Chomsky, above all, has the greatest understanding of American policy formation; to doubt that is simply ignorant.

AS to who the fool is, you’re the one providing pages as sources. Primary data please. Access it and supply it, or drop out of the debate. The onus is on you to prove these claims. “Jews provide x%” is quite vague and provides no context; that which is imperative to take into consideration for any examination to be worth a second look.

Moreover, what does it matter if Arab nationalism was a response to Israel? It is still something that the US wanted to dismantle, quite evidently. Funding after 67′ increased by a factor of 4. Also, read the press, in the print “Dissent”, there was hardly a mention of Israel. After 67′, this changed, as did the intellectual culture of the United States, as all were suddenly vehement proponents of Israel: this represented AMERICAN interests, not exclusively Israeli ones.

As Achcar notes, the notion that the pro-Israel lobby is decisive in policy formation is “phantasmagoric”.

Lets go back to the point on China. You both have it misconstrued, and self serving. Yes, Israel stepped out of line, adding to your thesis. In 2000, Clinton obstructed the deal with China for Israeli Phalcon airborne early warning system.

This also happened in 2005, when Israel sold anti-aircraft missiles to China, and China wanted them upgraded by Israel. The pentagon was opposed to increasing Chinese military capacity, and therefore worked to obstruct the deal. They also humiliated Israel by forcing them to write a letter of apology to the United States, lol if that is not revealing, then there is no hope for either of you. The Lobby had its tail between its legs the whole time, and remained (as always) benign in face of American power.

mike d offers nothing but gibberish about long gone “Anglo” power, he seems to inhabit a fantasy world in which shareholders exercise power over corporate managers and functional “competing intersts” pursue only purely profit motives. Pathetic dogma.

Tell that individual to provide sources. In the end,

So you are engaging in a debate backed on the ignorance of someone even more ill-informed than you? You call someone an ‘expert’ who needs evidence for something as well known as this? Does he also require evidence for the fact that the earth is not flat?

Check out J.J. Goldberg’s book, Richard Cohen’s articles in the Washingotn Post, Mearsheimer & Walt’s book (p. 163), check out Petras’s Power of the Israel in the US (p.13).

In other words, US opposed Arab nationalism, because Arab consciousness, if allowed to flourish, would develop into a democratic force. US, along with the West, opposes this change, because democracy in the oil-rich nations would affect Western interests.

So you are not just factually challenged, you also have trouble reading? Did you actually read what is written in the article above? Did you have trouble understanding the fact that Arab nationalism was a RESPONSE to Israeli provocations? (which did not being in ’67). Are you really that thick that you have trouble accepting the fact that Nasser’s coup was aided by the CIA?

It is pretty pointless talking to ignoramuses who don’t know the most rudimentary facts yet insist on shoving their faith-based nonsense down everyone elses throats. Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again.

US’s passive position vs. Israel prior to 1967 (post, involved Israel shifting towards an Armed Forces that was American, plus much greater aid) is obvious. To suggest that it’s due to some small minority population ignores the principle of parsimony.

In other words, US opposed Arab nationalism, because Arab consciousness, if allowed to flourish, would develop into a democratic force. US, along with the West, opposes this change, because democracy in the oil-rich nations would affect Western interests.

Observe Operation Ajax which was spearheaded after Mossadeq entered power. This is a fact that Chomsky acknowledges, about US. It, along with the West, opposes the development of functional and indigenous democratic institutions within the third world. That clearly does not run with US’s economic interests and thus what we see today.

More importantly, the democratic sphere of US is only one facet of the power structure. The corporate power sphere is another one, but so is the military sphere. One can argue that other department such as education, the prison-industrial complex, are players as well.

These spheres constantly compete and guess why, bargain, with each other, with regards to power distribution. The corporate realm is run by profit and even if the CEO is Jewish, the shareholders will not approve decisions that are not profitable. Most firms in the US are run by wealthy Anglos or the middle class through pension funds and what not.

Last, military quality. Tell those clowns that Israel, even during 1967, used a military that was largely non-American. This includes the Mirage III/V, the Super/ Mysteres. The Egyptian Mig-21s were available in larger numbers and imo, superior to the Mirage III. Regardless, both are within the same class, and if poor infrastructure wasn’t present on the Egyptian side, 1967 would’ve not gone the way it did.

** friend.

Maybe you didn’t find time to read the admirable reply to Weber’s essay questioning the value of Holocaust revisionism by Wendy Campbell.

What a pity.

In her cogently argued piece she makes the case for Holocaust revisionism rather better than Weber makes his indecently self-interested and threadbare case against it.

Campbell’s implication that when so-called “progressives”,especially those career-minded individuals like Weber who work in universities, decline to engage in Holocaust research on the specious grounds that it can yield no further benefit to the anti-Zionist cause or the ever-increasing number of victims of Israeli atrocities,they are monstrously short-changing and disabling the anti-Israel movement is clear.

The outright timidity of such progressives is immediately obvious when set against the current backcloth of images of barbarity on a Biblical/Talmudic scale in Palestine and their undeniable resemblance to the WW2 images of destruction wrought by the Nazis on their enemies.

Historically accounting for the resemblance between these cruelties is now crucial if we are to make any headway on behalf of the victims.

Even a cursory glance at the evidence of the identity of interest between Nazis and Zionists would lead Weber and his ilk to the irresistible conclusion,drawn by Hannah Arendt and numerous others since,that discovering what the Zionists did for the Jews during WW2 and focussing on that-would be akin to finding that missing piece in the jig-saw.

Sweeping aside the glaring textual aporia in the official archival accounts of the “Jewish” Holocaust and those behind it we might now find it highly suggestive that German Zionists were the sole party within the Nazi state permitted to recruit.

Again where did the Yellow Star come from?

German Zionists that’s who.

These people subscribed to a body of Jewish supremacist Talmudic Law and prophecy that most Western Jews abhorred.It was this nationalist and ethnically separatist ideal that prompted Rabbi Joachim Prinz,for example to support the Nuremberg proscriptions on intermarriage in 1933.

And the ghettoes?

They had worked in Russia to assist the Levitical rabbinate in its bid to maintain their separatist stranglehold on the Eastern Askenazi.It was here that Zionist mythology festered and was transmitted as ancient Law and prophecy.

Even in its ancient OT form,in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel for example,the Talmudic prophecy that underlies Zionism is revealed as a transparently nationalist and political project rather than as the merely religious one it masquerades to be.

Doubtless the Zionists and Rothschild agents behind the Young Turk take-over and subsequent Armenian genocide would like it if progressives colluded in the airbrushing of these episodes from history.

The Croatian Ustasi who massacred both Serbs and Jews during WW2 probably sleep soundly today because it suited Anglo-US elites and the Vatican that few people had the stomach to revisit these events when they wanted decades later to balkanize Yugoslavia and denigrate the Serbs.

While we’re about it lets indulge in a little more amnesia shall we re-Rwanda and its “genocide” in 1994? Let’s forget that the killing of Hutu (and Tutsi)civilians began,and that continues unabated in Congo and across the Great Lakes region unabated today started in 1990 when Anglo-US elites encouraged and trained Kagame’s Tutsi militia to invade Rwanda so the Templesmans et al of this world could start a bout of corporate looting throughout the region.

And Holocaust-denial i.e.refusing to subscribe to the official Hotel Rwanda accounts of the genocide exists as a criminal offence in Kagame’s Uganda today whereby our Western-sponsored proxy stifles all dissent.

No matter that the official figures for Tutsi dead exceed the Tutsi population in Rwanda at the time.Or let’s ignore the fact that Hutus who are still dying in tens of thousands today actually died during the genocide in a 2:1 ratio as per Tutsi.

At the end of the day the progressives who abjure from challenging official accounts ought to remember that even the Monty Python team had the temerity to ask:

What did the Romans Ever Do For Us?

We might now ask instead of following those at the UN in 1947 who cathected the state of Israel by (understandably in simple human terms)thinking solely about what Hitler had done to the Jews-

Just what did the Zionists do for the Jews?

The truth is always enabling while ignoring it and colluding in its airbrushing does a disservice to all the victims on whose behalf we wish to speak.

On this basis alone Holocaust research that leads like most research worthy of the name that begats revisionism is worth it.

The fact is that we don’t need to “quote” the protocals. Also, even Mark Weber is now questioning the relevance of holocaust revisionism, and his question is not rhetorical:

How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?

http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-relevant-is-holocaust-revisionism.html

Addressing the oil promise made to Israel, one needs to remember that oil is only strategic in the event of total war and in the presence of overwhelming naval power. Thus there is no possible strategic oil threat to the US, however it could be concievable that Israel could find US naval protection useful.