Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, wrote in his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, Simon & Schuster, New York, (2006), page 209,
"Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan."
In 2006, Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt wrote in their paper, "The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy",
"No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U. S. Middle East policy—an influence that AIPAC celebrates—stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby.' In effect, the Lobby boasts of its power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective, because anti-Semitism is loathsome and no responsible person wants to be accused of it."—J. J. Mearsheimer and S. M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy, Faculty Research Working Papers Series, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, (March, 2006), p. 23.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings argued before the United States that his position was being mischaracterized, when he put America's interests ahead of the neo-Conservatives' plan for providing Israel with hegemony in the Mid-East and was called "anti-Semitic". Senator Hollings' comments appear in the Congressional Record (Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, Second Session), Volume 150, Number 72, (20 May 2004), pages S5921-S5925; which includes Senator Hollings' article, "Bush's Failed Mideast Policy is Creating More Terrorism", Charleston Post and Courier, 6 May 2004, which article has appeared in several websites. The Congressional Record is also available online. At pages S5921-S5925, Senator Hollings states, inter alia,
"Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues. I have, this afternoon, the opportunity to respond to being charged as anti-Semitic when I proclaimed the policy of President Bush in the Mideast as not for Iraq or really for democracy in the sense that he is worried about Saddam and democracy. If he were worried about democracy in the Mideast, as we wanted to spread it as a policy, we would have invaded Lebanon, which is half a democracy and has terrorism and terrorists who have been problems to the interests of Israel and the United States. [***] I want to read an article that appeared in the Post and Courier in Charleston on May 6; thereafter, I think in the State newspaper in Columbia a couple days later; and in the Greenville News—all three major newspapers in South Carolina. You will find that there is no anti-Semitic reference whatsoever in it. [***] But in any event, the better way to do it is go right in and establish our predominance in Iraq and then, as they say, and I have different articles here I could refer to, next is Iran and then Syria. And it is the domino theory, and they genuinely believe it. I differ. I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of. That is my Israel policy. You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance. I can tell you no President takes office— I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat—that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I have stated it categorically. [***] Again, let me read: Bush thought tax cuts would hold his crowd together and that spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. Is there anything wrong with referring to the Jewish vote? Good gosh, every 1 of us of the 100, with pollsters and all, refer to the Jewish vote. That is not anti-Semitic. It is appreciating them. We campaigned for it. I just read about President Bush's appearance before the AIPAC. He confirmed his support of the Jewish vote, referring to adopting Ariel Sharon's policy, and the dickens with the 1967 borders, the heck with negotiating the return of refugees, the heck with the settlements he had objected to originally. They had those borders, Resolution No. 242—no, no, President Bush said: I am going along with Sharon, and he was going to get that and he got the wonderful reception he got with the Jewish vote. There is nothing like politicizing or a conspiracy, as my friend from Virginia, Senator ALLEN, says—that it is an anti-Semitic, political, conspiracy statement. That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any 1 of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The Project For The New American Century. Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel. If we can get in there and take it in 7 days, as Paul Wolfowitz says, then we would get rid of Saddam, and when we got rid of Saddam, now all they can do is fall back and say: Aren't you getting rid of Saddam? Let me get to that point. What happens is, they say he is a monster. We continued to give him aid after he gassed his own people and everything else of that kind. George Herbert Walker Bush said in his book All The Best in 1999, never commit American GIs into an unwinnable urban guerrilla war and lose the support of the Arab world, lose their friendship and support. That is a general rephrasing of it. The point is, my authority is the President's daddy. I want everybody to know that. I don't apologize for this column. I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting by with it. I will come down here every day—I have nothing else to do—and we will talk about it and find out what the policy is. [***] We are losing the terrorism war because we thought we could do it militarily under the domino policy of President Bush, going into Iraq. That is my point. That is not anti-Semite or whatever they say in here about people's faith and ethnicity. I never referred to any faith. I should have added those other names from the Project For The New American Century, but I picked out the names I had quotes for. And for space, I left other things out. Mr. President, on May 12 of this year, I had printed in the RECORD the article in its entirety. I diverted from the reading of the article several times, so for the sake of accuracy I wanted the whole article printed. This particular op-ed piece appeared in the Post and Courier. Never would they have thought, having read it, if it was anti-Semitic, that they would have ever put it in there. Nor would the Knight Ridder newspapers in Columbia, SC. Nor would the Metro Media newspapers in Greenville, SC. But the Anti-Defamation League picked it up and now they have given it to my good friend, Senator ALLEN of Virginia. I have his particular admonition how I am anti-Semitic and I cannot let that stay there. [***] Come on. So we have to go out and not speak sense with respect to policy, and when you want to talk about policy, they say it is anti-Semitic. Well, come on the floor, let's debate it. Because my friend from Virginia admonishes me. Referring to me he says, 'I suggest he should learn from history before making accusations.' I didn't make any accusations. I stated facts. That is their policy. That is not my policy."
Former Illinois Congressman Paul Findley experienced first hand the ability and willingness of Zionists in more recent times to defame those who call for open public debate on issues the Zionists would rather suppress, or would have told from their heavily biased perspective and from their perspective only. Findley has written several books exposing the Zionists' ability to unfairly smear him and others, and to force silence through intimidation on any who would otherwise side with Findley in his efforts to involve the American people in an honest and open dialog about the rights of Palestinians. Many have been wrongfully and viciously smeared as alleged "anti-Semites" because they refuse to discriminate in their opposition to racism, including but not limited to, their opposition to political Zionist racism. The vast majority of Jews initially opposed political Zionism due to its expressed racism. Their leaders were smeared. After the founding of Israel, debate was largely stifled. Congressman Paul Findley stated, among his many revealing remarks about Zionist influence,
"Journalist Harold R. Piety observes that 'the ugly cry of anti-Semitism is the bludgeon used by the Zionists to bully non-Jews into accepting the Zionist view of world events, or to keep silent.' In late 1978 Piety, withholding his identity in order not to irritate his employer, wrote an article on 'Zionism and the American Press' for Middle East International in which he decried 'the inaccuracies, distortions and— perhaps worst—inexcusable omission of significant news and background material by the American media in its treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict.'
Piety traces the deficiency of U.S. media in reporting on the Middle East to largely successful efforts by the pro-Israel lobby to 'overwhelm the American media with a highly professional public relations campaign, to intimidate the media through various means and, finally, to impose censorship when the media are compliant and craven.' He lists threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas among the weapons employed against balanced journalism."— P. Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, Lawrence Hill & Company, Westport, Connecticut, (1985), p. 296. See also: P. Findley, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, (1993); and Silent No More: Confronting America's False Images of Islam, D : Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, (2001).
Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein writes in his book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History,
"THE LATEST PRODUCTION of Israel's apologists is the 'new anti-Semitism.' [***] The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. [***] Finally, whereas in the original New Anti-Semitism marginal left-wing organizations like the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party were cast as the heart of the anti-Semitic darkness, in the current revival Israel's apologists, having lurched to the right end of the political spectrum, cast mainstream organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in this role. [***] WHAT'S CURRENTLY CALLED the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. EXAGGERATION AND FABRICATION The evidence of a new anti-Semitism comes mostly from organizations directly or indirectly linked to Israel or having a material stake in inflating the findings of anti-Semitism."—N. G. Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, Berkeley, (2005), pp. 21-22, 32, and 66. See also: N. G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Second Edition, Verso, London, New York, (2003).
Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky wrote in his book The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda (note that a "Sayanim" is a disloyal and deceitful Jew, who is prepared to betray his or her neighbors at any time in order to advance a perceived Israeli interest),
"The American Jewish community was divided into a three-stage action team. First were the individual sayanim (if the situation had been reversed and the United States had convinced Americans working in Israel to work secretly on behalf of the United States, they would be treated as spies by the Israeli government). Then there was the large pro-Israeli lobby. It would mobilize the Jewish community in a forceful effort in whatever direction the Mossad pointed them. And last was B'nai Brith. Members of that organization could be relied on to make friends among non-Jews and tarnish as anti-Semitic whomever they couldn't sway to the Israeli cause. With that sort of one-two-three tactic, there was no way we could strike out."— V. Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda, Harper Collins, New York, (1994), p. 32.
Gore Vidal wrote,
"Currently, there is little open debate in the United States on any of these matters. The Soviet Union must be permanently demonized in order to keep the money flowing to the Pentagon for 'defense,' while Arabs are characterized as subhuman terrorists. Israel may not be criticized at all. (Ironically, the press in Israel is far more open and self-critical than ours.) We do have one token Palestinian who is allowed an occasional word in the press, Professor Edward Said, who wrote (Guardian, December 21,1986): since the '1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon . . . it was felt by the Zionist lobby that the spectacle of ruthless Israeli power on the TV screen would have to be effaced from memory, by the strategy of incriminating the media as anti-Semitic for showing these scenes at all.' A wide range of Americans were then exuberantly defamed, including myself."—G. Vidal, Imperial America, Nation Books, New York, (2004), pp. 76-77; originally, The Observer, London, (15 November 1987), "But written as of March 1987 In The Nation."
Robert I. Friedman wrote in 1987,
"Indeed, Americans have very little idea about how severely troubled Israel is, or how critical many Israelis are of their own government's policies, such as arming the contras, Khomeini's Iran, and South Africa. And some prominent U.S. editors and publishers who have dropped all pretense of objectivity to become public-relations advisors for the Israeli government hope to keep it that way. [***] And many others who have tried to defy this orthodoxy have come under unrelenting attack from the Israel lobby—a coalition of editors and publishers, pro-Israel PACs, and wealthy businessmen—which tries to silence dissidents with accusations of anti-Israel bias or anti-Semitism. [***] Yet these tactics of intimidation in the service of Israel may backfire. 'It is precisely the fact that it is the job of the national press to be fair and objective that gets these superoverheated Jews foaming,' said the Washington Post's Stephen Rosenfeld. 'They want 100 percent. They don't want fairness: they want unfairness on their side, and when they don't get it they accuse the press of being unfair. Most journalists get so much uninformed, unfair whining from the organized Jews that Jewish organizations—and ultimately Israel—may lose their credibility.'"—R. I. Friedman, "Selling Israel in America: The Hasbara Project Targets the U.S. Media", Mother Jones, (February/March, 1987), pp. 1-9; reprinted "Selling Israel to America", Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 16, Number 4, (Summer, 1987) , pp. 169-179, at 170, 178.
Douglas Reed, who was a British journalist, but was forced out of the profession, because he reported on Zionist brutality, wrote in December of 1950,
"More important still, during all that period and to the present time, it was not possible freely to report or discuss a third vital matter: Zionist Nationalism. In this case the freedom of the press has become a fallacy during the past two decades. Newspaper-writers have become less and less free to express any criticism, or report any fact unfavourable to this new ambition of the Twentieth Century. When I eventually went to America I found that this ban, for such it is in practice, prevailed even more rigidly there than in my own country.
Today an awakening is supposed to have occurred in the matter of Communism. During the most fateful and decisive years of the Second War, when the things were being done which obviously set the stage for a third one, it was in fact almost impossible for any independent writer to publish any reasonable criticism, supported by no matter what evidence, about Soviet Communism and its intentions. Now, when the damage is done, Communism is much attacked, but even so the mass of Communist writers who were planted in the American and British press during those years has by no means been displaced; and the attentive newspaper-reader in either country may see for himself how the most specious Communist sophistries are daily injected into the editorial arguments and the news-columns of newspapers professing the most respectable principles.
In the matter of Zionist Nationalism, which I hold to be allied in its roots to Soviet Communism, the ban is much more severe. In my own adult lifetime as a journalist, now covering thirty years, I have seen this secret ban grow from nothing into something approaching a law of lese majeste at some absolute court of the dark past. In daily usage, no American or British newspaper, apparently, now dares to print a line of news or comment unfavourable to the Zionist ambition; and under this thrall matters are reported favourably or non-committally, if they are reported at all, which if they occurred elsewhere would be denounced with the most piteous cries of outraged morality. The inference to me is plain: the Zionist Nationalists are powerful enough to govern governments in the great countries of the remaining West!
I believe Zionist Nationalism to be a political movement organized in all countries, which aims to bring all Jews under its thrall just as Communism enslaved the Russians and National Socialism the Germans. I hold it to be as dangerous as both of those, and when I recall the results that came of the subtle suppression of information in the cases of Stalinism and Hitlerism, I judge that the consequences of this even more rigorous suppression will not be less grave.
I think it a cardinal error to identify 'Jews' with Zionist Nationalism, 'Russians' with Communism, or 'Germans' with National Socialism. I saw the enslavement of Germans and Russians and know different. I believe that the astonishingly powerful attempt to prevent any discussion of Zionist Nationalism by dismissing it as the expression of an aversion to Jews, as Jews, is merely meant to stop any public discussion of its objects, which seem to me to be as dangerous to Jew as to Gentile. Of the three groups which have appeared, like stormy petrels, to presage the tempests of our century, the Zionist Nationalists appear to me the most powerful. National Socialism, I think, was but a stooge or stalking horse for the pursuit of Communist aims. Communism is genuinely tigerish, and was strong enough to infest governments everywhere and distort the policies which were pursued behind the screen of military operations; but, if forced into a corner by the rising unease of their peoples, Western politicians are prepared in the last resort to turn against it.
But Zionist Nationalism! . . . That is a different matter. Today American Presidents and British Prime Ministers, and all their colleagues, watch it as anxiously as Muslim priests watch for the crescent moon on the eve of Ramadan, and bow to it as the faithful prostrating themselves in the mosque at Mecca. The thing was but a word unknown to the masses forty years ago; today Western politicians hardly dare take the seals of office without first, or immediately afterwards, making public obeisance towards this strange new ambition."—D. Reed, Somewhere South of Suez, Devin-Adir, U. S. A., (1951), pp. 8-10.
United States Army Captain Montgomery Schuyler reported on 1 March 1919,
"It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type[. . .]"— K. A. Strom, Editor, The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, National Alliance, Arlington, Virginia, (1984), p. 66.
There is nothing new about fabricated accusations of anti-Semitism. The Judeans who fabricated the Old Testament fabricated within it a history of Egyptian tyranny which never occurred, and these fictions recklessly defamed the Egyptians as anti-Semites. Esau was defamed as an hereditary anti-Semite for daring to be angry at Jacob for stealing the Covenant from him. Jewish historians defamed Caligula for not tolerating Judean intolerance. Nero burned Rome at the instigation of his Jewish wife Poppaea. Nero then scapegoated the Christians for the Jewish atrocity. [See: Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", Book XX, Chapter 8, The Works of Flavius Josephus: Comprising the Antiquities of the Jews; a History of the Jewish Wars; and Life of Flavius Josephus, Written by Himself, S. S. Scranton Co., Hartford, Connecticut, (1916), pp. 609-613, at 612-613. See also: Tacitus, Annal, Book XV, in: "Dissertation III", The Works of Flavius Josephus: Comprising the Antiquities of the Jews; a History of the Jewish Wars; and Life of Flavius Josephus, Written by Himself, S. S. Scranton Co., Hartford, Connecticutt, (1916), p. 960. See also: E. Gibbon, "The Conduct of the Roman Government towards the Christians, from the Reign of Nero to that of Constantine", The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 16, Volume 3, Fred De Fau and Company, New York, (1776).] Etc. Etc. Etc.
In 1914, Edward Alsworth Ross, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin, wrote in his book, The Old World in the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, The Century Co., New York, (1914), pages 143 and 165,
"IN his defense of Flaccus [Pro Flaccus, Chapter 28], a Roman governor who had 'squeezed' his Jewish subjects, Cicero lowers his voice when he comes to speak of the Jews, for, as he explains to the judges, there are persons who might excite against him this numerous, clannish and powerful element. With much greater reason might an American lower his voice to-day in discussing two million Hebrew immigrants united by a strong race consciousness and already ably represented at every level of wealth, power, and influence in the United States. [***] This cruel prejudice—for all lump condemnations are cruel—is no importation, no hang-over from the past. It appears to spring out of contemporary experience and is invading circle after circle of broad-minded. People who give their lives to befriending immigrants shake their heads over the Galician Hebrews. It is astonishing how much of the sympathy that twenty years ago went out to the fugitives from Russian massacres has turned sour. Through fear of retaliation little criticism gets into print; in the open the Philo-semites have it all their way. The situation is: Honey above, gall beneath. If the Czar, by keeping up the pressure which has already rid him of two million undesired subjects, should succeed in driving the bulk of his six million Jews to the United States, we shall see the rise of the Jewish question here, perhaps riots and anti-Jewish legislation. No doubt thirty or forty thousand Hebrews from eastern Europe might be absorbed by this country each year without any marked growth of race prejudice; but when they come in two or three or even four times as fast, the lump outgrows the leaven, and there will be trouble."
Cicero's Pro Flaccus, Chapter 28, states,
"XXVIII. The next thing is that charge about the Jewish gold. And this, forsooth, is the reason why this cause is pleaded near the steps of Aurelius. It is on account of this charge, O Laelius, that this place and that mob has been selected by you. You know how numerous that crowd is, how great is its unanimity, and of what weight it is in the popular assemblies. I will speak in a low voice, just so as to let the judges hear me. For men are not wanting who would be glad to excite that people against me and against every eminent man; and I will not assist them and enable them to do so more easily. As gold, under pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that it should not be lawful for gold to be exported out of Asia. And who is there, O judges, who cannot honestly praise this measure? The senate had often decided, and when I was consul it came to a most solemn resolution that gold ought not to be exported. But to resist this barbarous superstition were an act of dignity, to despise the multitude of Jews, which at times was most unruly in the assemblies in defence of the interests of the republic, was an act of the greatest wisdom. 'But Cnaeus Pompeius, after he had taken Jerusalem, though he was a conqueror, touched nothing which was in that temple.' In the first place, he acted wisely, as he did in many other instances, in leaving no room for his detractors to say anything against him, in a city so prone to suspicion and to evil speaking. For I do not suppose that the religion of the Jews, our enemies, was any obstacle to that most illustrious general, but that he was hindered by his own modesty. Where then is the guilt? Since you nowhere impute any theft to us, since you approve of the edict, and confess that it was passed in due form, and do not deny that the gold was openly sought for and produced, the facts of the case themselves show that the business was executed by the instrumentality of men of the highest character. There was a hundredweight of gold, more or less, openly seized at Apamea, and weighed out in the forum at the feet of the praetor, by Sextus Caesius, a Roman knight, a most excellent and upright man; twenty pounds weight or a little more were seized at Laodicea, by Lucius Peducaeus, who is here in court, one of our judges; some was seized also at Adramyttium, by Cnaeus Domitius, the lieutenant, and a small quantity at Pergamus. The amount of the gold is known; the gold is in the treasury; no theft is imputed to him; but it is attempted to render him unpopular. The speaker turns away from the judges, and addresses himself to the surrounding multitude. Each city, O Laelius, has its own peculiar religion; we have ours. While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire, and the dignity of our name, and the institutions of our ancestors. And they are the more odious to us now, because that nation has shown by arms what were its feelings towards our supremacy. How dear it was to the immortal gods is proved by its having been defeated, by its revenues having been farmed out to our contractors, by its being reduced to a state of subjection."—M. T. Cicero, Pro Flaccus, Chapter 28; translated by C. D. Yonge, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 2, George Bell & Sons, London, (1880), pp. 454-455.
Even the disciples of Jesus Christ are said to have feared Jewish tribalism and Jewish religious intolerance, for example John 7:1 tells us that,
"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him."
John 7:13 states:
"Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews."
John 19:38 states:
"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus."
John 20:19 states:
"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."