From: Subject: The Israel Lobby in America & the West / NEWSWEEK poll Dear brothers and sisters in Humanity, The Israel Lobby in America & the West We worth your attention, please see for your self what they are doing, they won't it to be a clash of civilizations so they can role over the world, who is it for the Palestinians living under Zionist siege, in camps like the ones Hitler crated before, Help them and good for sure will make our life altogether good, You are being forwarded news and information which are deemed pertinent to our Brothers Muslim community and requires your immediate action. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Wassalam, +++++++++++++++++ MPAC INTELLEGENCE +++++++++++++++++ the Single most powerful weapon that Israel wields is the Zionist Lobby in America and Europe. It has received through these Lobbies enough funding to make it the 4th most powerful country in the World, and has enough weaponry to defeat all the Middle Eastern States 8 time's over (according to Janes Defense Weekly) Jews hardly ever fund Israel directly these days, realizing that funding a good lobby paid dividends far greater then the cash they alone could generate. They of course are right, 3% of America is Jewish and yet they extract a whopping $5 billion dollars a year. Not bad for the $12 million or so it takes to run the Lobby. In the UK, in one party alone (Labor) the Israeli Lobby has 100 members. More then a quarter of the total party. In the current crises it has gone into overdrive using its men in the Lobby to influence the hand of Governments around the world to blast Afghanistan and soon other states out of existence. Jack Straw a True friend of Israel has led the campaign to bomb Afghanistan, saying that appeasing them was the same as appeasement to Hitler. He was voted in amazingly by Muslims in Blackburn, they should hold their heads down in shame. Responsible for giving the UK a foreign secretary that is the most anti Muslim secretary ever. Afghan blood is on their hands. Mike Gapes MP the Vice Chairman of lord (the vice chairman of the friends of Israel) was also elected by Muslims in Alford. He recently commented that Hamas and Hizbollah should also be on the hit list. MPAC the first Muslim Lobby n the UK is trying to challenge the Israeli Lobbies dominance in the UK. And educate the 2 million Muslims to use their vote effectively. None of which will be cheap. But far cheaper then one human life, and judging by the Israeli Lobby far more effective then sending money directly. The Article from the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs Special Report The Israel Lobby in America By Robert Hazo August 12, 1985, Page 1 "Some of the biggest men in the United States ... are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson used this statement to describe a conspiracy of major industrialists in the presidential campaign of 1912. It could just as easily be applied today to what is called the Israel lobby, believed by many to be the single most powerful political force in America. On the assumption that failure is often more revealing than success, it may be useful in evaluating the clout of the lobby to examine first those occasions when it did not prevail in imposing its will on the executive or legislative branches of the federal government. There are not many. The Bithurg incident is the most recent. Despite a vigorous and protracted campaign against President Reagan's symbolic visit, despite timely help from the American Legion and other groups, despite overwhelmingly disapproving votes of 83-0 and 390-26 in the Senate and the House (which, moreover, did not reflect the even split in public opinion polls), the President, after including in his itinerary a few mollifying gestures, made the visit and apparently did not emerge any the worse for it. On a more substantive matter-the sale of five AWACS and sophisticated add-on equipment for Saudi Arabia's F-15s-Reagan confronted and defeated the lobby in 1981, as had Carter before him in selling 62 F- 15s to the Saudis in 1978. Both victories, however, required maximum presidential pressure, were gained by narrow margins and were accompanied by promises of additional arms and greater generosity to Israel. Carter even went so far as to say that he would rather commit suicide than injure Israel. Reagan, less melodramatically, pledged to preserve Israel's strategic superiority over any possible combination of its neighbors. Exasperated by the tenacity of the opposition, however, the President did not object to the slogan "It's Reagan or Begin" and even said at one point, "It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy," a clear slap at pro-Israeli, heavy-handed pressure and presumption. A clarification, however, was issued to the effect that the President was only trying to neutralize a mistaken impression regarding Israeli influence. In retrospect, only President Eisenhower, among American presidents, was able to oppose the lobby openly, uncompromisingly, unapologetically and successfully. The confrontation occurred at the end of the 1956 presidential campaign-that is, at the highest point of his vulnerability as a candidate when Eisenhower, without hesitation, condemned the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt. Shortly thereafter, using the economic leverage at his disposal- including that of invoking Secretary of the Treasury Anderson's discretionary powers regarding tax-deductible contributions-he forced the Israelis to withdraw from the Sinai. A Question of Presidential Resolve the four occasions differ in many respects, but they do have one thing in common: presidential resolve. Though many American political figures, including presidents and would-be presidents, have backed off from confrontations with the lobby, it remains a fact that no American president who has openly opposed it on a specific public issue has lost. Other political figures have not been so fortunate. Accordingly, three species of politicians have emerged with respect to how they behave towards the lobby: the many who willingly acquiesce, the few who grudgingly acquiesce, and the exceptions who defy and are-as a rule-defeated. An example of the first type is Vice President Mondale claiming before a Zionist group during the 1984 election campaign that he would "rather lose with your support than win without it," a sentiment he did not express to any other special interest group, even to organized labor. Another is when Mondale's chief rival for the nomination, Senator Hart, trying to one-up him in the New York primary, adopted, in effect, the platform of Israel's rightwing, extremist Likud coalition-an instance of groveling so zealous that it embarrassed the American Jewish community and served only to tarnish Hart's image. By contrast, there are those who are meek in public, but candid in private. President Truman pointedly noted in his memoirs the blatant, offensive pressure exerted on him by the lobby, and he claimed ingenuously, one supposes) that U.S. recognition of Israel was granted in spite of rather than because of it. Presidents Carter and Ford both claimed, ex post facto albeit, that they would have used economic leverage on Israel had it become necessary. In fact, however, neither did. Most candid perhaps of Israel's former reluctant American fellow travelers is Zbigniew Brzezinski-even today remembered for his famous "Bye, bye PLO" remark while he was Carter's National Security Advisor-who has suggested that the Reagan Administration will have to include Palestinian representation in any successful peace negotiations. Asked why the Carter Administration had failed to do so while he was in office, Brzezinski candidly replied, "The question answers itself." A training mission aboard the USS EnterpriseNewsweek Poll: Stay the Course on Mideast PolicyFew think a shift would reduce terrorism. And Americans are becoming impatient for retaliation. A Web exclusive NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE OCT. 6 - MOST AMERICANS VIEW U.S. policies in the Middle East as a prime motivator for terrorist attacks on U.S. targets, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll. But the public is split down the middle about whether those policies should be changed. And Americans are firmly opposed to reducing ties with Israel. Fifty-eight percent of those polled say America's relationship with Israel is a big reason terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11. Forty-seven percent say the terrorists acted because of their opposition to he Gulf War and U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf. And 62 percent say general resentment of U.S. military and economic power drove the terrorists to attack. Asked whether the Unites States should consider changing its policies in the Middle East to try to reduce anti-American sentiment, 46 percent say change should be considered. But a statistically even 43 percent say no change in policy should be made. Just 22 percent say the United States should reduce ties with Israel; 61 percent disagree. Most Americans view such a change as ineffective: just 63 percent say moving away from Israel would not reduce terrorism. President George W. Bush's approval rating remains at 84 percent-nearly the same as one week ago in the NEWSWEEK poll. Eighty-eight percent of Americans say they approve of the way he is handling the terrorist attacks. Americans continue to believe that the United States should retaliate for the Sept. 11 attacks, but their patience is beginning to erode. A majority (55 percent) say they are still willing to wait as long as necessary for the United States to put together an effective plan to use military force. But that's a decline from 63 percent in last week's NEWSWEEK poll. And about one in four Americans (24 percent) say the military strikes should have taken place already, up slightly from the 18 percent in last week's poll. For the NEWSWEEK poll, Prince Survey Research Associates interviewed 1.002 adults by telephone Oct. 4 - Oct. 5. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.