TODAY'S NEWS ROUNDUP OF INTEREST

Israel leaves a small tip on the table that once was Gaza; whilst preparing to destroy what’s left of it in order to hand the carcass over to Abbas.

Stuff about Hezbollah, the US government does not want you to know. Holocaust Survivor, Hedy Epstein, a wonderful Jew who Israel wishes would just go away, tells why she supports Palestine.

First the Gaza Freedom Marchers, then the viva Palestina Convoy, and now more attacks in Egypt. They’re on a roll.

And continuing on the Egypt theme, Abbas sides with Egypt against Turkey, no surprise there folks. Any friend to Gaza is an enemy to Abbas.

And in New Zealand the BDS campaign and protest against Israeli tennis player continues.

And, the UDA finally decides to decommission it’s weapons. Except these

And, sticking with Ireland:

“shooting a bird” becomes illegal, good.

Plot To Widen Israeli Control In Middle East

Are we witnessing the birth of what could later be a “Game Changer” in the Middle East?

A push to bring Jews back to Iraq has begun, by a nefarious Kurdish Gentleman with friendly ties to Israel. At first glance you think this is a bizarre twist, or a nutty idea, gone bad. But then as you begin to think about things in a grander scale, the agenda becomes clear. As you read through the excerpts of this article, remember that the US will be leaving Iraq in a few years time. After all, Obama has to keep his "major" campaign promise to the American left and the world. Otherwise his image and approval ratings will furthur destruct. Also think of the larger picture of the Middle East Region and also the geographical problems Israel would face in its big dream of attacking Iran. Right now the US would need to allow Israel to fly over Iraqi airspace. That could be messy for Obama the “Hope Guru” and would not go down too well in the rest of world either. But what if Israel was able to create a “foothold” inside Iraq? It could be a game changer for the entire Middle East future. It's all about the future......

Kurdish magazine sparks wrath by urging Jews to return

ARBIL, Iraq — A new magazine in Iraq's Kurdistan region has caused furore among conservative Muslims with a rousing call for Jews to leave Israel -- and come back to Iraq.

The glossy, full-colour monthly in Kurdish and English has a lofty mission: to help solve the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict by convincing more than 150,000 Kurdish Jews living in Israel to return to Iraqi Kurdistan

Here comes the "Justification" next, but keep reading

"The biggest reason behind the complexity of the Palestinian problem is the unjust practices of Arab regimes against the Jews -- there are more than 1.5 million Jews originally from Arab countries in Israel,"

"If the Jews had not been subject to an exodus, the Palestinians wouldn't have been either," he said, referring to the flight of 700,000 Palestinians from the newly created Jewish state in 1948 during the first Arab-Israeli war.

"If the situation in our new federal and democratic Iraq, and particularly in Kurdistan, becomes stable, then many Jews would want to return and reduce the number of Jewish settlements in Palestine."But many people in Iraq are not buying the argument.

I'm not buying it either, more:

"I'm suspicious. I don't see the point of this kind of publication," said Zana Rustayi, a representative of the Islamist Jamaa Islamiya party in the regional assembly.

"The Kurds are part of the Muslim nation, and Kurdistan is part of Iraq."

Iraq has no relations with Israel

Ah, but that is what this plan is all about, to change that, and gain a foothold in Iraq, more:

Mahmud Othman, a Kurdish Coalition MP in Baghdad, says that while relations with Israel may be a nice idea, such a move would not be pragmatic for a region ringed by other Muslim states.

"Kurdistan needs the Arabs. We are living in an Arab country and we are federal region within Iraq. We don't need a relationship with (Israel), we need a relationship with Arabs, we need a relationship with Iran, we need to be close to Turkey," Othman said.

Now, here comes the "tell":

The magazine, "Israel-Kurd", is the brainchild of Dawood Baghestani, the 62-year-old former chief of the autonomous northern region's human rights commission. Baghestani -- who has been to Israel four times, including on a clandestine trip in 1967 -- denies that he works for the Israelis.source

Whilst this may appear mundane at this point, fast forward a few years, it's all about the future. I smell an Israeli/CIA/US plan in the infant stages here........

CYBER WAR FARE UPDATE

I wrote about this just yesterday, a Mossad agent, a Janes Publishing Group Representative AKA British MI5, and an American CIA agent, discussing the use of Cyber War Fare on Iran's nuclear facilities you can read my post here. Today Presstv is reporting much the same here, minus the links to the three agents:

Israeli intelligence services are trying to sabotage Iran's military and nuclear programs through tainted equipment and cyber attacks, a recent report says.

Israeli officials, weary of Iran's achievements in the nuclear field, have turned to cyber attacks to halt the country's development, Israeli sources told Reuters on Tuesday.

Another method of sabotage mentioned in the report was the use of malware -- a commonly used abbreviation for 'malicious software' -- to "corrupt, commandeer or crash the controls of sensitive sites like uranium enrichment plants".

As Iran's nuclear assets would probably be isolated from outside computers, Israeli agents would have to conceal the malware in software used by the Iranians or discreetly plant it on portable hardware brought in, unknowingly, by technicians.

Last year, Iran arrested 45-year-old Ali Ashtari on charges of relaying sensitive information on military, defense and research centers to intelligence officers working for the infamous Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.

In a video recorded and later broadcast by IRIB, Ashtari confessed that Mossad had paid him $50,000 to buy internet cables and satellite phones and then sell them on to 'special customers' in the hope of enabling Israel to spy on their communications.

Israeli 'handlers,' whom Ashtari said he met in Thailand, Turkey and Switzerland, allegedly wanted him "to sell these terminals in Iran to special customers so they could hack into this equipment".

CYBER WAR FARE~ May be Used to Attack Iran

Israel-US-British Deadly War Games

UPDATED 8 JULY, the report below is from 7 July, today Presstv is also reporting much the same see my post here after reading the one below:

Well, this just keeps getting more deadly. I’m talking about the Israel-USA-British pact to re-make the Middle East. This just out today; Israel may use Cyber War Fare to attack Iran’s nuclear facility.

This opens up a whole big area of potentially "Whoop-Ass" warfare worry, as the “Un-Holy Group of Three” have the capability to create utter mayhem in the Middle East for centuries to come. If they choose this path, Al Qaeda will become child’s play in contrast to what they will create by continuing to meddle in the affairs of other countries they don’t like. All these groups have already been involved in an attempt to overthrow Iran’s recent elections, I wrote about that here and here where the Obama Plan is to soften the American public up for an attack on Iran.

Back to the Cyber War Fare plan: For instance,using Cyber War Fare they could create a fake missile launch, and then blame Iran to justify an all out Israeli-American attack on Iran. Or they could create some nuclear disaster at Iran’s facility, killing many Iranians. Something like Chernobyl perhaps. Another worrying thing is that not only are US sources being quoted in this article, also British sources from the Janes Publishing Group, AKA MI5, and more here. They are the equivalent of the American CIA. Have a read of these statements below, and then ask yourself if you support the “Change” Obama brings to US foreign Policy.Report below:

The appeal of cyber attacks was boosted, Israeli sources say, by the limited feasibility of conventional air strikes on the distant and fortified Iranian atomic facilities, and by U.S. reluctance to countenance another open war in the Middle East.

"We came to the conclusion that, for our purposes, a key Iranian vulnerability is in its on-line information," said one recently retired Israeli security cabinet member, using a generic term for digital networks. "We have acted accordingly."
Cyberwarfare teams nestle deep within Israel's spy agencies, which have rich experience in traditional sabotage techniques and are cloaked in official secrecy and censorship.

They can draw on the know-how of Israeli commercial firms that are among the world's hi-tech leaders and whose staff are often veterans of elite military intelligence computer units.

"To judge by my interaction with Israeli experts in various international forums, Israel can definitely be assumed to have advanced cyber-attack capabilities," said Scott Borg, director of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, which advises various Washington agencies on cyber security.

Technolytics Institute, an American consultancy, last year rated Israel the sixth-biggest "cyber warfare threat," after China, Russia, Iran, France and "extremist/terrorist groups."

The United States is in the process of setting up a "Cyber Command" to oversee Pentagon operations

Asked to speculate about how Israel might target Iran, Borg said malware -- a commonly used abbreviation for "malicious software" -- could be inserted to corrupt, commandeer or crash the controls of sensitive sites like uranium enrichment plants.

Such attacks could be immediate, he said. Or they might be latent, with the malware loitering unseen and awaiting an external trigger, or pre-set to strike automatically when the infected facility reaches a more critical level of activity.

"Cyberwar has the advantage of being clandestine and deniable,"

"But its effectiveness is hard to gauge, because the targeted network can often conceal the extent of damage or even fake the symptoms of damage. Military strikes, by contrast, have an instantly quantifiable physical effect."
Israel may be open to a more overt strain of cyberwarfare.

Tony Skinner of Jane's Defense Weekly cited Israeli sources as saying that Israel's 2007 bombing of an alleged atomic reactor in Syria was preceded by a cyber attack which neutralized ground radars and anti-aircraft batteries.

"State of War," a 2006 book by New York Times reporter James Risen, recounted a short-lived plan by the CIA and its Israeli counterpart Mossad to fry the power lines of an Iranian nuclear facility using a smuggled electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) device.

A massive, nation-wide EMP attack on Iran could be effected by detonating a nuclear device at atmospheric height.source

So this is the new place for war, at the computer. And not to be outdone, North Korea was behind a recent cyber attack on the USA (gotta give them credit for having the B*lls) read about that here I am reminded of that old Country Joe and the Fish song from Woodstock era. The chorus goes like this:

Five, six, seven, eight
Open up the pearly gates.
Ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopie! We're all going to die.

IRANS ELECTION~Obama's HUGE Mistake

Obama’s Wheel Just Fell Off his Wagon
By Ban Sidhe http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com

Why Oh Why can’t Americans learn NOT to interfere in the elections of other countries? America is up to it's collective arse in what is taking place in Iran right now, including a link to Obama. Don't believe me? Keep reading for an eye opener.

Of course I am talking about the Iran elections here. Perhaps the reason why America cannot refrain from interfering is that they have had success in the past at overthrowing governments they don’t like using the very same tactic they are using now in Iran. The American government is 100% behind what we are seeing take place in Tehran right now. It’s the very same operation they have used before. It is called an “Orange Revolution”

I need to make a preface here. Obviously people, including myself, want to see countries become more progressive, open and democratic. But, (there is ALWAYS a but) that does not translate into covert operations by the American’s and others to fast track the natural process. I believe each country has the right to develop at its own course. Because to force progress before it’s natural time can prove disastrous, for the country, and for American interest. Think Shah of Iran. By imposing the Shah of Iran, who attempted to suddenly turn Iran into a mini-America, against the will of its people at the time. This resulted in his eventual ousting and the Islamic Revolution which gave birth to Iran today.

So, America is at it again attempting to create another “Orange Revolution” what is an “Orange Revolution” Well, it is a well crafted, well funded, well trained covert operation to overthrow Governments at the ballot box by supporting pro-western candidates. This is something America has done for years, each time they learn and adapt the operation based on success or failure. Here is a success example where the Americans used this in Ukraine, notice some of the groups involved:

From Wiki:

Activists in each of these movements were funded and trained in tactics of political organization and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants funded by a range of Western government and non-government agencies. According to The Guardian, these include the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the Bilderberg Group, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988.[15] Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp formed the strategic basis of the student campaigns.

Ok, so it worked this time and no one can argue that Democracy is not a good thing. The problem is how the Americans go about it, additionally it does not always work and it only proves that America meddles in the affairs of other countries. This creates anti-American sentiment, the very thing Obama claims he wants to “change” Using these tactics in Ukraine is not even remotely like meddling in the Middle East, where America is supposedly attempting to re-create ties with Muslims and to show that it no longer is in Israel's pocket and generally respect the will of the voters in Arab countries it does not necessarily agree with, or even like. Hello America, the Middle East is NOT Europe.

Here is a snippet from the Guardian about the "Orange Revolution"

But while the gains of the orange-bedecked "chestnut revolution" are Ukraine's, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

That one failed. "There will be no Kostunica in Belarus," the Belarus president declared, referring to the victory in Belgrade.

The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections. link

America has a "None Too Good" history with Middle Eastern countries and as such, should stay out of the affairs of Middle Eastern countries other than talking to them and negotiating with them honestly. The US will never gain trust or support among Middle East countries if they are working behind the scenes to over throw them. Even countries that may at this time support a regime change in Iran, will still be sitting there thinking that the Americans could come for them next.... This, exactly is the problem!

Also, I cannot help but notice how there are a great many similarities between how Obama ran his campaign and how an Orange Revolution is run. More on that in a minute.

Now, I was a supporter of Mousavi, well actually I liked Mehdi Karroubi in Iran, like I liked Dennis Kucinich in America, but knew neither one had a chance to win. That said, the reality is that Ahmadinejad does have massive support outside of Tehran. Americans might want to re-read that. Never mind what your US media is telling you, this is the truth. Tehran has a young yuppie population, well educated men and women who are pushing for more freedoms. Fair play to them. However, the majority of the population outside of Tehran are poor people. And it is there Ahmadinejad has massive full support. He has this support because of his policies for the poor. Mousavi on the other hand, wants to cut off aid to the poor and bring in Western businesses and make Iran more of a capitalist country. So this election was about much more than just allowing more “freedoms” for the Iranian people. Wealthy urban Iranians want freedoms, whilst poor Iranians want help and support. Get it? Although that is NOT what your media is telling you this is about.

From the Guardian:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasised his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favoured Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.

The reality is, that the US government and it’s “groups” and money were, and are, behind Mousavi AND this movement of progressives in Tehran. Just like they were in Ukraine. Whilst they may have had success using this tactic in the past, the Iranians are smart and have seen this taking place in their country. And, as hard as this is to hear, they have the very right to stop America from interfering inside their country.

The very sad part America needs to grasp, is that by leaving Iran alone, it will move forward on its own, at its own speed, in its own way. Iran is responsive to its people, even though America likes to say it is not. Would it happen overnight? No, but for it to be real and to last it must take place naturally, not at the behest of CIA and American intervention in a country that America has already screwed up once (Shah!!) This created the very mess that exists today. And now, Obama wants to create another mess in Iran, and he has.

Another thing that points directly at Obama Admin involvement is this little piece of information. During the Obama campaign we saw many things. We were meant to believe there was a giant groundswell behind him, that this happened naturally. It did not. Some of the same organisations and people who rallied around and supported the Obama campaign in various ways, are also poking their nose into the affairs of Iran. Or at the very least, “studying” it for the US government. One organisation that is studying Iran is called the Internet and democracy project from the Berkman centre for Internet and society at Harvard. Don’t forget Obama taught at Harvard and made many connections there. Many people associated with the Berkman center are associated with Obama. For instance, here’s just one tiny example; Lawrence Lessig:

From Wiki:
Lessig has known president Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago,

To this end, he (Lessig) worked with political consultant Joe Trippi to launch a web based project called "Change Congress".[6] In a press conference on March 20, 2008.

Now, anyone who followed the Obama campaign will know that Joe Trippi was involved in Obama’s campaign AND Howard Dean's campaign. That's just one very small example, research the people in all of these groups, and you'll soon see the same names popping up all over the "Progressive" internet world and also surrounding Obama's campaign to become POTUS.Now back to the Berkman center’s study of Iran

This case study is part of a series produced by the Internet and Democracy project. The initial studies include three of the most frequently cited examples of the Internet’s influence on democracy.

the Internet may be shifting the power dynamics around Sharia debate in Iran. Hassan writes, “The more Iranian cyberspace grows, the more Sharia discourse becomes public and intersubjective and reaches out to the broader world. The emergent Iranian right-based readings of Sharia in cyberspace contain new promises and aspirations, not only for the Iranian people, but also for the entire Muslim world and even for the world community.”

They even have a handy dandy little Iranian blogosphere map here

Ok, so what’s the problem? Here’s the problem. Take a look at the people and agencies who have donated or funded the Berkman Center at Harvard. Here are two examples that are VERY troubling:

Support for Current Activities

We warmly thank the following sponsors for their sponsorship of the Berkman Center's research and events. When sponsorship is project-specific, sponsors will also appear directly on project pages.
United States Department of State

Past Support
While the particular gift may have supported past work, we remain indebted to our past supporters for their generosity and collaboration.
The Open Society Institute of the Soros Foundation

So are you troubled yet? Remember the link earlier in this diary where the State Department was included in the groups who worked in the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? And now we see the State Department linked directly to the Berkman Center above,(who appear to currently be "researching" Iran) along with Soros, another one involved in Orange Revolutions. So here's the question for Americans: Has the American progressive left under Obama hypnosis sold out and are they now working in cahoots with the State Department to use the Internet to overthrow and interfere in elections on other countries? If so, then this makes them part and parcel of the US government, or at least an agent of the US government, and NOT an impartial group in any stretch of the imagination. They have an agenda and that agenda is obviously the same as the State Departments agenda.

And even more troubling is that today Germany and the British are now getting involved in the Iran kurfuffle and throwing their “two cents” into the arena. Calling for an investigation (at the behest of the Americans) into the Iran elections. This is disgraceful.

So Let’s talk about American elections for a minute, when they are questioned by American voters who feel hard done, do they receive World outrage like we are seeing towards Iran now? Whilst Americans may be sitting on their arses thinking what happened in Iran is a big deal and needs intervention. Let me remind people that I followed the American election very very closely. And, you could argue that that 48 % of the Democrats felt just like the Reformists do now in Iran. And that is a much larger number of voters than are the Reformists in Iran. Many Americans felt cheated, and just maybe they were. But where was the world outrage?

Obama ran a cut throat campaign, and there were many things that troubled huge portions of the American voting public. 18 Million Hillary Supporters felt cheated about votes not being counted, alleged election fraud (ACORN registering dead people and Mickey Mouse!) Obama’s associations with this organisation and other groups. What about the good ole “Democrat For A Day” campaign? Was that above board? There were allegations of caucus fraud when Clinton won Texas in the vote yet the caucuses went to Obama. Police were called to some caucuses and allegations of cheating filled the air and the blogosphere. There were lawsuits filed. Then there was the Florida, Michigan thing and the DNC Rules Committee, the Donna Brazille thing, the removal of talking heads on CNN who were associated with Clinton, e.g. Paul Begala and James Carvelle, whilst those like Roland Martin

Martin first met Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus dinner in 2003 and they have stayed in touch. He was part of a group of liberal commentators granted an audience with the president-elect days before the inauguration. In television, says Martin, "you cannot have the same people talking to folks in a changed America."

In other words, Barack Obama’s ascension to power should be matched by Roland Martin’s ascension to a prime-time hosting seat. link

(who’s daughter actually worked for Obama Campaign) was allowed to remain working for CNN and trumpeting for Obama alongside Brazille on a daily basis. This gave birth to the “No Deal” campaign and the PUMA’s who organised and even went so far as to create television commercials and pressure for a roll call at the DNC convention to place Clinton’s name forward. These Hillary supporters created havoc in the streets, online and even at the DNC’s convention to coronate Obama when they attempted a Roll Call on the floor.

Yet, where was Germany and England when that happened? Why was an investigation not called for that? Is it only when “other” countries have the same types of things happen that those who purport to support democracy decide to “get involved?”

I'm not saying I supported Clinton or Obama, what I am saying is there are many similarities between Iran's election and Americans recent Presidential Election Primaries. I mean really, you cannot have it both ways. What took place in Obama’s election was never seen before, it was totally divisive whilst he continued to run under the premise of a “uniter” and at no time made any attempts to quell his supporter’s attacks on Clinton supporters or the very REAL misogyny that did exist and was encouraged during his campaign towards Clinton. The DNC was fractured and it ended up taking Clinton 4 days to concede and then there was the Denver Roll Call. I remember all of this and much more. To this day the party remains fractured. Yet, where was the outrage from inside America OR outside at this?

American elections are not immune from allegations of fraud and misconduct, even up to the DNC itself, as outlined above. So, I see this no different than what is taking place in Iran, on a MUCH smaller scale than what happened in America! So, America needs to butt out immediately and stop using it’s allied meddling pals like Germany, England and France to continue to attack Iran over Iranian elections. Which if you stand back and look at this, it is no different than what took place in the recent American election of Obama. Yet Obama was not “overthrown” even though there were many more Clinton supporters who felt cheated than there are Reformists who feel cheated in Iran.

The reality is that the Obama administration is using its contacts, its money men, its so called "Progressive" groups (working with the State Department, e.g. the Government) and US government agencies to interfere again in Iran’s politics. This will not help with Americas enemies and will only serve to cement the fact that although the messenger has change from Bush to Obama the result is the same. Wake up America.

UPDATE x1 Iran has ordered an investigation into the Election, that's more than Americans got. Now who is the democracy?

UPDATE x2: Turkey already not happy with US involvment in Iran:

DIP) TURKEY SAYS CONTROVERSIES OVER IRAN ELECTIONS ARE IRAN'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS ANKARA (A.A) - 15.06.2009 - Turkey's foreign minister said Monday controversies over presidential elections in Iran were Iran's internal affairs.

UPDATE X3 shots have been reported in Iran at a rally in Tehran over the election. Way to go America, people will die now.

"CUT ALL TIES WITH ISRAEL" says Former CIA Head of "Bin Laden" Unit

Israel is damaging US interests in the world and making America and the world an unsafe place. People are waking up!!! Until it stops being the rogue state it has become, it is a millstone around the neck of America and the American tax payer's wallet (to the tune of Billions of dollars!!) And today another nail in the coffin of US-Israel relations, or should I say "future" relations. Oh you're gonna love this, absolutely brilliant.

Motion Passes to Get Tough on Israel

The motion “This House believes it’s time for the US administration to get tough on Israel” was carried in a resounding affirmative with 63% of the participants favouring it at the taping of an episode of the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Arguing in favour of the motion was Michael Sheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, who believes that America should completely withdraw from the conflict and cut all diplomatic and military ties with Israel. Furthermore, Sheuer declared that the US must eliminate a “pro-Israel fifth column of US citizens,” which corrupts America and its foreign policy.

His partner in the debate was Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, who advocated American intervention as historically beneficial to both Israel and the wider region. He also compared America to a “parent” who must say no to the Israeli “child.”

Georgetown student Michael Karno responded after the debate: “As a Jewish-American, this debate was refreshing, in showing the division within Israel on this topic,” especially between former Israeli politicians Burg and his opponent Dore Gold.

Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and foreign policy adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, advocated a renewed dialogue with the US, choosing to attack the four underlying assumptions of a strategy that pressures Israel.

First, he asserted, pressuring Israel will not actually reduce Islamic fundamentalist anger; second, Israel has initiated key events in the peace process without US intervention; third, pressure on Israel is fundamentally unfair since Israel has taken risks with its security in exchange for regional peace; and finally, a nuclear Iran is the true problem in the Middle East.

(WTF? Pressure on Israel is "unfair" Well, tough shit-ski I say. That's really just too damn bad now isn't it! Israel, get this straight, does not, I repeat, does not have the right to control America. And these constant "guilt trips" won't work any more, our ears are closed. Get ready for good ole Zionist Alan Dershowitz below, hold your nose!)

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and ardent defender of Israel, joined Gold in arguing against the motion. He repeatedly emphasised that the US needs to “get smart with Israel,” not tough, especially at a time when the new Obama administration is starting to engage with “enemies like Syria and Iran.” According to Dershowitz, this would be perceived as weakening Israel’s security and cause overconfident enemies to then attack.

(Hey Dershowitz, two words "Piss Off!!" If you love Israel so much MOVE THERE and stop polluting America with your Zionist drivel. Still this whole thing must have really pissed him off, only wish I could have seen it live and in person. Must be so difficult after having been a spoilt child for so long, always getting away with anything you wanted, and now you are being told "no" Well, get used to it.)

Dershowitz said: “Getting tough on Israel is more likely to produce bloodshed, than to produce peace.”

(Mi arse! Certainly not Israeli bloodshed, not with the 4th largest army in the world with nuclear weapons. What he REALLY means is more murdering of Palestinians and Arabs, the asshat.)

Gold later added: “Remember what American toughness means: getting tough with Israel and soft on Iran,”which was met with loud boos and hisses by the audience.

(ROTFLMAO!!!! Oh I wish I could have seen this LOL I would have paid good money, just for the memory.)

During the second half when the panelists answer questions from the audience, a Georgetown student from Canada asked the side arguing against the motion whether the US needed to appear tough on Israel in order to rescue its own reputation.

Dershowitz responded that the questioner “must be taking some awfully strong medicine” if the declining reputation of America is due to anything other than the presidency of George W Bush.

(Yeah, that's right "Alan" insult people now you ignoramus!)

The exchange led to the most heated moment of the debate, when Scheuer interjected, “Clearly, Mr Dershowitz, the war in Iraq is the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports Israel,” grouping his opponent with such disloyal elements.

Dershowitz’s indignant response swiftly followed: “That’s ridiculous! I opposed the war in Iraq … more Jews than any other group in America opposed the war in Iraq." “You’re a bigot,” Dershowitz, who often obliquely accuses debate opponents of anti-Semitism, shouted repeatedly over the fray.

(ROFLMAO, they're loosing American support and they are going mental over it, HALLEJULEAH finally people have had enough and all the phony shouts of "anti-semitism" won't work anymore. Game over, you loose.)

Dershowitz initially rejected the invitation because of the way the motion framed the issue, stating afterwards that the results did not surprise him. According to Dershowitz, not only was the audience “stacked,” but he also believed that whenever the topic includes the phrase “get tough,” the side supporting the motion “always wins.”

(Whinge, whinge, whinge. What a brilliant lawyer, does nothing but whine and complain when faced with the truth. Ah well,what is that old expression "truth hurts")

Assma al-Adawi, a Qatari student at Georgetown School of Foreign Service Qatar in her senior year, asserted that those in attendance had “stronger opinions” than the typical audience in Doha, adding “I’m surprised at the overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian sentiment.”

(Now if we could just see this take place in the House and Senate, perhaps we could improve the world and make it a safer place for the majority of people living in it and restore the good name of America worldwide. If America can extricate itself from the control of groups like AIPAC and the ADL, that would be a good start in taking back America from control by a foreign country!!)

read more about Alan Dershowitz and his quest to censor Israel critics HERE