Zionism's influence over Western politics

[Rue]

To show you how full of crap Hudson is anyone can go find out the top backers of Clinton:

efense Contractors Donated To The Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from six companies benefiting from U.S. State Department arms export approvals

(in millions)

Boeing 5,000,000

General Electric 1,000,000

Goldman Sachs (Hawker Beechcraft) 500,000

Honeywell 50,000

Lockheed Martin 250,000

United Technologies 50,000

nton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals

17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by

Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals

17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Country Donation Min. ($) FY2006-FY2008 ($) FY2010-FY2012 ($) Difference (%)

Algeria 250,000 649,943,709 2,431,535,005 274

Australia10,000,000 8,030,754,085 23,953,849,391 198

Bahrain 50,000 219,718,802 630,586,020 187

Brunei 250,000 101,239,902 19,256,846 -81

Canada 250,000 20,975,621,915 24,844,128,294 18

Germany 100,000 9,147,637,319 9,839,619,231 8

Ireland 5,000,000 144,929,678 107,064,341 -26

Italy 100,000 6,195,891,571 12,274,692,168 98

Jamaica 50,000 18,572,209 11,360,582 -39

Kuwait 5,000,000 1,895,298,212 2,109,893,611 11

Morocco 2,000,000 250,045,824 253,096,156 1

Netherlands5,000,000 3,069,131,994 4,655,490,802 52

Norway 10,000,000 2,718,237,833 3 ,351,140,380 23

Oman 1,000,000 170,597,237 547,003,781 221

Qatar 1,000,000 271,325,915 4,291,824,236 1,482

Saudi Arabia10,000,000 4,105,561,815 8,094,719,012 97

Taiwan 500,000 2,612,251,394 3,811,233,565 46

Thailand250,000 656,266,680 1 ,113,283,489 70

UAE 1,000,000 2,261,801,903 24,998,754,760 1,005

United Kingdom 1,000,000 26,225,307,395 38,015,933,065 45

Hey now where's Israel.

source: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[BC_chick]

He's well aware that Iran's lobby group is larger than AIPAC's and is funding Hilary Clinton's campaign.

I would love to see a cite for this.

[kactus]

I would love to see a cite for this.

Me too...And of course in all his subsequent posts you will see that rue refrains from mentioning Iran.

To even compare the funding of NIAC with AIPAC is a joke but let's entertain ourselves with his fantasy. Would be curious where he will take it next.

[Rue]

LOl you 2 run along and deny something else. Lol.

[Rue]

No no the Iran lobby doesn't exist. How dare it be compared to AIPAC. Lol.

http://iranlobby.net/

Oh go on blow. Blow. Huff, puff. Can you make it blow away? Lol.

[Rue]

No stop go away stop talking about the Iran lobby its not fair. You are only allowed to talk about AIPAC stop that stop it you bad Zionist meanie:

http://english.iranianlobby.com/

[Rue]

No it just can't be:

http://iraniansforum.com/lobby/index.php/other-orgs/107-what-is-the-pro-iran-lobby-in-the-us

[kactus]

No no the Iran lobby doesn't exist. How dare it be compared to AIPAC. Lol.

http://iranlobby.net/

Oh go on blow. Blow. Huff, puff. Can you make it blow away? Lol.

I challenge you to cite where it says the Iran lobby in US is bigger than US. Go on rue prove it...

[kactus]

He's well aware that Iran's lobby group is larger than AIPAC's and is funding Hilary Clinton's campaign....

The word's straight from horse's mouth. Where is the source?

Edited May 5, 2016 by kactus

[Rue]

source: http://www.hudson.org/research/11641-meet-the-iran-lobby

Or perhaps it’s not an irony at all. Some of the loudest detractors of the “Israel Lobby” are in fact paid staffers and partisans of the Iran Lobby—an entity that, unlike the Israel Lobby, has succeeded in radically altering U.S. foreign policy, with the help of the President and his advisors. Seen from a certain angle, the Iran Lobby has pulled off the neat trick of using the specter of the Israel Lobby to shift U.S. policy away from Israel and toward Iran—while actually succeeding at the same dark arts that it blames the Jews for employing. The Iran lobby used a combination of lobbying, donations, propaganda, and back-door personal connections to top policy-makers to radically alter American foreign policy, and align the United States with an oppressive authoritarian regime that is destabilizing the Middle East.

[kactus]

Nowhere in this article you have provided does it say that NIAC makes a larger donation than AIPAC. So still waiting to see the source for your assertion that Iran lobby (NIAC) in US is bigger than AIPAC...

[Rue]

Here deny this:

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-rj-brodsky/the-hillary-clinton-email_1_b_8086766.html

" Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington’s policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Determination in the Administration

Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it’s no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama’s chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture.

President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility.

Despite the failure of Obama’s outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group “dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments.”

The Iran Project

Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that “for more than a decade they’ve conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif,” Iran’s foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about “its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world,” Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers."

...

"The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby’s positions, but he has bought it all—hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America’s definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success."

[Rue]

Nowhere in this article you have provided does it say that NIAC makes a larger donation than AIPAC. So still waiting to see the source for your assertion that Iran lobby (NIAC) in US is bigger than AIPAC...

Lol keep playing.

[Rue]

Lol keep playing.

Now finish what you started. Provide the payments from AIPAC to Hilary Clinton. Go on. Finish it.

[kactus]

Now finish what you started. Provide the payments from AIPAC to Hilary Clinton. Go on. Finish it.

Never made any assertions about payments from AIPAC to Hilary Clinton. Don't know where you got that from.

I think you are mixing me up with another poster.

But the question still stands rue. I asked you please provide the source for your claim that NIAC or Iranian lobby is bigger than AIPAC.

Edited May 5, 2016 by kactus

[Rue]

I would like to see one parrot come on this board and provide a shred of evidence that AIPAC donates funds to

Hilary Clinton's campaign lat alone its more than Iran's contributions or more than Saudi Arabia's. Oman's Qatar's.

Its really quite simple. Let the parrots who chirp just once try provide evidence for their fabrications.

How hard can it be Kactus. You are the expert provide the evidence.

You won't because you can't. AIPAC if you knew anything about it does not fund Clinton. You haven't a clue a damn clue wwhat her position is on Israel.

[kactus]

I would like to see one parrot come on this board and provide a shred of evidence that AIPAC donates funds to

Hilary Clinton's campaign lat alone its more than Iran's contributions or more than Saudi Arabia's. Oman's Qatar's.

Its really quite simple. Let the parrots who chirp just once try provide evidence for their fabrications.

How hard can it be Kactus. You are the expert provide the evidence.

You won't because you can't. AIPAC if you knew anything about it does not fund Clinton. You haven't a clue a damn clue wwhat her position is on Israel.

rue...I asked you very politely to provide a source for your unsubstantiated claim where you said very explicitly here that Iran lobby is bigger than AIPAC and now you are detracting and changing subject for something I never said about Hilary Clinton and AIPAC and calling me names.... It is not gonna work.

Edited May 5, 2016 by kactus

[Rue]

The time line of Obama's anti Israel moves complete with the assistance of Hilary Cltinon is public domain and it defies the ridiculous attempt to suggest Zionists control Washington:

February 2008: Obama says while campaigning, ‘There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel.” At the time, as Dan Senor pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, Israel was run by the Kadima government run by Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres, and was attempting desperately to bring the Palestinians to the table. Instead, the Palestinians launch war, as always.

June 2008: Obama tells the American Israel Public Affairs Conference that Jerusalem ought to remain undivided, attempting to woo Jewish votes. He then walks that back the next day, saying only that the capital shouldn’t be divided by barbed wire.

March 2009: The Obama administration reverses the Bush era policy of not joining the United Nations Human Rights Council. Secretary of State Clinton said, “Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy,” completely neglecting the UNHRC’s abysmally anti-Semitic record. The Washington Post reported that the administration joined the Human Rights Council even though they conceded that it “has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Darfur, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.”

May 2009: Obama tells Netanyahu that “settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.” Netanyahu announces a settlement freeze to comply. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate. Obama then slams Israel: “they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.”

June 2009: Obama tells the world in his infamous Cairo speech that Israel was only created based on Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. He then says that Palestinians have been similarly victimized by the Jews: “They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

July 2009: Obama threatens to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. He tells Jewish leaders, “Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that?” Except for Israel forcibly removing thousands of Jews from the Gaza Strip, the election of Hamas, and the launch of war by the Palestinians and Hezbollah, nothing happened. Obama then lectures the Jews about the need for Israeli “self-reflection.” The same month, Obama tells CNN that the United States would “absolutely not” give Israel permission to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

September 2009: Obama tells the United Nations that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Obama’s definition of Israeli settlements, as the world soon learned, included building bathrooms in a home already owned by Jews in East Jerusalem. Obama offers no serious criticism of the Palestinians.

March 2010: Obama follows up on his threatening language about settlements by deploying Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, where Biden rips into the Israelis for building bathrooms in Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish capital. Hillary Clinton then yells at Netanyahu for nearly an hour on the phone, telling him he had “harmed the bilateral relationship.” David Axelrod calls the building plans an “insult” to the United States. When Netanyahu visits the White House a week and a half later, Obama makes him leave via a side door.

April 2010: Obama refuses to prevent the Washington summit on nuclear proliferation from becoming an Arab referendum on the evils of Israel’s nukes.

June 2010: An anonymous “US defense source” leaks to the Times of London that Israel had cut a deal with the Saudis to use their airspace to strike Iran. The deal is scuttled.

May 2011: The State Department labeled Jerusalem not a part of Israel. The same month, Obama demanded that Israel make concessions to the Palestinians based on the pre-1967 borders, which Israelis call the “Auschwitz borders” thanks to their indefensibility.

November 2011: Obama and French president Nicolas Sarkozy are caught on open mic ripping Netanyahu, with Sarkozy stating, “I can’t stand him, he’s a liar,” and Obama replying, “You’re tired of him? What about me? I have to deal with him every day.”

December 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rips into the State of Israel, stating that it is moving in the “opposite direction” of democracy. She said that Israel reminded her of Rosa Parks, and that religious people not listening to women sing – a millennia-long policy among some segments of the Orthodox – reminds her of extremist regimes, adding that it seemed “more suited to Iran than Israel.“

February 2012: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells David Ignatius at the Washington Post that the possibility he worried about most was that Israel would strike Iran. The Post then adds, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” The goal: to delay any potential Israeli strike.

March 2012: NBC News somehow gains information from “senior Obama administration officials” that Israel had financed and trained the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and adds that the Obama administration had nothing to do with hits on Iranian nuclear scientists. More daylight. More leaks. The same month, Foreign Policy receives information from “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers” that the “United States has recently been granted access to Iran’s northern border.” Foreign Policy also reports that a “senior administration official” has told them, “The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is Azerbaijan.” Again, a potential Israeli strike is scuttled. The same day as the Foreign Policy report, Bloomberg reports a Congressional Research Service report stating that Israel can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program in any case. Columnist Ron Ben-Yishai of Yidioth Ahronoth writes that the Obama administration wants to “erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.”

June 2012: In an attempt to shore up the Jewish vote, top members of the Obama administration, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and then-CIA director Leon Panetta were quoted by David Sanger of The New York Times talking about the President’s supposedly deep involvement in the Stuxnet plan to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors via computer virus. Until that point, it had been suspected but not confirmed that Stuxnet was an Israeli project. The Obama administration denied leaking the information. A year later, the State Department released emails showing that Sanger had corresponded regularly with all the top Obama officials, including correspondence on Stuxnet.

December 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum on US-Israel Relations, where she says that Israelis have a “lack of empathy” for Palestinians, and that the Israelis need to “demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds.”

March 2013: Obama forces Netanyahu to call Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for Israel’s actions to stop a terrorist-arming flotilla from entering the Gaza Strip to aid Hamas. Erdogan had recently labeled Zionism racism.

May 2013: Members of the Obama Pentagon leak information that Israel attacked the Damascus airport to stop a shipment of weapons to terrorist groups. Obama officials actually had to apologize for this leak, since it endangered American lives. They blamed “low-level” employees.

June 2013: The Obama administration leaks specific information regarding Israeli Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile sites. Weeks later, US sources tell CNN that Israel attacked a Syrian installation full of Russian-provided missiles. The same month, “American intelligence analysts” tell the New York Times that Israeli strikes had not been effective. All that information was classified.

June 2014: Three Jewish teenagers are kidnapped, including an American, and murdered by Hamas. The Obama administration immediately calls on Israel for restraint, and says it will continue to work with a Palestinian unity government including Hamas. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says that the Obama administration wants “the Israelis and the Palestinians continue to work with one another on that, and we certainly would continue to urge that… in spite of, obviously, the tragedy and the enormous pain on the ground.” Throughout the ensuing Gaza War, in which Hamas fired rockets at Israeli civilians and tunnels were uncovered demonstrating Hamas’ intent to kidnap Israeli children, the Obama administration criticized Israel’s prosecution of the war.

August 2014: In the middle of a shooting war, Obama stopped weapons shipment to Israel. According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama found out that Israel asked the Defense Department for shipments of Hellfire missiles. Obama personally stepped in and blocked the shipments.

October 2014: Jeffrey Goldberg, court Jew for the Obama administration, releases an article in The Atlantic quoting Obama officials calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickenshit.” Goldberg, naturally, blames Netanyahu (of course, he also wrote in 2008 that any Jew who feared Obama on Israel was an “obvious racist”).

January 2015: Obama deploys his campaign team to defeat Netanyahu in Israel. A group titled “One Voice,” funded by American donors, pays for the Obama campaign team, led by Obama 2012 field director Jeremy Bird. The announcement comes days after Speaker of the House John Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. Obama quickly announced he would not meet with Netanyahu, making the excuse that the meeting would come too close to the election.

March 2015: Netanyahu wins. Obama refuses to call him to congratulate him for two days. When he does, he threatens to remove American support in the international community, even as he moves to loosen sanctions and weapons embargoes on Iran.

source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/20/a-complete-timeline-of-obamas-anti-israel-hatred/

Edited May 5, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

rue...I asked you very politely to provide a source for your unsubstantiated claim where you said very explicitly here that Iran lobby is bigger than AIPAC and now you are detracting and changing subject for something I never said about Hilary Clinton and AIPAC and calling me names.... It is not gonna work.

Lol get off it. Your attempt to dettract will not work. Put up or shut up. Prove AIPAC provides support to Clinton. I am contending they do not. You contend they do. Put up or shut up and your pathetic attempt to ignore the Iranian lobby and Arab lobby support of Clinton and your attempt to parrot a Jew conspiracy theory is typical horse crap. You get caught red handed denying something and the best you can do is try demand I provide AIPAC pays for Clinton when they do not. Now put up and back up your claim or shut up. Polite? You want to fabricate or not? Where is the AIPAC money to Clinton?

You made the claim AIPAC supports Clinton back it up. Provide the amounts of money.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Rue

[kactus]

Your being rude and insulting other members is not going to help having a healthy discussion here.

I challenge you RUE to provide where I have mentioned about AIPAC and Hilary Clinton on this thread.

But my question still stands if you can be civil. I ask for the 4th time. Where is your proof that Iran lobby as you claimed is bigger than AIPAC.

Edited May 5, 2016 by kactus

[Rue]

AIpac is depicted on this thread as if it controls the US and is controlling Hilary Clinton. I have exposed this as a lie and on cue the pro Arab parrots claim with zero proof AIPAC is financing Clinton which is an out and outfalsehood.

IN FACT THE CONGRESS PERSONS that AIPAC has funded are public knowledge and the Clinton Foundation is not one of them.

Now let's talk about the Arab Lobby the one the anti Zionists don't dare admit exists and does nothing different than

AIPAC.

Of course to anti Zionists, if Zionists have a lobby it controls the US if Arabs have a lobby oh we just ignore it.

Why? Where is Kactus or Marcus to discuss the Arab lobby? Lol right.

The Arab lobby in the United States is as old, and some argue older than the Israeli lobby.

It is made up of a mix of petro-diplomatic complex esconsisting of the oil industry, missionaries, and diplomats. them.

In 1951 King Saud of Saudi Arabia asked U.S. diplomats to finance a pro-Arab lobby to counter the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (later the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -AIPAC).

That is a fact and its been there ever since.

The Arab lobby controls OPEC and world oile prices, has implemented oil embargos and the National Association of Arab-Americans (NAAA) founder Richard Shadyac, openly boasts as to how he uses oil as a weapon to control the West and US.

There's Americans for Justice in the Middle East formed by a group of Americans at the American University in Beirut after the 1967 war to supposedly combat "Zionism.

There's the NAAA, ADC, the Middle East Research and Information Project; the Middle East Affairs Council, Americans for Near East Refugee Aid, the Arab American Institute and the American Palestine Committee.

All these organizations have boards of directors composed of prominent retired government officials. Board members have included former Ambassador to Jordan, L. Dean Brown, Herman Eilts, former Ambassador to Syria and Egypt; Parker T. Hart, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and several others.

The formal Arab lobby is the National Association of Arab-Americans (NAAA), a registered domestic lobby founded in 1972 by Richard Shadyac. The NAAA was consciously patterned after its counterpart, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Shadyac believed the power and wealth of the Arab countries stemming from their oil reserves, would allow the Arab lobby to take advantage of the political process in the same way the Jews have been thought to. Like AIPAC, the NAAA makes its case on the basis of U.S. national interests, arguing a pro-Israel policy harms those interests. Aid to Israel is criticized as a waste of taxpayers' money, and the potential benefits of a closer relationship with the Arab states is emphasized.

The highlight of the NAAA's early efforts was a meeting between President Ford and twelve NAAA officials in 1975. Since then, the NAAA has participated in meetings with each president and obtained access to top government officials. In 1977, for example, after Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem, the Arab lobby made its displeasure over United States support for the initiative known to President Carter, who wrote in his diary: "They [Arab-Americans] have given all the staff, Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, and others, a hard time. Although the lobby's concerns began to reach the highest levels of government, there were no perceptible changes in United States policy."

The Arab lobby, no different than the Israeli lobby, h built coalitions with other interest groups. As noted earlier, the pedro-diplomatic complex was the lobby until 1972, when the NAAA was formed. Even today, arguably, it is the most influential component of the lobby. Nevertheless, most of the nation's major corporations have not supported the Arab lobby.

In fact, prior to the AWACS sale, oil companies were about the only corporations willing to openly identify with Arab interests. The reason is that most corporations prefer to stay out of foreign policy debates; moreover, corporations may feel constrained by the implicit threat of some form of retaliation by the Israeli lobby.

The major oil companies feel no such constraints. Exxon, Standard Oil of California (SoCal), Mobil, and Texaco have long sought to manipulate public opinion and foreign policy on the Middle East. These companies as a group comprise the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO). Participation in the public relations campaign amounted to the price of doing business in the oil-producing nations.

The campaign began after the 1967 War when ARAMCO established a fund to help present the Arab side of the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives met with Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco and warned him American military sales to Israel would hurt U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize U.S. oil supplies. The former chairman of ARAMCO testified before Congress that the United States' pro-Israel policies were harming U.S. business interests. In 1972, at Kuwait's urging, Gulf Oil joined the campaign, providing $50,000 to create a public relations firm to promote the Arab side.

In 1973 after Frank Jungers, then Chairman of the Board of ARAMCO, met with Saudi King Faisal, and was pressured to take a more active role in creating a sympathetic attitude toward the Arab nations.

In June, a month after the Jungers meeting, Mobil published its first advertisement/editorial in the New York Times. In July, SoCal's chairman sent out a letter to the company's 40,000 employees and 262,000 stockholders asking them to pressure Washington to support "the aspirations of the Arab people." The chairman of Texaco called for a reassessment of U.S. Middle East policy.

When the October 1973 War broke out, the chairmen of the ARAMCO partners sent a memorandum to the White House warning against increasing military aid to Israel. Since 1973, ARAMCO has maintained its public relations campaign and become involved in occasional legislative fights, such as the AWACS sale, but, on the whole, the campaign has had no observable impact on U.S. policy.

Other companies outside the oil industry are involved in the Arab lobby, the most well-known being the international engineering firm Bechtel, but the Arab and Israeli lobbies have had virtually no confrontations since the AWACS fight in 1981, in part because the Israeli lobby hasn't opposed any major arms sales or other economic investments in the region that threatened U.S. corporate interests.

A relatively ignored component of the "Arab lobby" is found among the Christian community, most notably, the National Council of Churches (NCC). The NCC is composed of thirty-two Protestant denominations, including virtually all major church bodies.

This Council has taken consistently anti-Israel stands, and its 1980 policy statement on the Middle East called for the creation of a PLO state.

Besides passing anti-Israel resolutions, the NCC puts on seminars, radio shows, and conferences. From 1972 to 1977, it published the ARAMCO financed SWASIA (Southwest Asia) newsletter. When SWASIA ceased publication, the NCC established an Islamic desk to "enable American Christians to understand Arab Christian and Muslim attitudes." The relationship between the NCC and other Arab lobby organizations is primarily informal, with NCC leaders serving on many of their boards.

source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html

[Rue]

Your being rude and insulting other members is not going to help having a healthy discussion here.

I challenge you RUE to provide where I have mentioned about AIPAC and Hilary Clinton on this thread.

But my question still stands if you can be civil. I ask for the 4th time. Where is your proof that Iran lobby as you claimed is bigger than AIPAC.

Where is your proof AIPAC gives money to Clinton and I have provided my proof of the Iranian lobby's support of Clinton.

Go on finish it. Don't try suggest I ever said AIPAC gave money to Clinton. I never have. What I have said is Iran pays off Clinton and has her in their hip pocket. Now go on prove AIPAC pays off Clinton. Finish what you started and knock

off the victim crap. What is rude, is making up fabrications AIPAC pays off Clinton.

Rude? Coming on a forum and pathetically engaging in a thread that Zionists control Washington is what? What its rude to challenge it as pathetic recycled drivel. You think accusing Jews of controlling Washington is new? You think hiding behind the word Zionist changes its implications?

Well? Where is your proof AIPAC pays off Clinton? You have the audacity to ask me to prove this false fabrication because you can't? Right.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

Healthy discussion he says. Yep is real healthy fabricating AIPAC pays Clinton and controls Washington. Real healthy. Its also rude to challenge it. Lol.

[kactus]

But until that happens, let's focus on the United States because that was the real intention anyway. AIPAC is an American lobby group, and it can operate just like any other special interest group in the USA. Campaign financing apparently is more effective than terrorism.

Israel enjoys widespread support from various demographic groups in the USA...far beyond Israeli Americans/Jews:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

He's well aware that Iran's lobby group is larger than AIPAC's and is funding Hilary Clinton's campaign. Lol his script doesn't allow him to discuss that or even attempt to explain how the drivel he put up is even remotely close to the

pathetic heading.

At this point not that you've noticed the same few are starting threads with nothing at all that even matches the title of their threads. Its just an excuse to get the usual anti Zionist canards into the title list so everytime someone

opens the forum list they see the slur.

Where is your proof AIPAC gives money to Clinton and I have provided my proof of the Iranian lobby's support of Clinton.

Go on finish it. Don't try suggest I ever said AIPAC gave money to Clinton. I never have. What I have said is Iran pays off Clinton and has her in their hip pocket. Now go on prove AIPAC pays off Clinton. Finish what you started and knock

off the victim crap. What is rude, is making up fabrications AIPAC pays off Clinton.

Rude? Coming on a forum and pathetically engaging in a thread that Zionists control Washington is what? What its rude to challenge it as pathetic recycled drivel. You think accusing Jews of controlling Washington is new? You think hiding behind the word Zionist changes its implications?

Well? Where is your proof AIPAC pays off Clinton? You have the audacity to ask me to prove this false fabrication because you can't? Right.

For the 100th time incase there is a reading comprehension where have I said AIPAC gave Hilary Clinton money on this thread??? Why are you lying?

Asking me to provide a proof for something I never said is absurd!

You on the other hand have made a claim that Iran's lobby is larger than AIPAC and cannot provide any proof. Why aren't you man enough to admit that this statement is wrong and swallow your pride and own up to the mistake instead of carrying on with lies?

Edited May 5, 2016 by kactus

[BC_chick]

No no the Iran lobby doesn't exist. How dare it be compared to AIPAC. Lol.

http://iranlobby.net/

Oh go on blow. Blow. Huff, puff. Can you make it blow away? Lol.

Rue, this is what you said:

Rue, on 29 Apr 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

He's well aware that Iran's lobby group is larger than AIPAC's and is funding Hilary Clinton's campaign.

Now you're backtracking to an Iran lobby merely existing. Go LOL at yourself.

You lied.