Many of us are beginning to wonder about the deafening silence of our main stream media concerning the espionage trial of two former AIPAC employees. As you know I’m sure, the trial was continued from June until September. I’ll bet that most in the main stream media are aware of this also. Yet nothing. I would think this event would be newsworthy. A government employee now imprisoned, gives classified documents concerning Iran to two high ranking AIPAC officials who in turn provide these documents to our goodiest and bestest friends at the Israeli embassy. A case loaded with first amendment issues that the media is usually all over. I would think that those media giants Mathews, Blitzer, Hannity, Oberman and all the rest would be blathering about this for months. This is the Scooter trial and Abramoff scandal rolled into one. Yet nothing.

This almost looks as if it must be the work of cabal or something. Now I know cabals don’t actually exist because that is what we are told. But who should we believe, Alan Dershowitz or our own lying eyes.

If I have missed a prior post on this topic let me know. You did say there would be no restrictions on what you do here at Salon didn’t you?

Mr. Greenwald responded as follows;

"I've written several times about the AIPAC espionage trial. I've written even more times about the influence of AIPAC. If you're actually interested in that, you can Google it, rather than coming here and implying – based on nothing – that some secret cabal is effectively intimidating me from writing about what I want."

I guess Glenn is a little touchy about this issue. But actually it wasn't based on nothing, my concern was that Salon was now censoring the content of his articles. A valid point considering the fact that Christopher Ketcham's article about Israel's possible advance knowledge of the 9/11 hijackers was dropped by Salon within hours of its scheduled publication.

How about the issue of spies from China?

My point is that there are a lot of stories that don't get major play for various reasons, even if they are really important. Jewish influence is reported on quite a bit by Leftist publication and all the time in the Arab and Islamic media. It gets some attention in Western media, but understandably is approached cautiously since the last time it was made a big deal about a few million of your fellow tribesmen were killed.

Greenwald is a serious mind that deals with this issue in a serious manner. Liberal White Boy is likely a representative of a large contingent of yahoos that can't wait to roast as many jews as possible (figuratively speaking…I hope). I agree that it is high time we have frank conversations about a range of topics including black crime, latino birthrates, and pro-Israeli bias in American Zionists, but I think it is important to do so intelligently and carefully so as not to set ourselves back another 50 years. Do it, but do it carefully.

The absolute taboo on discussing the power of Jewry, and any attempt thereto being branded as anti-Semitism, might have to do with the feeling, rather akin to that of the malicious dwarf, that power named and indentified though it doesn't magically evaporate can yet be more effectively dealt with.

A way around this taboo for historians was the one taken by the British historian Alan Taylor and his Israeli colleague Tom Segev in their respective discussions of the British cabinet's reasons for issuing the Balfour declaration. It was, they say, the PERCEPTION of or the BELIEF in the power of world jewry to influence the course of the war (viz.specifically by its supposed ability to substantially assist in bringing the Americans into it) that was at the bottom of this piece of statesmanship.

Was this "perception", this "belief", misplaced? If any one was going to disabuse these political leaders of their belief it was certainly not Chaim Weizmann who, rather, did his level best to encourage it. And perhaps the question is moot anyway because as Thomas & Thomas once famously observed: "What men define as real, is real in its consequences".

Taylor's and Segev's way out was, however, not open to Greenwald. The neocons' hands on the levers of powers are too visible to vaguely speak of a "belief" or a mere "perception" of jewish-power-in-the-background, however much this may play a role in other sectors of American political life. Thus the only way to avoid an unpleasant rumpus here was to retain a discrete silence about the neocons' jewish background.

Do not follow him!

His intelligence is not qualifying him to be in the US Senate or in the White House.

We do not need more Clarence Thomas' on either sides.

Do not follow him!

His intelligence is not qualifying him to be in the US Senate or in the White House.

We do not need more Clarence Thomas' on either sides.

http://tinyurl.com/2rwlkk

War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History, Revised and Updated, Avi Shlaim, 1995

Problem, I am a slow and careful reader and constantly books are piling up AND concerning Avi Shlaim, I decided to start with his "Iron Wall".