Oil money does talk, but that is a far cry from the organized efforts of the Israelis. There really is no way that the various disparate groups within the Arab world, much less the Islamic world, can really act in the unified and focussed method that the Israelis can.

On the contrary.

The Arab Lobby

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

What the professors should have told us - but didn’t

The Arab Lobby

Maurice Ostroff

On May 29, 2006 a Google search for the words “Mearsheimer and Walt + lobby” yielded 57,900 results all because of a paper, “The Israel lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer. In a response to critics, the authors admitted they knew their paper was likely to generate a strong reaction. Originally published in March by the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, an edited version in the London Review of Books (LRB), rocketed the authors to instant fame.

Strangely, although the paper bears the prestigious imprimatur of Harvard, it departs seriously from the standards of scholarship expected of the universities to which the authors are affiliated. In the 82 page working paper the authors evidently seek to build a case to confirm their preconceived views, that an Israel lobby unduly influences US foreign policy against its interests. No effort was made to substantiate their inaccurate accusations and they completely failed to present comparisons between the relative influences of Israeli lobbyists and the many other lobbies which influence Washington.

But the most important aspect of the document is the relevant information that was omitted. The authors’ obsessive focus on the Israel lobby shifts attention from real dangers confronting the USA and the Western world by the powerful Arab Lobby and the Muslim extremism manifested in the recent Danish cartoons furor. By this exclusion, the professors’ vicious attack on the Israel lobby serves as a dangerous smokescreen, dulling the public’s awareness of the serious dangers, which cry out for attention. If the professors are seriously concerned about undue influences on Washington, there is no excuse for overlooking these real dangers.

It is a sine qua non that scholarly integrity and intellectual honesty require a readiness to suppress one's biases and to follow the facts wherever they lead, taking care not to avoid evidence which may contradict preconceived views. Yet the professors were unable to conceal their collective bias as manifested, for example, in their refusal to acknowledge that the Israel government is located in Jerusalem. They wrote about relations between "Tel Aviv and Washington”, rather than “Jerusalem and Washington”, evidently fearing that the latter might be interpreted as recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

It is incredible that in their academic study the professors ignored for example, the dramatic stranglehold of OPEC, the blatantly monopolistic cartel which threatens the world economy. This stranglehold began with OPEC’s decision to use oil as a political weapon in 1973 when the price was $2.60 per barrel. After October 1973, when the Arab members of OPEC imposed their oil embargo against the West, the price quadrupled to about $12 by January 1974 and is now soaring well above $60. All this, while, believe it or not, production costs average about $6 per barrel for non-OPEC producers and $1.50 per barrel for OPEC producers (Bulletin of Atomic Scientisis May/June 2005). Not surprising that Saudi Arabia's revenue rose from $5 billion in 1973 to a record high of $93 billion in 1980.

Of course there is a Jewish lobby, in fact there are several. Some even oppose each other. But it is plainly unscholarly to denounce any lobby in a serious 82 page document, without critically evaluating its position relative to the many competing influences, which are integral to the Washington scene.

In a note in his diary, former President Carter disclosed how, in 1977, the Arab lobby pressured him while he was involved in the negotiations between President Sadat and PM Begin. He wrote about Arab Americans "They have given all the staff, Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, and others, a hard time.”

After the 1967 war, the Arabian American Oil Company ARAMCO established a fund to present the Arab side of the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives warned Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco that American military sales to Israel would hurt U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize U.S. oil supplies.

In 1973 Mobil published an advertorial (an advertisement written in the form of an objective opinion editorial) in the New York Times, promoting Arab interests. In July, the chairman of Standard Oil of California (SOCAL then, Chevron now) sent 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. ARAMCO has maintained its public relations campaign since 1973, and has become involved in occasional legislative fights, such as the AWACS sale,

So too, the professors have ignored many prominent Arab lobbyists who have had and continue to have intimate access to US presidents.

For example On July 19, 2005 The Hill, a newspaper about the U.S. Congress, highlighted the activities of Fred Dutton, former Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and special assistant to President Kennedy. It reported that one of Dutton’s chief chores since 1975 had been to serve as a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia. In that role, he sought to persuade Congress to approve two major arms sales to the kingdom.

In an obituary to Clark Clifford (October 11, 1998), the New York Times spoke of him not only as a key adviser to four presidents, but also as a powerful lobbyist for Arab sources. In his memoir, "Counsel to the President" Clifford wrote that he advised clients “What we can offer you is an extensive knowledge of how to deal with the government on your problems. We will be able to give you advice on how best to present your position to the appropriate departments and agencies of the government." Clifford, a paid lobbyist, made about $6 million in profits from bank stock that he bought with an unsecured loan from Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In 1978, he helped BCCI acquire First American Bank. Clifford as chairman, reassured the Federal Reserve Board that there would be no control by BCCI, which he also represented, but ten years later, evidence disclosed that BCCI did indeed secretly control the parent company of Clifford's bank. BCCI had in the meantime been accused of fraud, drug money laundering and bribing bank regulators and central bankers. It was reported to have $20 billion in assets shortly before its shutdown, but liquidators were unable to find many of its assets.

Axis Information And Analysis, (Aia), which specializes in information about Asia and Eastern Europe, rated Prince Bandar Bin Sultan as the most influential foreigner in the USA. As head of the Saudi embassy in Washington in 1983, he was an important participant in backstage intrigues, clandestine negotiations, and billion-dollar deals relating to US interests in the Middle East, with broad links among high-ranking officials in the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. Bandar’s father, Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, was a leading figure in the ruling dynasty, which decides the extent of military cooperation with the United States.

The authors’ claim that US policy towards Israel contributes to America's terrorist problem also deserves critical examination. As far back as November 2002, Alex Alexiev, in an article published by the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL) pointed out that, Riyadh, flush with oil money, became the paymaster of most of the militant Islamic movements, which advocated terror. In its aggressive support for radical Islam, even the most violent of Islamic groups, like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, receives Saudi largesse. He claims that official Saudi sources indicate that between 1975 and 1987, Riyadh's "overseas development aid" averaged $4 billion per year, of which at least $50 billion over two and a half decades financed "Islamic activities” exclusively. The SAAR Foundation, alone, which has been closed down since 9/11, received $1.7 billion in donations in 1998.

Compared to these numbers, the miniscule Israeli PR budget of about $4million is laughable.

In addition, there are of course several Arab American advocacy groups, of which the two most influential are the Arab American Institute and the recently merged American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and National Association of Arab-Americans, not to speak of the immense power behind the Arab oil wealth. The professors appear to mirror the message of this lobby, which argue that aid to Israel is a waste of taxpayers' money.

There is a perplexing ambiguity in the authors’ article. They write that they explicitly stated that by itself the Jewish lobby could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq, but that there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups “within” the lobby played a central role in making the case for war. Does ”within” imply that the neo-conservatives and unnamed other groups are components of an all-embracing Jewish lobby?

Later in the article they claim that were it not for the Jewish lobby, the US would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003. However, according to Aia, it was Bandar Bin Sultan who in 1990-91, pushed President Bush the elder, to start the military campaign against Iraq. This crucial information throws an entirely different light on the conflicting influences under which Washington operates. Or do the authors consider Bin Sultan part of the Jewish lobby?

Nor should one ignore the influence of the many other non-Arab lobbies with which the Jewish lobby must compete. Though not specifically concerned with Middle East politics they exert powerful influences on Washington, some of which may indirectly affect the Middle East. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) for example, has over 34 million members, whose $10 annual membership fees create a mighty financial tool for promoting its causes in Congress. The ACLU and The National Rifle Association are also extremely powerful lobbies.

Steven Emerson, the internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and a leading world authority on Islamic terrorist networks has provided detailed account of Arab influence in his book “The American House of Saud”. He analyzes in depth the power of Arab petrodollars amounting to $661 billion between 1973 and 1984. Emerson is recognized as having specifically warned about the threat of Osama Bin Laden's network in Congressional testimony in 1998.

In a review of Emerson’s book, Daniel Pipes writes that Emerson chronicles anti-Israeli activities undertaken in recent years by prominent Americans who were receiving or prepared to receive Saudi money. They include J. William Fulbright, who wrote an article in Newsweek about the Camp David Summit in 1978 advocating a position very similar to that of the Saudi government. Although at that time he was a registered agent of the Saudi government and although he listed his Newsweek article with the Justice Department as an activity on the Saudis' behalf, Mr. Fulbright identified himself in the article only as a former U.S. Senator practicing law in Washington, D.C.

Other major figures tagged by Mr. Emerson as having joined the chase for Saudi money include Spiro Agnew, Bert Lance and Jimmy Carter. Mr. Emerson argues that Mr. Agnew - previously well disposed toward Israel - began fulminating against "Zionist influences in the United States" as part of his successful effort to attract Saudi business. He shows that Bert Lance received a $3.5 million loan from a Saudi financier, which he did not sign for. Subsequently, Mr. Lance spoke of "the great Jewish ownership of the press." And Mr. Emerson juxtaposes Jimmy Carter's effusive praise of the Saudi government in 1983 with the willingness of a Saudi financier to pick up the $50,000 tab for a Carter Presidential Library benefit.

A number of former ambassadors to the Arab countries are also on the Saudi payroll. Mr. Emerson documents that one of them, Andrew I. Killgore, said in public that his company did not do public relations work for Saudi Arabia when in fact it did. Offered a chance by Pipes, to respond, Mr. Killgore did not deny the charge. Instead he accused Pipes of wishing to "silence" him.

The Israel lobby pales by comparison

In a March 29, 2006 op-ed in the LA Times Max Boot, a Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations succinctly summed up the issue. He wrote:

“It's true that the U.S. has paid a price for supporting Israel, but it has paid an even bigger price for supporting other embattled allies. The U.S. has sent subsidies but never soldiers to protect Israel unless you believe, with Mearsheimer-Walt, Pat Buchanan and David Duke, that the invasion of Iraq was a Zionist plot. We have sent troops to save, among others, Britain, France, South Korea, South Vietnam, Kuwait and Kosovo. Today we risk war in defense of nations from Latvia to Taiwan, even though there is no good reason why their fate should matter to us any more than that of Israel. Perhaps Mearsheimer and Walt will write another paper exposing the tentacles of the Latvian lobby. Or are they only exercised about the power of the Hebrews?

After finishing their magnum opus, I was left with just one question: Why would the omnipotent Israel lobby (which, they claim, works so successfully "to stifle criticism of Israel") allow such a scurrilous piece of pseudo-scholarship to be published? Then I noticed that Walt occupies a professorship endowed by Robert and Renee Belfer, Jewish philanthropists who are also supporters of Israel. The only explanation, I surmise, is that Walt must himself be an agent of those crafty Israelites, employed to make the anti-Israel case so unconvincingly that he discredits it. "The Lobby" works in mysterious ways.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't soften anything. I made another point.

As far as being stupid goes. I am not the one who claims that other Arabs love the Palestinians and welcomed them to move to their countries as well as a bunch of other fantasies. How intelligent is it to debate something that you know nothing about?

First;ordinary Arabs love Palestinians people; take it or leave it. They are victims.

Second; why would other countries invite other country's people, or even welcomed them if they were not under bloody massacres caused by the Israeli occupation?

Is it a natural invitation? and is it normal? when such an incident has happened in whole history? they were forced to leave their homeland. They are refugees.

No refugees of whatsoever nationality, are welcomed or invited with open arms by neighboring countries or other ones without going through tremendous pain and long procedures. But;for political- humanitarian reasons, sometimes borders would be opened.

I had explained my view on that refugee issue in my previous posts. I don't like to repeat myself like a broken ...... as you are.

YOU have no right at all to control the debate ; my knowledge comes from a first hand experience ,not as your sending selected(not random) links;only the ones that pour into your biased-stream of one-side, and you skillfully ignore the other millions of different views on the Web .

I will leave it right here right now, I don't like to argue with you cause it is a waste of time.

'zaza' date='2009-01-17 12:18:56' post='2471200'

First;ordinary Arabs love Palestinians people; take it or leave it.

No refugees of whatsoever nationality, are welcomed or invited with open arms by neighboring countries or other ones without going through tremendous pain and long procedures.

zaza 2009-01-07 11:02:12 Post #32

Btw, Ulysses G. ;Palestinians were welcomed to live in the neighboring Arabic countries since 1948. It is just a very sweeping generalization of misinformed judgment you had posted about Arabs hating Palestinians.

There has been plenty of evidence from a variety of posters that the Palestinians are not loved by other Arabs and have been used as pawns against Israel. Why do you insist on something that we all know is not true?

You contradict yourself and continue being dishonest. Why should anyone accept anything that you have to say?

I demand to know who are the {{{{WE all}}}} , Are you the newly erected member to speak on behalf of TV members now?

Ulysses G. 2009-01-08 20:28:21 Post #105

I have to admit that I see many of the most ardent Israel-haters as either closet Nazis who really hate them because they are Jewish or brain-dead trendies who want to be fashionable and repeat left-wing rheteric like parrots without thinking a whole lot about who it hurts.

Is this a private debate between UG and Zaza? Or can anyone join in?

Feel free. zaza is not debating. She is throwing stones.

I am doing a bit of both, but I have hand grenades.

IM going to ask the 2 of you to stop with the bickering, and any more personal insults will not be tolerated. just cos its in bedlam does not mean forum rules dont apply. I have deleted several posts, a repeat of similar will force me to issue warnings and possibly suspension of posting rights.

I did not re-open this thread and move it here so people can use it as grounds to attack each other because your political views differ.

if you wish for the topic to continue running, then I suggest keep it civil and non-personal. up to you

Reuters confirm that UN LIED about "trustworthy" staff in UN school

EXCLUSIVE-Gaza headmaster was Islamic Jihad "rocket-maker"

Mon May 5, 2008 9:08am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]

By Adam Entous

RAFAH, Gaza Strip, May 5 (Reuters) - By day, Awad al-Qiq was a respected science teacher and headmaster at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip. By night, Palestinian militants say, he built rockets for Islamic Jihad.

The Israeli air strike that killed the 33-year-old last week also laid bare his apparent double life and embarrassed a U.N. agency which has long had to rebuff Israeli accusations that it has aided and abetted guerrillas fighting the Jewish state.

In interviews with Reuters, students and colleagues, as well as U.N. officials, denied any knowledge of Qiq's work with explosives. And his family denied he had any militant links at all, despite a profusion of Islamic Jihad posters at his home.

But militant leaders allied to the enclave's ruling Hamas group hailed him as a martyr who led Islamic Jihad's "engineering unit" -- its bomb makers. They fired a salvo of improvised rockets into Israel in response to his death.

Qiq's body was wrapped in an Islamic Jihad flag at his funeral, pictorial posters in his honour still bedeck his family home this week, and a handwritten notice posted on the metal gate at the entrance to the school declared that Qiq, "the chief leader of the engineering unit", would now find "paradise".

That poster was removed soon after Reuters visited the Rafah Prep Boys School, run by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees. Staff there said on Monday that UNRWA officials had told them not to discuss Qiq's activities.

No one from the United Nations attended the funeral or has paid their respects to the family, relatives said, adding that Qiq's widow and five children had heard nothing about a pension.

Spokesman Christopher Gunness said UNRWA, which spelled its teacher's surname al-Geeg, was looking into the matter.

"We have a zero-tolerance policy towards politics and militant activities in our schools. Obviously, we are not the thought police and we cannot police people's minds," he said.

He added that staff were also regularly instructed not to engage in political or militant activities of any kind.

The Israeli army said its April 30 attack at Rafah, close to the Egyptian border, hit a workshop used for making rockets and other improvised weaponry. An Israeli intelligence source told Reuters that Qiq was involved in developing rockets and mortars.

Yet Qiq, a physics graduate with eight years' experience of teaching at UNRWA schools, was also described by colleagues as a rising star in education. Relatives said he was promoted to run the school last year, with the title of deputy headmaster.

DOUBLE LIFE

The case of Awad al-Qiq highlights the complexities of life among the 1.5 million people of the Gaza Strip, where close to half voted for Hamas in 2006. Hamas fighters join Islamic Jihad in campaigns of rockets and suicide bombing in pursuit of a stated goal of recovering all Palestinian lands lost to Israel.

Qiq's high profile as both a public figure and in the secret world is unusual enough to cause considerable interest among those in Gaza who were surprised by the funeral arrangements.

Sympathies for guerrillas, who number in the tens of thousands, are widespread despite Israeli efforts to discredit Hamas and its allies by choking food and fuel supplies to the population.

That tactic has also set Israel and UNRWA at odds. The agency, set up to care for Palestinian refugees, has spoken out against what it calls collective punishment of civilians.

Israel has long alleged that militants use UNRWA vehicles and facilities. The United Nations has denied those charges, although some UNRWA employees have had prominent political roles in groups like Hamas -- such as teacher Saeed Seyam, who was interior minister in the Hamas-led government elected in 2006.

Some Western officials say the agency, as one of the biggest employers in the Gaza Strip, simply reflects the society it serves. But donors such as the United States, which fund UNRWA's work, insist on vetting procedures to ensure their cash does not reach groups they class as terrorists -- such as Islamic Jihad.

While many in Gaza are open about political allegiances, the threat of the kind of Israeli action that cost him his life on April 30 meant Qiq's double role was kept very secret indeed.

Surrounded by Islamic Jihad mourning posters at the family home, his sister Naima insisted: "He's only a teacher and head of the school. School was his life. He had no time to work with Islamic Jihad." Other family members nodded in agreement.

At the school, a 17-year-old who gave his name as Shadi read a poster for his former teacher and said simply: "Nobody knew."

At the bombed-out workshop 3 km (2 miles) from the school, damaged cars can be seen through now-locked gates. A 35-year-old man who gave his name as Abu Mohammed said he had found Qiq dying inside after helicopters fired a missile at the building.

"He was still alive, but he died shortly after," he said.

Relatives recalled with pride that Qiq had met John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza operations director. But while fellow teachers had come to pay their respects, they saw no U.N. representative.

Qiq's sister said his wife and five children were worried by the lack of news on any pension payment: "Awad did a lot for UNRWA," she said. "The family hoped UNRWA would support them." (Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza; Editing by Alastair Macdonald and Samia Nakhoul)http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL05686115

Hamas WERE operating from UN school and booby trapped it which killed civilians.

Hamas’ Extracurricular Activities

Noah Pollak - 01.06.2009 - 4:49 PM

Allow me to propose a metric for evaluating whether a journalist is behaving responsibly or not: If he reports that Israel bombed a UN school and killed 30 civilians, he is irresponsible. If he reports that Hamas used a UN school as a weapons cache and base of operations for launching mortars at the IDF, and the IDF’s return fire killed the Hamas cell along, tragically, with a yet-unspecified number of civilians, then he is behaving responsibly. If he wishes to be particularly scrupulous, he might additionally note that Hamas had rigged the school with explosives which detonated after the IDF took out the mortar team, killing a large additional number of civilians. And he might add that you can go to the IDF’s Youtube channel to view footage from 2007 of Hamas using the very same school as a mortar-launching base.

Journalists who abjure reporting the vital details of this story should be called what they are — activists masquerading as reporters.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...hp/pollak/49311

More about UN school LIE

January 06, 2009

The UN Gaza school was a weapons dump (updated)

Ethel C. Fenig

The UN and the mainstream media are wailing and accusing Israel of war crimes (yes, again) after the IDF returned fire at a UN school from which Palestinians were firing mortars.

The explosives and booby traps installed in the school by Hamas then blew up, killing dozens of people.

Yes, that's what happens. If Hamas killers fire from a hospital, a mosque, a school which they proudly taunted the Israelis were booby trapped and filled with explosives, they have no right to complain when Israelis return fire and the building explodes.

Where were the UN personnel as Hamas operatives brought in the explosives, installed the booby traps? They were probably helping them. As did the International Red Cross.

Human Wrongs Watch and the oh so sensitive Europeans who are now wailing that civilians are being harmed in Gaza just didn't notice--or more accurately, didn't care--when Israeli civilians, deliberately targeted by Hamas and its rockets, were killed and injured.

And that's not rocket science.

Update:

A previous headmaster of the Gaza UN school of weapons dumping and terrorism was, according to this May 5, 2008 Reuters exclusive,

By day, Awad al-Qiq was a respected science teacher and headmaster at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip. By night, Palestinian militants say, he built rockets for Islamic Jihad.

When an Israeli air strike killed this Hamas respected educator last May it

embarrassed a U.N. agency which has long had to rebuff Israeli accusations that it has aided and abetted guerrillas fighting the Jewish state.

In interviews with Reuters, students and colleagues, as well as U.N. officials, denied any knowledge of Qiq's work with explosives. And his family denied he had any militant links at all, despite a profusion of Islamic Jihad posters at his home.

But militant leaders allied to the enclave's ruling Hamas group hailed him as a martyr who led Islamic Jihad's "engineering unit" -- its bomb makers. They fired a salvo of improvised rockets into Israel in response to his death.

So Hamas is responsible for killing its own civilians. But will Israel critics, the UN, Human Wrongs Watch and all the so called humanitarians dare blame Hamas and not Israel? Of course not; they'll still twist and turn and ignore facts to blame Israel.

And while the UN, Hamas and the usual gang of well you know who, huff and puff indignantly , Israel released the following regarding the sad situation at the UN school. Oh sure, those huff and puff hot air "neutral" observers will object that it is self serving but it is a more factual and straightforward account than from other not so disinterested observers.

Today, a reported 30 Palestinians were killed in a heartrending tragedy at a school in Jebaliya. Initial investigations indicate that Hamas terrorists fired mortar bombs from the area of the school towards Israeli forces, who returned fire towards the source of the shooting. The Israeli fire landed outside the school, yet a series of explosions followed, indicating the probable presence of munitions and explosions in the building. Intelligence indicates that among those killed were Immad Abu Iskar and Hassan Abu Iskar, two known Hamas mortar crewmen. (italics added)

So was this UN Gaza school still being used as a cover for a weapons dump as Hamas continues to hide behind "innocent civilians" using them as shields? And, in the horrible realm of the possible, did the two dead mortar crewmen deliberately set off the explosives in a grisly glorious act of Islamic jihad martyrdom?

Given Hamas' avowed promises fulfilled by equally deadly action these are legitimate assumptions that must be explored by all.

Posted at 07:19 PM | Email | Permalink | | | yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = "The UN Gaza school was a weapons dump (updated)"; yahooBuzzArticleSummary = "Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs sets us straight<font face="times new roman,times..."; yahooBuzzArticleCategory = "politics"; yahooBuzzArticleType = "text"; yahooBuzzArticleId = window.location.href; http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/0...as_a_weapo.html

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/0...as_a_weapo.html at January 17, 2009 - 09:26:11 PM EST

Oil money does talk, but that is a far cry from the organized efforts of the Israelis. There really is no way that the various disparate groups within the Arab world, much less the Islamic world, can really act in the unified and focussed method that the Israelis can.

On the contrary.

The Arab Lobby

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

What the professors should have told us - but didn't

The Arab Lobby

Maurice Ostroff

On May 29, 2006 a Google search for the words "Mearsheimer and Walt + lobby" yielded 57,900 results all because of a paper, "The Israel lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer. In a response to critics, the authors admitted they knew their paper was likely to generate a strong reaction. Originally published in March by the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, an edited version in the London Review of Books (LRB), rocketed the authors to instant fame.

...

After finishing their magnum opus, I was left with just one question: Why would the omnipotent Israel lobby (which, they claim, works so successfully "to stifle criticism of Israel") allow such a scurrilous piece of pseudo-scholarship to be published? Then I noticed that Walt occupies a professorship endowed by Robert and Renee Belfer, Jewish philanthropists who are also supporters of Israel. The only explanation, I surmise, is that Walt must himself be an agent of those crafty Israelites, employed to make the anti-Israel case so unconvincingly that he discredits it. "The Lobby" works in mysterious ways."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, the quoted piece does nothing to counter what I wrote. All it says here is that there are many interests which lobby for Arab-related causes. And it mentions Prince Bandar Bin Sultan as being one of hte most powerful foreigners in Washington. I agree with all of those. But Bin Sultan acts directly for the Saudi government, just as I described, and the various other lobbies mentioned do not necessarily work together. I have not idea who the author is or his impartiality, but his has a seemingly pro-Israeli slant, so I would take what he writes abotu the supposed lack of power of an Israeli lobby with a grain of salt.

I have often read that the Israeli lobby is the second msot powerful in Washington (with either the NRA or the AARP being the most powerful.) , so I did a Google search, and this popped up on http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0198/9801065.htm:

"A forthcoming edition of Fortune magazine ranks the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as the second most powerful interest group in Washington."

The Nation also asserts that the AIPAC is the most powerful foreign lobby in the US ( http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020610/massing)

Once again, I am not arguing that the Israeli lobby is bad and the various Arab lobbies are good. I am just stating an accepted fact that the Israeli lobby is pretty powerful. And I also wrote that I personally am appalled that any foreign lobby has that much power in the US.

The article says that the Arab lobby outside the U.S. is very powerful which is pretty obvious when it comes to the UN.

I support Israel so I am quite happy that the American lobby is strong, but I also think that its power is very much exaggerated by those who wish Israel harm.

Having lived and worked in the Middle East for the better part of 30 years, I feel I can legitimately comment on all this.

One thing that has always bothered me is the total lack of Islamic demonstrations against those radical Muslims who are killing other Muslims and other nationalities.

Has anybody on this forum ever seen a demonstration by Muslims against Muslims involved with the 9/11 killings?

OK...how about the four compounds in Riyadh that were attacked in 2002?

Madrid? London? Mumbai? Suicide bombers in Baghdad? Suicide murderers in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Any demostrations against Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah?

Until the so-called silent majority of Muslims want peace and are willing to stand up and put a stop to this mindless killing, the killing will go on. Hamas and the other terrorist groups will continue to attack Israel as well as their own people.

The only difference seems to be Israel will no longer put up with it.

It is up to the Muslim people to determine how long they want to endure it.

Yes, Thai Muslims might want to head to the Thai Foreign Ministry and protest about the treatment of the Rohingya's (spelling). This stuff is a little closer to home and mistreatment is mistreatment.

The article says that the Arab lobby outside the U.S. is very powerful which is pretty obvious when it comes to the UN.

I support Israel so I am quite happy that the American lobby is strong, but I also think that its power is very much exaggerated by those who wish Israel harm.

And as I don't know much about the Arab lobbies outside the US, I can't comment on them. But I wrote that the Arab lobbies were not that powerful in the US, and you wrote "on the contrary" and used this article to back up your assertions.

And while some anti-Israeli writers undoubtedly refer to the power of the Israeli lobby in the US, that does not mean it is a lie. There are plenty of neutral reporters who have commented on the power of it. I rather think Fortune is at least one fairly reputable publication who are not in the habit of "very much exagerating.".

Has anybody on this forum ever seen a demonstration by Muslims against Muslims involved with the 9/11 killings?

...

Suicide bombers in Baghdad?

Any demostrations against Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ...

You bring up a fairly valid point, and one which does result in fear and distrust of Muslims as a whole. However, there are times when Muslims do get up to protest. I have personally viewed mass protests against suicide bombers in Baghdad and Ramadi, and massive demonstrations against Al-Qaeda. And I have seen many protests against Hamas on the television.

And as I don't know much about the Arab lobbies outside the US, I can't comment on them. But I wrote that the Arab lobbies were not that powerful in the US, and you wrote "on the contrary" and used this article to back up your assertions.

And while some anti-Israeli writers undoubtedly refer to the power of the Israeli lobby in the US, that does not mean it is a lie. There are plenty of neutral reporters who have commented on the power of it. I rather think Fortune is at least one fairly reputable publication who are not in the habit of "very much exagerating.".

QUOTE (bonobo @ 2009-01-17 06:17:51)

Oil money does talk, but that is a far cry from the organized efforts of the Israelis. There really is no way that the various disparate groups within the Arab world, much less the Islamic world, can really act in the unified and focussed method that the Israelis can.

You are careful to be as fair as possible, but I used the quote above because I was commenting on it and it says nothing specific about refering only to inside the US and I do not agree with it at all. I took it as talking about the power of the Arab lobby worldwide which, because of their oil money, is much stronger than the Israeli one.

As far as the Israeli lobby in the US being powerful, I am not denying it, but I do not see that as a bad thing. However, I do think that enemies of Israel greatly exaggerate that power in order to make it look unhealthy. I have no idea if Fortune is on that list, but much of the mass media certainly do have an anti-Israeli agenda.

And as I don't know much about the Arab lobbies outside the US, I can't comment on them. But I wrote that the Arab lobbies were not that powerful in the US, and you wrote "on the contrary" and used this article to back up your assertions.

And while some anti-Israeli writers undoubtedly refer to the power of the Israeli lobby in the US, that does not mean it is a lie. There are plenty of neutral reporters who have commented on the power of it. I rather think Fortune is at least one fairly reputable publication who are not in the habit of "very much exagerating.".

QUOTE (bonobo @ 2009-01-17 06:17:51)

Oil money does talk, but that is a far cry from the organized efforts of the Israelis. There really is no way that the various disparate groups within the Arab world, much less the Islamic world, can really act in the unified and focussed method that the Israelis can.

You are careful to be as fair as possible, but I used the quote above because I was commenting on it and it says nothing specific about refering only to inside the US and I do not agree with it at all. I took it as talking about the power of the Arab lobby worldwide which, because of their oil money, is much stronger than the Israeli one.

As far as the Israeli lobby in the US being powerful, I am not denying it, but I do not see that as a bad thing. However, I do think that enemies of Israel greatly exaggerate that power in order to make it look unhealthy. I have no idea if Fortune is on that list, but much of the mass media certainly do have an anti-Israeli agenda.

I am sadly lacking on knowledge of the power or lack thereof of the Arab lobbies worldwide, so I can make no informed comments on that. However, I do think that having such a powerful foreign lobby in the US is a bad thing. No foreign power should dictate US policy. That includes but is not limited to Israel. While the interest of Israel and the US may coincide on most occasions, it cannot coincide all the time.

When the Israelis bombed the USS Liberty to keep the US from listening in on transmissions made during the Six-Day War, the Israeli interests jumped into the game, and this incident remains the only major maritime disaster in US history not to be investigated by Congress. Granted that this is one isolated incident, but this is as a pretty concrete example of when US and Israeli interests diverged and the US backed down.

I feel that the U.S. had very good reasons not to investigate the USS Liberty incident that the public is not privy to, and I think that it had very little to do with the Israeli lobby. That is one difference between us.

I feel that the U.S. had very good reasons not to investigate the USS Liberty incident that the public is not privy to, and I think that it had very little to do with the Israeli lobby. That is one difference between us.

I have a significant amount of knowledge about the USS Liberty incident, and without breaking classification laws, let's just suffice it to say that the Israelis knew it was a US ship and chose to take it out of the equation. I can't write much more here.

The US military was incensed over the indicident. President Johnson wanted to take the Israelis to task over it, yet he found out he was basically powerless to do so.

Capt McGonagle , the ship's CO, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in the attack. This is a far cry from the reaction to the USS Pueblo capture by North Korea seven months after the Liberty incident and the consequences to Commander Bucher and his crew.

One thing that has always bothered me is the total lack of Islamic demonstrations against those radical Muslims who are killing other Muslims and other nationalities.

I had a very "heated" discussion about this a couple of years ago with a member that was (allegedly) Muslim. He tried to argue that he did disagree with various extremist actions, but admitted he never voiced his opinions aloud.

I mentioned that in the West, when we hear no dissenting voices, a lot of people take that to mean that those who are so silent, actually approve of actions of the extremists. Even the few that may disagree often remain quiet for fear of retribution from their own kind. A lot of others actually support the violence but are not willingly to be public about it.

Apparently, a certain "peaceful, tolerant" religion doesn't respond well to criticism, especially from within it's own following.

I've noticed how various anti-Semitic acts are carried out in the West (vandalism of graveyards, synagogues, etc) and not a whisper from the Islamic world. Oh but watch out if they even think for a second that anyone has said or done anything anti-Islamic !

I have actually heard of one protest against an act of extremism. After the bombing of Sharm al Sheikh in Egypt in '05, many, many residents (and a few foreigners) protested the violence.

The main reason they were protesting though, was that they feared a loss of tourism (and the loss of jobs that would follow). It did make the news for a short while, I think primarily because it was one of the few (if only) times Arabs had ever protested against an act of violence carried out by their own kind.

Got to love this world of ours, where one side can get away (literally) with murder and face little (if any) criticism, because most of the other sides has been beaten into submission by the "PC" stick, and are willing to let the truth disappear rather than risk being called "anti-(something)" or "discriminatory" or "biased".

Has anybody on this forum ever seen a demonstration by Muslims against Muslims involved with the 9/11 killings?

...

Suicide bombers in Baghdad?

Any demostrations against Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ...

You bring up a fairly valid point, and one which does result in fear and distrust of Muslims as a whole. However, there are times when Muslims do get up to protest. I have personally viewed mass protests against suicide bombers in Baghdad and Ramadi, and massive demonstrations against Al-Qaeda. And I have seen many protests against Hamas on the television.

You have personally viewed mass protests against suicide bombers that attacked Muslims. Where is the outrage when the attack kaffirs? However, if you've read up on Islam, you'd know there's a verse in the Koran that states: It is not lawful for a believer to kill a believer, unless it happen by mistake. You'd also know that before that verse there's a couple that state: They desire that ye should become infidels, as they are infidels, and that ye should be wicked with themselves. Therefore take not friends among them, until they fly their country for the religion of GOD; and if they turn back from the faith, take them, and kill them wherever ye find them.. Those verses, which can be found here, clearly lay out the law. Non Muslims need to be fought with until they submit to Islam or accept being second class citizens. So while it's fine to try and obfusctrate the matter with little tidbits like you threw out, make sure that you provide a background whilst you're at it.

One thing that has always bothered me is the total lack of Islamic demonstrations against those radical Muslims who are killing other Muslims and other nationalities.

I had a very "heated" discussion about this a couple of years ago with a member that was (allegedly) Muslim. He tried to argue that he did disagree with various extremist actions, but admitted he never voiced his opinions aloud.

I mentioned that in the West, when we hear no dissenting voices, a lot of people take that to mean that those who are so silent, actually approve of actions of the extremists. Even the few that may disagree often remain quiet for fear of retribution from their own kind. A lot of others actually support the violence but are not willingly to be public about it.

Apparently, a certain "peaceful, tolerant" religion doesn't respond well to criticism, especially from within it's own following.

I've noticed how various anti-Semitic acts are carried out in the West (vandalism of graveyards, synagogues, etc) and not a whisper from the Islamic world. Oh but watch out if they even think for a second that anyone has said or done anything anti-Islamic !

I have actually heard of one protest against an act of extremism. After the bombing of Sharm al Sheikh in Egypt in '05, many, many residents (and a few foreigners) protested the violence.

The main reason they were protesting though, was that they feared a loss of tourism (and the loss of jobs that would follow). It did make the news for a short while, I think primarily because it was one of the few (if only) times Arabs had ever protested against an act of violence carried out by their own kind.

Got to love this world of ours, where one side can get away (literally) with murder and face little (if any) criticism, because most of the other sides has been beaten into submission by the "PC" stick, and are willing to let the truth disappear rather than risk being called "anti-(something)" or "discriminatory" or "biased".

Once again, I don't have much knowledge of the reactions of Europe or elsewhere vis-a-vis the Arabic/Israeli situation, and it may in fact be more PC yto back the Palestinians over the Israelis. I have hard time thinking that anyone would back Hamas, but maybe it is true.

But it the US, this is not the case. It is PC only to say good things about Israel and bad about the Arabs. Even the movies, those so-called bastions of Israeli-bashing, have Arabs as the bad guys, not the Israelis. The "anti-(something)" you mention is "anti-semitism."

It is pretty clear that the enemy of the US is Al Qaeda and some other extreme Islamic factions. No one is arguing that. And Israel has been an ally in fighting that. But that does not give Israel a clean slate in everything, just at the US can sometimes be at odds with Canada, AUstralia, Germany, and the UK.

Has anybody on this forum ever seen a demonstration by Muslims against Muslims involved with the 9/11 killings?

...

Suicide bombers in Baghdad?

Any demostrations against Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ...

You bring up a fairly valid point, and one which does result in fear and distrust of Muslims as a whole. However, there are times when Muslims do get up to protest. I have personally viewed mass protests against suicide bombers in Baghdad and Ramadi, and massive demonstrations against Al-Qaeda. And I have seen many protests against Hamas on the television.

You have personally viewed mass protests against suicide bombers that attacked Muslims. Where is the outrage when the attack kaffirs? However, if you've read up on Islam, you'd know there's a verse in the Koran that states: It is not lawful for a believer to kill a believer, unless it happen by mistake. You'd also know that before that verse there's a couple that state: They desire that ye should become infidels, as they are infidels, and that ye should be wicked with themselves. Therefore take not friends among them, until they fly their country for the religion of GOD; and if they turn back from the faith, take them, and kill them wherever ye find them.. Those verses, which can be found here, clearly lay out the law. Non Muslims need to be fought with until they submit to Islam or accept being second class citizens. So while it's fine to try and obfusctrate the matter with little tidbits like you threw out, make sure that you provide a background whilst you're at it.

Provide background? Provide background on "little tidbits" what I have personally seen? What the heck are you writing about?

I can quote the Koran just as you can, just as I can quote the Bible with verses advocating both peace and violence. But that has nothing to do with any post I have made. I am not trying to get into any religious arguement here. My main argument in this thread is that the Israeli lobby is too powerful, and the US should not be marching lockstep with Israel no matter what is the issue. There are times when US and Israeli interests diverge.

Provide background? Provide background on "little tidbits" what I have personally seen? What the heck are you writing about?

I can quote the Koran just as you can, just as I can quote the Bible with verses advocating both peace and violence. But that has nothing to do with any post I have made. I am not trying to get into any religious arguement here. My main argument in this thread is that the Israeli lobby is too powerful, and the US should not be marching lockstep with Israel no matter what is the issue. There are times when US and Israeli interests diverge.

You were able to list 2 (two) examples of Muslims protesting terrorist attacks. And if people were to accept that those statistically insignificant numbers (the tasty little tidbits that are designed to be trotted out the cause confusion amongst those who are unaware of the reasonings behind the actions-for instance, just looking at Wikipedia's article, here's simply 'examples' of Islamic terrorism-note that's nowhere a complete list, and yet if we're to take your two exceptions, that's still only 7% of the 'examples' being protested!) are a disproval of the statement that chuckd made, you could at least provide the background. It would be akin to saying that the Klu Klux Klan is a good civic organisation simply because you can show where they helped one of their Klansmen rebuild his house.

Can you quote a significant number of verses from the Bible that advocate violence without end until everyone is subjugated to either Judaism or Christianity?

Is the Israeli lobby too powerful in the US? I suppose the argument could be made so. But as others have pointed out the Arab Muslim Lobby far outspends it, and probably has as much pull, if not more. However, I have yet to hear of Israel making any genocidical claims, as is enshrined in Hama's convention. Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors is an excerpt from the Preamble. It goes on to read nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim). Read the whole thing here. If I seem to be biased, and I don't know anyone who isn't, I would rather be biased on the side of a Nation that allows people who are sworn enemies to have citizenship and the right to participate in the government rather than those whose ideology is based on supremacism.

I feel that the U.S. had very good reasons not to investigate the USS Liberty incident that the public is not privy to, and I think that it had very little to do with the Israeli lobby. That is one difference between us.

I have a significant amount of knowledge about the USS Liberty incident, and without breaking classification laws, let's just suffice it to say that the Israelis knew it was a US ship and chose to take it out of the equation. I can't write much more here.

My big problem with this apparent attack is that no one will ever spill the beans as to why it supposedly happened. It makes no sense at all, according to any explanation that I have ever heard and besides that, it happened over 40 years ago when the governments of both countries consisted of completely different people than now.

I have to wonder if the reason that it was covered up is because Israel had a very good reason for doing what they did. Attacking their best friend and biggest sponsor for the heck of it, just does not ring true and either does blaming it on the big, bad Israeli Lobby which is what usually happens when no one can think up anything else that sounds remotely logical.

Provide background? Provide background on "little tidbits" what I have personally seen? What the heck are you writing about?

I can quote the Koran just as you can, just as I can quote the Bible with verses advocating both peace and violence. But that has nothing to do with any post I have made. I am not trying to get into any religious arguement here. My main argument in this thread is that the Israeli lobby is too powerful, and the US should not be marching lockstep with Israel no matter what is the issue. There are times when US and Israeli interests diverge.

You were able to list 2 (two) examples of Muslims protesting terrorist attacks. And if people were to accept that those statistically insignificant numbers (the tasty little tidbits that are designed to be trotted out the cause confusion amongst those who are unaware of the reasonings behind the actions-for instance, just looking at Wikipedia's article, here's simply 'examples' of Islamic terrorism-note that's nowhere a complete list, and yet if we're to take your two exceptions, that's still only 7% of the 'examples' being protested!) are a disproval of the statement that chuckd made, you could at least provide the background. It would be akin to saying that the Klu Klux Klan is a good civic organisation simply because you can show where they helped one of their Klansmen rebuild his house.

Can you quote a significant number of verses from the Bible that advocate violence without end until everyone is subjugated to either Judaism or Christianity?

Is the Israeli lobby too powerful in the US? I suppose the argument could be made so. But as others have pointed out the Arab Muslim Lobby far outspends it, and probably has as much pull, if not more. However, I have yet to hear of Israel making any genocidical claims, as is enshrined in Hama's convention. Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors is an excerpt from the Preamble. It goes on to read nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim). Read the whole thing here. If I seem to be biased, and I don't know anyone who isn't, I would rather be biased on the side of a Nation that allows people who are sworn enemies to have citizenship and the right to participate in the government rather than those whose ideology is based on supremacism.

You are really trying to frame responses to somehow match your own views. I observed two instances of protests. That does not mean that there weren't others. So to say there were only 7% of the examples being protested is really a pretty ludricrous contention.

And once again, there is no "Arab Lobby." The Arabs are too disparate to have a single lobby, while the handful of registered Israeli lobbies pretty much speak in the same voice. And I have not seen any evidence that even a combination of Arabic lobbies outspend the Israeli lobby in the US.

I feel that the U.S. had very good reasons not to investigate the USS Liberty incident that the public is not privy to, and I think that it had very little to do with the Israeli lobby. That is one difference between us.

I have a significant amount of knowledge about the USS Liberty incident, and without breaking classification laws, let's just suffice it to say that the Israelis knew it was a US ship and chose to take it out of the equation. I can't write much more here.

My big problem with this apparent attack is that no one will ever spill the beans as to why it supposedly happened. It makes no sense at all, according to any explanation that I have ever heard and besides that, it happened over 40 years ago when the governments of both countries consisted of completely different people than now.

I have to wonder if the reason that it was covered up is because Israel had a very good reason for doing what they did. Attacking their best friend and biggest sponsor for the heck of it, just does not ring true and either does blaming it on the big, bad Israeli Lobby which is what usually happens when no one can think up anything else that sounds remotely logical.

No one is blaming the attack on "the big, bad Israeli Lobby." That is just plain silly. The lobby, however, even back then when it did not have the same degreee of power it has now, helped stop a public investigation of the incident.

I need to be careful what I write here as much of the circumstances surrounding the incident are still highly classified. However, there was a reason why the Israelis would attack. It is just that the US military does not deem that reason acceptable. So you are either going to have to accept what I write as I cannot be any more specific, or you are going to have to decide I am full of it.

You might not be blaming the lobby, but many people do and as far as believing you goes, I do. I just don't have enough information to make an informed decision on the incident itself.

And once again, there is no "Arab Lobby." The Arabs are too disparate to have a single lobby, while the handful of registered Israeli lobbies pretty much speak in the same voice. And I have not seen any evidence that even a combination of Arabic lobbies outspend the Israeli lobby in the US.

Arab Lobby (Groups)

The Arab lobby consists of those groups and individuals that directly and indirectly seek to influence American policy to support Arab interests both in the U.S. and abroad. While focusing on Arab concerns, by no means is this lobby composed exclusively of Arabs. The lobby is defined by its ideology, not the ethnicity of its active constituents. That ideology tends to be pro-Arab on the one hand, and anti-Israel on the other. The Arab lobby in America generally seeks to promote its agendas by characterizing them as beneficial to U.S. national interests; conversely, it depicts pro-Israel policies as harmful to those interests.

The roots of the Arab lobby in America can be traced back to 1951, when King Saud of Saudi Arabia asked U.S. diplomats to finance a pro-Arab lobby to serve as a counterweight to the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (later renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC).

While the pace of the Arab lobby’s growth was initially slow, there were nonetheless signs of increased assertiveness. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, for example, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) set up a fund to present the Arab perspective on the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives warned Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco that American military sales to Israel would harm U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize American oil supplies.

Driven by oil revenues, the Arab lobby’s leverage in affecting American policy was demonstrated in early 1973 when Mobil published a pro-Arab advertorial in The New York Times. In July of that year, the chairman of Standard Oil of California (now called Chevron) distributed a letter asking the company's 40,000 employees and 262,000 stockholders to pressure their elected representatives to support “the aspirations of the Arab people.” In a similar spirit, the chairman of Texaco urged the U.S. to reassess its Middle East policy.

When another Arab-Israeli war broke out in October 1973, the chairmen of the ARAMCO partners issued a memorandum warning the White House against increasing its military aid to Israel. Shortly thereafter, the OPEC oil embargo (enacted in retribution for Western support of Israel) ushered in an era where the Arab lobby became much more prominent and visible than ever before. “The day of the Arab-American is here,” declared National Association of Arab Americans founder Richard Shadyac. “The reason is oil.” Prior to October 1973 the price of oil had stood at $2.60 per barrel; within three months the price quadrupled to about $12 per barrel.

[

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDe...mp;type=group/b]

....

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDe...mp;type=group/b]

Amazing how people can gloss over information presented if it doesn't fit into their preconceived notion of the way things should be.

You are really trying to frame responses to somehow match your own views. I observed two instances of protests. That does not mean that there weren't others. So to say there were only 7% of the examples being protested is really a pretty ludricrous contention.

You may attempt to discredit my assertions; provide the information. And note that you were able to list only two, while I'm sure there were more (in fact I know there were more), I'd be willing to bet you a dinner at the resturant of your choice that fewer than a handful of the protests, if any at all, were made when the victims of Islamic Terrorism were NOT Muslim.

I form my views around available material; if this bothers you, perhaps rather than attacking my position and attempting to use cum hoc ergo propter hoc, you could support your position with links.

And yes, it's a pretty ludicrous contention that there were protests for 7% of the Islamic terror attacks; that percentage is way too high considering the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims, often on non-Muslims. If we're to believe this website (apologies for quoting something that's obviously biased, but their numbers seem solid), some 2014 terrorist attacks were carried out in 2008 alone.