Dulles responded to the Senators with a remark that still rings true today. "Our difficulty derives very largely from the fact that the Arabs believe that the United States, when it confronts problems which relate to Israel, is in the last analysis dominated by domestic political considerations". According to Kyle's well documented narrative, Dulles expressed the hope that 'in the pending political campaign the discussion will be on such a level as to dissipate the idea'.

These Senate hearings took place on February 24, 1956. Dulles was so irritated with the Zionist lobby that a few days later, on March 2, he took the extraordinary step of taking up the issue with Abba Eban, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Kyle narrates that in a 'bitter dressing down' of the Ambassador, the Secretary of State complained of 'the political campaign being waged by the Israelis against the administration, the paid advertisements, the mass meetings, the resolutions, the demands of Zionist organizations, the veiled threats of domestic political reprisals'.

Back in 1956, an American President could actually confront the Israeli Lobby and still win a second term in office. Today, the new political math in Washington allows Netenyahu, an Ex-Prime Minister of Israel, to publicly instruct Bush on how to properly apply the 'Bush doctrine'. And just to make sure the President learns his lessons well, Netenyahu can round up 98 Senators to his 'Amen corner'." (Ahmed Amr ‘The Israeli Lobby Is America's Third Party’ Nile Media http://www.nilemedia.com/Columnists/Ahmed/2002/June/The_Israeli.html June 06, 2002).

In many ways kissinger’s career after he left office pathed the way for james rubin’s post-administration career. Rubin has been playing the role of the invisible jew in brutish politics presenting himself as an independent american politician providing independent, objective, and impartial advice about the middle east - the fact that he is a jew is never mentioned in the media because it is deemed irrelevant to his views on the middle east even though he almost invariably supports the zionist state! The brutish media used to interview kissinger in his capacity as a former advisor to american governments and never mentioned his jewishness which meant he was also able to present himself to the brutish public as just an ordinary, independent, american politician who’d studied all the facts and concluded that the zionist state was always right. See section 2.2.20: The Media’s Creation of Invisible Jews.

After the p*ny bombings, kissinger still seemed to love the flow of blood and insisted the american government should carry out serious strikes against afghanistan and other countries harbouring terrorists - with the exception of those in america and the zionist state in palestine. As a jew, he seems completely oblivious to zionist state terrorism. He believes there should be no new zionist-palestinian agreement until after america has won a decisive victory against (non-zionist) terrorism - whatever a decisive victory would look like. In the words of ariel von sharon after his reoccupation of palestine, “After we have won we shall conclude peace.” But how many palestinians would be left in palestine after the zionist conquest of palestine? In other words, only when zionists’ enemies have been defeated and deported is there any prospect of negotiations with the palestinians.

"Two years before, after the end of what the Israelis describe as the Yom Kippur War, with an Arab oil embargo causing gasoline shortages and widespread resentment around the country, the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations voted to launch an emergency public-relations campaign in behalf of Israel. It would be endowed with a $3 million emergency public-relations fund and administered by a special task force on Israel. The campaign would combine the "national clout and know-how of the major [Jewish] agencies with the local resources of the federations and community-relations councils" As Goldberg describes it, "President Ford was the first to taste its power, when he spoke about his ‘reassessment' of U.S.-Israel relations. Within six weeks, Ford gave up the idea after 76 senators signed a letter, drafted by AIPAC, demanding that he "back off." The letter's key paragraph put the president on notice that: ... within the next several weeks, the Congress expects to receive your foreign aid requests for fiscal year 1976. We trust that your recommendations will be responsive to Israel's urgent military and economic needs. We urge you to make it clear, as we do, that the United States acting in its own national interests stands firmly with Israel in searching for peace in future negotiations, and that this premise is the basis of the current reassessment of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Senator Charles Mathias, (R-MD) acknowledged that, due to lobbying pressure, "Seventy-six of us promptly affixed our signatures although no hearings had been held, no debate conducted, nor had the administration been invited to present its views. Mathias added that "as a result of the activities of the [Israel[ lobby, congressional conviction has been measurably reinforced by the knowledge that political sanctions will be applied by any who fail to deliver."[49] (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

Such conflicts only became more intense after he was appointed as assistant secretary for inter-American affairs in 1985, the year in which Congress fatefully cut off aid to the Contras, thus setting the stage for what would become the Iran-Contra Affair, which, at its core, was an effort to raise money and arms for the Contras by whatever means necessary. In his new job, Abrams not only became acquainted with the machinations of Oliver North and his fellow conspirators in the White House, he was also tasked to raise money himself, leading to his secret trip disguised as "Mr Kenilworth" to the palaces of the Sultan of Brunei. In one of the more comic episodes of the whole affair, the two men reached agreement on a $10 million contribution to the Contras, but Abrams gave the Sultan the wrong number of the Swiss bank account into which the funds were to have been deposited, and the money was never used." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's trusty new Mideast point man’ Asia Times Online http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL19Ak01.html 19.12.2002).

"In any event, Koch’s belated attempts to draw official attention to his former assistant were too late, for within a very few weeks of leaving his DOD consultancy in late 1984, Ledeen had found his gainful (classified) employment at the NSC. In fact, according to a now declassified chronology prepared for the Senate/House Iran-Contra investigation, within calendar 1984 Ledeen was already suggesting to Oliver North, his new boss at NSC, "that Israeli contacts might be useful in obtaining release of the U.S. hostages in Lebanon." Perhaps significantly, that is the first entry in the "Chronology of Events: U.S.-Iran Dialogue," dated Nov. 18, 1986, prepared for the Joint House-Senate Hearings in the Iran-Contra Investigations)." (Stephen Green ‘Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405020.html).

Ledeen is a man that even oliver north believed needed to be constantly polygraphed! "On Jan. 16, 1986, Oliver North recommended to John Poindexter "for [the] security of the Iran initiative" that Ledeen be asked to take periodic polygraph examinations. Later in January, on the 24th, North wrote to Poindexter of his suspicion that Ledeen, along with Adolph Schwimmer and Manucher Ghorbanifar, might be making money personally on the sale of arms to Iran, through Israel. (Stephen Green ‘Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405020.html).

"In 1981, shortly before being appointed assistant secretary of defense for international security policy—with responsibility, inter alia, for monitoring of U.S. defense technology exports—Richard Perle was paid a substantial consulting fee by Israeli arms manufacturer Tamares, Ltd. Shortly after assuming the ISP post, Perle wrote a letter to the secretary of the army urging evaluation and purchase of 155 mm. shells manufactured by Soltam, Ltd. After leaving DOD in 1987, Perle worked for Soltam." (Stephen Green ‘Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405020.html).

"The neo-cons became in effect the intellectual arm of the Reagan administration... [Elliot] Abrams, as undersecretary of state for Latin American affairs, was a key figure in the effort to counter the Sandinistas in Nicaragua... ; Perle... spearheaded the drive to deploy Pershing missiles in Western Europe [and] the overall guru formulating these policies was Paul Wolfowitz." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

"Among former members of Jackson's staff to find positions in the Reagan administration's foreign policy team were such neoconservative operatives as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Charles Horner, and Ben Wattenberg. Other Jackson Democrats who secured appointments in the Reagan administration included Jeane Kirkpatrick, as UN ambassador, and neoconservatives on her staff, such as Joshua Muravchik, Steven Munson (like Abrams a Podhoretz-Decter son-in-law), Carl Gershman, and Kenneth Adelman. Abrams joined the neocon exodus from the Democratic Party in the late 1970s led by members of the Committee on the Present Danger and the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. His first position in the Reagan administration was director of the State Department's Office for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. But he was appointed only after Reagan's first choice came under fire in the Senate." (Tom Barry ‘The Ambassador of Lies Elliott Abrams: the Neocon's Neocon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barry02092005.html February 9, 2005).

On September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me." It would prove to be his epitaph. Chomsky pointed to Bush's statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger. It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse," he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth.

The next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy."Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders, who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him; they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush's Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%. Bush's opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters,"he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel's friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill." Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then Bush was dead meat." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

"Dennis Ross, who served as Middle East envoy for the Clinton administration, is now handling an entirely different role with a think tank created by the Jewish Agency for Israel. Ross was front and center when the Policy Planning Institute for the Jewish People opened its doors May 14 in Jerusalem. The institute "will examine the challenges, threats, needs and opportunities" confronting Jews worldwide, the Jewish Agency said. According to Ross, the newly appointed chairman of the institute's board of directors and director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "We need to be thinking about the problems emerging down the road." What emerged from the deliberations was a collective decision to create the institute, which will be funded with $1 million annually from the Jewish Agency, with additional funds expected from Jewish philanthropists. Ross said he decided to work for the institute because it was the least he could do "as a member of the Jewish people."" (Jessica Steinberg ‘New institute plans Jewish future’ Jewish News of Greater Phoenix http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/020517/new.shtml May 17, 2002).

Both men had lived in Israel in the 1970s, and Indyk has told interviewers that he moved to the United States after the 1973 war because he came to believe during that war that the U.S. was the key to Israel's defense, an objective clearly of surpassing importance to him personally. Although both men prided themselves on being able as Jews to understand Palestinians better than most, it was clear that they approached Middle East policymaking from an Israel-centered focus that did not in fact permit as clear an understanding of Palestinian concerns as of Israeli interests. One can get an idea of the perhaps unconsciously skewed perspective from which they operated by imagining the policy approach of a chief mediator who was of Palestinian descent, had lived in the West Bank, and unabashedly proclaimed that his primary aim in life was to ensure the defense of Palestine." (Kathleen Christison ‘From LBJ to GWB The Full Story of Resolution 242L: How the US Sold Out the Palestinians’ http://www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0628.html June 28th 2002).

"During the Clinton years, the keys at the State Department were handed over to operatives straight from the Israeli Lobby. Martin Indyk, former head of AIPAC was made ambassador to Israel. Dennis Ross, the 'mediator', also had ideological roots in the lobby. Eagleburger, Holbrooke and Albright are all dedicated Israel Firsters." (Ahmed Amr ‘The Israeli Lobby Is America's Third Party’ Nile Media http://www.nilemedia.com/Columnists/Ahmed/
2002/June/The_Israeli.html June 06, 2002).