The anti-war movement failed to stop the Iraq war in 2003 and of course many people are wondering what should be next. In my opinion, young people should lead the way, especially those who do not have roots in 1960s ideology. Hopefully they can come up with some fresh thinking.

However, one fringe ominious trend has been to blame pro-Israeli Americans for everything wrong in America. A rational person can tell the difference between justified debate, analysis, and criticism of Israel or of fundamentalist Christianity--and thinly veiled hate speech. The difference often lies in two tell tale signs: lying and the erasure of history.

Racists and other oppressors always begin by erasing history and lying about their object of hate. For instance, convincing people that African Americans were only 3/5ths human was crucial for Southern slave-owning societies to perpetuate their torment and ecomomic exploitation of African Americans.

International ANSWER, the anti-war group behind many of the mass protests, was the first large-scale leftist group to use the tactics of lying and history-erasure against Israel and the Jewish people. Why that is remains beyond speculation of this article. What doesn't remain beyond the speculation of this article is that International ANSWER turned out to be a Stalinist organization that considered any enemy of America to be its ally, like North Korea. The group also promoted the Palestian cause as much as it was against the war on Iraq.

In 2002 when you went to an International ANSWER rally, you heard speakers complaining about every world issue, and only roughly 20 percent about the Iraq war, the neo-conservative movement, corrupt U.S. politics, oil companies, and why America should pursue a policy of peace. If you went to enough of these rallies, you soon discovered that all the different groups speaking where really part of International ANSWER. When an organization uses front-groups to give itself the appearance of more support than it has, this is called lying. It does not bode well.

After the war started, ANSWER continued to march as if this tactic worked. Then ANSWER itself fell apart and so did large-scale marches, possibly a good development since marches did not work against a smirking administration steering the armored car of history. ANSWER's promotion of pro-Palestinian causes probably is its only lasting effect. And ANSWER did so always in a way that was overwhelming, one-sided, and distorted. In ANSWER literature, Jewish history starts in 1948, maybe 1967. That's very convenient--and laughable--except that many people do not know the history either of the Middle East or Israel, either in the 20th century, the 1st century AD, or before. In 2004, ANSWER's Brian Becker said at an MLK celebration, "Jesus was a Palestinian." This final erasure of history is exactly the mentality that leads to slavery, persecution, and genicide.

Now some leftist activists (or maybe they are really Internet pontificators) would like to pretend that pro-Israeli Americans are in control of the agenda. Some people would like to forget that the Bush administration lacks a single Jewish cabinet member, and much of this pro-Israeli tilt is from fundamentalist Christians. These same activists also would like to abandon economic analysis of U.S. events and actions to embrace race-baiting analysis and conspiracy theory. This is a dangerous road to go down. Of course, it is this type of politics that has made Karl Rove's Republican agenda so sellable, or should I say, successful.

In an article such as "Paul Wolfowitz’s Heart of Darkness" by William Hughes on Baltimore Indymedia, it is hard to tell that this article is actually race-baiting anti-Jewish propaganda. However, if you think that Hughes' main goal is to single out Jewish Americans as responsible for the second Iraq war, it becomes clear that is all the article is. Hughes calls Wolfowitz the "architect of the Iraq war" based on no proof, though we do know Wolfowitz is Jewish. We also know that Wolfowitz worked for U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 and 2003, worked for U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney during the first Bush administration, and in between has been an academic. In fact, in Bob Woodward's "Bush at War," Woodward reports that Donald Rumsfeld was the first person to mention attacking Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney was the attacks biggest PR representative in the media. Why does Hughes only focus on Wolfowitz? Because it fits his agenda to do so.

Of cource Wolfowitz was part of a policy team that planned the 2003 attack on Iraq. However, only in the world of racists does an employee control the actions of their boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Racists think so, though if they go to work themselves they surely know that their boss controls them. Tellingly, Rumsfeld still pursues the Iraq war in the same manner in 2006 as in 2003 and 2004, though Wolfowitz is long gone. Cheney continues his same activities though his chief of staff I. Lewis Libby has been terminated.

In Hughes' more recent piece "Kevin Zeese: “Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!” we see the same distortion, subtle but obvious to an intelligent and knowledgable reader. The most telltale sign in the article is that Hughes' cites Connecticut Jewish Democratic Senator Joseph Liberman as the pro-Israeli Jewish "traitor" (his implication) behind Congressional support for attacking Iran. It is a tell tale sign that Hughes does not mention a single other Congressional support for an attack in the article. This erasure of history enables Hughes to create that impression Liberman controls Congress, or is even typical of Congress.

While Lieberman does foolishly support this position, Hughes fails to mention that Congress is controlled by Republicans. Republican Senate and House leaders Bill Frist and Dennis Hastart and formerly Tom Delay control the Congress, all self-described Christian Americans. In fact, Lieberman is not even a member of his own party's leadership. In contrast, Jewish-American Democratic Senator from New York Chuck Schumer is a member of his party's leadership, and he is against prevemptive war against Iran and other countries. Interestingly Schumer is not mentioned. THAT would serve the purpose of the article, would it? This distortion and absence of context does help Hughes create the idea that Jewish Americans control the Congress, the White House, and the war on Iraq (please ignore Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of staff, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al.)

Interestingly, a Gore-Lieberman administration likely would not have attacked Iraq in 2003, and would not be threatening to bomb Iran today. In fact, a Clinton-Gore administration had begun diplomatic talks with Iran for the first time since the late 1970s. The rise of a more vitrolic Iran is likely due to the 2003 Iraq war than an anti-American agenda itself, and so would not have happened in absence of Bush's policy in Iraq. This blow-back policy failure of Bush should be seen even by Republicans as the blunder it is.

People who have knowledge of history and politics have a responsibility that goes beyond shrill rhetoric and name-calling. If they misuse it, whether on behalf of Karl Rove or Ralph Nadar, doesn't actually matter. It's the same nefarious tactic. It's the same agenda with a different name. It's a different flag but the same crime. It's not a form a justice, but injustice.