‘The Transparent Cabal’ mentioned in ‘The Independent’ (UK) newspaper

Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book was just mentioned in “The Independent”  by long-time British journalist Richard Ingrams who, in
discussing the role of the neoconservatives (regarding the current Iraq war
investigation),  writes:

“These facts and many in the same vein can be found in two scholarly,
well-argued books – The Israel Lobby by Professors John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt
, and The Transparent Cabal by Stephen Sniegoski. I recommend them to Howard Jacobson and anyone else who may be interested in this important issue.”



December 12, 2009

Richard Ingrams’s Week: Ian Fleming’s creations are preferable to reality

I don’t know who persuaded the head of MI6 to go public, but whoever it was made a terrible mistake.

You could say a similar mistake was made by the producers of the James Bond films when they changed 007’s chief M into Dame Judi Dench. Dame Judi is, as we know, a national treasure, much loved and cherished for her performances at the Old Vic and elsewhere. But she hardly seems the sort of person who is going to put the fear of God into Smersh or al-Qa’ida.

Much the same is true of Sir John Sawers, the real-life M, who could be seen live on TV this week giving his evidence to Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry. Once the private secretary to Tony Blair, Sir John Sawers, umm-ing and ah-ing his way along, seemed a singularly unimpressive figure, the sort you wouldn’t even pass the time of day with at the office Christmas party. Equally uninspiring was another of nature’s stooges, Sir John Scarlett, formerly head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who also gave evidence to the inquiry and who seemed to find it a strain putting his words in the right order.

Of course, it may be the case that the heads of MI6 have always been like that, and it was only us poor suckers, fed on Ian Fleming’s fantasies, who imagined them as quietly spoken supermen nursing war wounds and speaking 16 languages.

But if they weren’t at all like that, at least they had the good sense to remain in the shadows, leaving us with our comforting illusions.

The evidence is there in print

It may be due to the popularity of the internet but people don’t seem to be reading books as much as they used to. The other day, for example, the Daily Mail headlined the “exclusive” news that our faulty intelligence about Saddam’s WMD had been provided by an Iraqi cab driver. But I read that story originally in a fascinating book called Curveball which I mentioned in this column in February last year.

I hesitate to accuse my colleague Howard Jacobson of ignorance because he is an exceptionally well-read man, more so than me. But all I would say in defence of his critique of my recent comments about the American neocons is that I read it all in books. As long ago as 1996, three of the most influential neocons – Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser – wrote a report, A Clean Break, for the incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.

A few years later, those same men, now in the American government, were advising George Bush to adopt exactly the same policy. And it was not me but an Israeli journalist, Akiva Eldar who at the time warned the neocons that they “are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests”.

These facts and many in the same vein can be found in two scholarly, well-argued books – The Israel Lobby by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, and The Transparent Cabal by Stephen Sniegoski. I recommend them to Howard Jacobson and anyone else who may be interested in this important issue.

A politician unafraid to speak honestly

Asked by a rival paper to choose my book of the year I nominated Chris Mullin’s diary A View from the Foothills, which I have just finished reading.

At a time when MPs are getting such a bad press it is reassuring to find at least one of them who is a decent human being genuinely concerned with the welfare of his fellow human beings and not just someone on the make – which is what everybody, after yet more revelations about expenses, nowadays assumes all MPs to be.

A junior minister, first under John Prescott then with Clare Short and lastly at the Foreign Office in the days of Jack Straw, Mullin never loses sight of how limited his powers are, even, for example, when it comes to trying to control the spread of Cupressus leylandii.

Interesting, too, to be reminded of the powerful spell that Tony Blair exercised over MPs even one as worldly wise as Chris Mullin. As the dogged defender of the Birmingham Six, who posed with them on the steps of the law courts after their eventual acquittal, Mullin knew better than anyone the way in which judges are prepared to ignore the vital evidence in order to uphold the status quo. Yet when Lord Hutton produced his shameful whitewash of Blair in 2004, Mullin shared the general feelings of relief, reporting that “suddenly a great cloud lifted” with Blair looking “happier than he has done for months”.

Never mind. I can forgive Mullin anything, if only for this description of Christmas: “We opened our presents by the tree… I did my best to look cheerful but I find it a deeply depressing experience watching children who have everything piling up new possessions. Such a relief when it was over.”


Press TV Interview with Dr. Stephen Sniegoski (Author of ‘The Transparent Cabal’):



Britain’s Inquiry into the Iraq War and the Israel Lobby Taboo (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski)


The Chilcot Inquiry: Britain’s 9/11 Commission


Richard Ingrams UK Independent article referenced above also mentioned the Mearsheimer/Walt (‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ book – see http://www.israellobbybook.com  & http://tinyurl.com/mearsheimer as well).

One just has to read Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book to see how the JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons pressured for US (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney whose wife is a fellow at AEI) to invade Iraq in order to secure the realm for Israel in accordance with the ‘A Clean Break’ agenda (access the ‘A Clean Break’ link at the upper right of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM if interested further):

In-Depth Discussion: In Israel’s Interest – US Policy Influenced by Media and Neocon Agenda:


A New and Revealing Study of the Influence of the Neocons
The Making of Recent U.S. Middle East Policies
(favorable review of  Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book):


The Middle East Policy Council (MEPC which Ambassador Chas Freeman was the head of ) did a positive review of ‘The Transparent Cabal’ in their ‘Middle East Policy’ publication which is referenced at the following URL:

Review of Transparent Cabal in Middle East Policy


Will Stephen J. Sniegoski’s Dissection of the Neocons Get ‘Boycotted’ (see links posted at bottom of comments section)?


Karen Kwiatkowski review in “The Independent Review.”


Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal”:

Civil War(s) in Iraq/Afghanistan: Back Door to War on Iran (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski):


Iraq war was for Israel (not for Iraqi oil!)


John Mearsheimer on the Afghan quagmire:

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:



The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel:



12 Responses to “‘The Transparent Cabal’ mentioned in ‘The Independent’ (UK) newspaper”

  • Patriot says:

    Britain’s Inquiry into the Iraq War and the Israel Lobby Taboo


    Press TV interview with Dr. Stephen Sniegoski (Author of ‘The Transparent Cabal’)




    Richard Ingrams’s Week: Will Zionists’ links to Iraq invasion be brushed aside?

    Saturday, 28 November 2009


    Writing in The Independent on Sunday, our former ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles, points out that two members of the Iraq inquiry are Jewish and that one of them, Sir Martin Gilbert, “has a record of active support for Zionism”.

    “Such facts,” says Mr Miles, “are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media.” (This column has been a lonely exception to the rule.)

    Sure enough, to prove the ambassador’s point, he was swiftly denounced by a leading representative of the mainstream media, The Times. “Oliver Miles’s contribution to the debate is extraordinary and disgraceful,” proclaimed an editorial on Wednesday. “The members of the panel are eminent in scholarship and public service. They should be allowed to get on with their deliberations without a volley of snide attack and irrelevant innuendo.”

    The ambassador’s comments and the attention paid to them by The Times may be helpful in the long run, if only by drawing attention to the Israeli dimension in the Anglo-US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a dimension that hitherto has scarcely been mentioned. Yet it is a fact that the campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein was initiated, well before 9/11, by a group of influential American neocons, notably Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz (once described by Time magazine as “the godfather of the Iraq war”) nearly all of whom were ardent Zionists, in many cases more concerned with preserving the security of Israel than that of the US.

    Given that undeniable fact, the pro-Israeli bias of Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Lawrence Freedman, both of them supporters of the 2003 invasion, is a perfectly respectable point to raise. It is equally legitimate to ask if at any point the panel will investigate or even refer to the US neocons and their links to Israel. Call me snide if you like, but I very much doubt they will.

    Don’t shed a tear for closed Borders

    Not long ago, in the massive Borders bookshop at Oxford Circus, I asked for the biography section, only to be told that there wasn’t one. At other times, I have dropped into the shop on my way to the office, only to be driven out by the pounding background music. A few weeks ago, the shop closed down and now the whole business has gone into liquidation.

    The usual sorts of explanations are on offer – the effects of the recession, fierce competition from internet retailers and the supermarkets. The plain fact is that the bookshops have closed down because they weren’t any good.

    You had only to look around to see why piles and piles of books by or about celebrities – Jeremy Clarkson, Ant and Dec, Stephen Fry – filled the windows and the main display tables as you came in. These books were there not because Borders thought they were what the public might like to buy, but because the publishers had paid big money for them to be promoted like this.

    The bookshop was now no different from a big DIY store renting out its shelves to publishers. The retailer played little part in the process and there was certainly no need for him or her to have any special knowledge of books.

    Publishers will be in mourning following the collapse of Borders, but it might turn out to be good news for small, independent bookshops – or anyone, for that matter, who believes that there is a world of difference between selling books and selling pots of paint.

    All in a flap about the habits of red kites

    A correspondent takes me to task for my remarks last week about the climate-change deniers, in the course of which I quoted William Cobbett as saying: “Never write about any matter that you do not well understand.”

    All very well, the correspondent says, but it’s a bit rich “coming from someone who spouts off about red kites when obviously knowing nothing about ecology”.

    I will admit it. I’m not even sure that I know what ecology means. As for kites, all I have done is to question the view of kite-lovers that these birds of prey are essentially benefactors to the community as they live on carrion and road kill.

    Funnily enough, it was Cobbett himself who helped to persuade me that this rosy view of the kite was misplaced. Writing in America in 1797, he describes a gathering of lawyers being intimidated by the arrival of the US Chief Justice Thomas McKean: “The little scrubby lawyers (with whom the courts of Philadelphia are continually crowded) crouched from fear just like a brood of poultry when the kite is preparing to pounce in amongst them…”

    Unlike me, Cobbett, a farmer’s son, knew a great deal about such matters and will himself have observed the scene of savagery that he describes, which suggests that the kite is not quite the peaceful carrion-guzzling creature that the RSPB brigade would have us believe.

    Of course, it is possible that the habits of kites are nowadays different from what they were in the 18th century. I will await the views of the expert ecologists on this point.

    Additional via http://tinyurl.com/IsraelvoiceonIraqwarinquiry

  • Patriot says:


    Blair Iraq war admission sparks fresh outrage


    I can’t wait for the Charlatan (as Scotland on Sunday columnist, Gerald Warner, calls Blair — amongst other things!) to appear before this inquiry. It will be such joy to see this pathological liar squirm.
    Even more joyous would be to see him, Bush, and all others in both US and UK administrations responsible for the attack on Iraq, being led off in chains to prison, therein to serve the remainder of their criminal lives in very small cells.

    Angie Tibbs


    Yep! Charlatan…lacking any scintilla of humanity

    I recall Tony Blair a la Barack Obama possessed great oratorial skills! We know now ofcourse, it seems ridiculous that it wasn’t obvious at the start. But, such was his effortless skill as a dissembler, it was impossible to tell. When he first came to power, young, vigorous, intelligent, compassionate, it was actually possible to feel optimistic.

    What a clever politician he is. When he drove Britain into war in Iraq against the will of the people he faced a tricky Party Conference. He responded with a superb brainstorming speech, appealing to the hearts of the delegates with his “Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world” and the need to end the misery in “slums of Gaza “. It was a helluva performance, the delegates rose to applaud with a tear in the eye, he had fooled them all, and the killing in Iraq could go on.

    There was, I believe, a seminal moment in his premiership, which came a few months earlier than that speech. He was in Japan , and on camera an aide came over and whispered in his ear that Dr David Kelly was dead. Blair physically blanched, he almost staggered, his face for a moment took on a haunted look. Dr Kelly, was the world’s leading expert on the status of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programme. He knew there were none, and had started to talk to journalists about it. He had to be silenced, so he was murdered, then his body dumped in the woods where he was later found.

    If you find that hard to believe, look at the evidence given at the Hutton cover-up; I mean inquiry. Not the Hutton Report, which was half a gallon of finest British establishment whitewash, but the actual evidence given at the inquiry. At that moment in Japan , the last bit of his soul died. One doesn’t have to be a ‘wild conspiracy theorist’ to recognize that. He was a hollow man. Driven by greed pure and simple.

    Blair has step by pre-determined step dissolved the division between the political state and the corporate state entirely. The British two party system is now the American one party system and his task is done.

    There isn’t a corporate boardroom in the world that wouldn’t be honored to have his snout in their trough, following in the footsteps of Kissinger as the next generation of amoral robber barons.

    Debbie Menon

  • Patriot says:

    The “bounds of tolerance” not yet exceeded

    Absolved of crimethink!



    Defeat for Traditional Enemies of Free Speech in Africa

    Professor Stephen Sniegoski (Washington) Absolved of Hate Speech Crime (South Africa)

    by Sniegoski

    YES, my presentation of the neocons as the driving force for the Iraq war brought about the charge of “hate speech” in the new, democratic South Africa.

    In March [2003], I made a presentation on this taboo subject in a radio interview for the South African national FM radio station SAfm, which is part of the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

    An apparent Jewish gentleman, Dr. Cohen, charged that not only was my radio presentation anti-Semitic but that a search of the Internet showed that my presentation had “firm root in previous anti-Semitic hate-speech.” (Boy, I guess all my stuff on the Web can really get me in trouble!)

    The South African court (Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa) ultimately rejected the charge of “hate speech” and ruled that if the complainant’s argument to prohibit my presentation were accepted, this “would spell the end of freedom of expression in South Africa.” And I think this is exactly what was sought regarding the airing of anything that might seem the least bit negative regarding Jews.

    Here is the summary of the case [repeated in full below]:

    “Interview with professor of history on his theory that pro-Israel Jewish right-wingers influenced the USA to wage war on Iraq. Complaint that interview constituted hate speech against Jewish people. Tribunal found that interview and theory not of such inflammatory nature as to exceed the bounds of tolerance. Tribunal also found that there was no incitement to cause harm. Second point of complaint that there was imbalance in the programme because broadcaster failed to air opposing view. Tribunal found on the facts that an invitation was extended to the Jewish Board of Deputies but the Board failed to put forward its view. Offer by broadcaster to present an opposing point of view not accepted by representatives of Jewish viewpoint who set conditions, unacceptable to the broadcaster, for participation in programme. No contravention of Code. The complaint was dismissed.”
    I might add that I have never presented myself as a “professor.” Somehow, those South Africans seem to be under the impression that people with Ph.D.’s in history automatically become college professors. Maybe South Africa is a utopia for historians; in the good old USA I’ve been told I was lucky to get a job answering the telephone. I also have never claimed to be from New York. But from Africa maybe New York and Washington seem the same.

    I might also add that the host of the radio program, Eric Miyeni, was shortly thereafter fired. Probably just coincidental., you know, sort of like those few US congressfolk who dare to buck the Zionist lobby quickly becoming ex-congressfolk. The South African radio station said it was simply an issue of money. But there were intimations that he was removed because he was too controversial.

    “The presenter (Eric Miyeni) has been hauled before the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) for his reckless statements during his four months on air.”


    Well, sorry about that Eric.

    If he needed support, I could vouch for the fact that I did all the talking in our interview. But then again, he didn’t refute my claims. And he did invite me, after all. And what I had to say was “controversial.” Also, there does not now appear to be a transcript of my presentation at the SAFM web site. Guess it was tossed down the memory hole.




    Case No: 2003/13 SABC (SAFM) – Eric Miyeni Show – Hate Speech

    Dr Y Cohen (Complainant)

    SABC (SAFM) (Respondent)

    Tribunal: Prof Kobus van Rooyen SC (Chairperson)
    Mr Ratha Mokgoatlheng (Deputy Chairperson),
    Prof Willem de Klerk,
    Prof Sunette Lötter,
    Prof Henning Viljoen

    For Complainant: The Complainant did not attend

    For Respondent: Ms Dorothy van Tonder, Manager: Broadcast Compliance, Policy and Regulatory Affairs


    Interview with professor of history on his theory that pro-Israel Jewish right-wingers influenced the USA to wage war on Iraq. Complaint that interview constituted hate speech against Jewish people. Tribunal found that interview and theory not of such inflammatory nature as to exceed the bounds of tolerance. Tribunal also found that there was no incitement to cause harm.

    Second point of complaint that there was imbalance in the programme because broadcaster failed to air opposing view. Tribunal found on the facts that an invitation was extended to the Jewish Board of Deputies but the Board failed to put forward its view.

    Offer by broadcaster to present an opposing point of view not accepted by representatives of Jewish viewpoint who set conditions, unacceptable to the broadcaster, for participation in programme. No contravention of Code. The complaint was dismissed.


    HP Viljoen [1] On Friday 7 March 2003 at 14:30 the Respondent broadcast an interview with a certain Professor Sniegoski, a history professor from New York. Eric Miyeni of SAfm conducted the interview. The topic of discussion was some probable reasons for the impending war by the United Sates of America on Iraq.

    At the time of the interview the war had not commenced yet. The interviewer’s interest in this topic was roused by a paper written by the said Prof Sniegoski titled “War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel”.

    The interview was a recorded one and comprised a few questions put by the interviewer and for the rest the said professor expounded on the theory that he developed in his paper. [2] Prof Sniegoski’s theory, in short, is that a group of people, whom he calls neo-conservative rightwing Zionists, is able to influence the Bush administration to the extent that the USA would wage a war against Iraq, but the country that would really profit from the war would be Israel whose security interests would improve through all this.

    He rejects the popular theory that the USA would be waging war against Iraq for its oil and also the humanitarian theory that the United States wants to save the Iraqis from their dictator. [3]

    This interview and the theory expounded by Prof Sniegoski upset the Complainant. He lodged a complaint and submitted written argument of some 6 pages together with an appendix of 11 pages to the BCCSA. The complaint by Dr Cohen can be summarized in his own words as follows:

    “At its purest form, taken to its logical conclusion, Prof Sniegoski’s theory is no different than all the other reincarnations of the myth of the Jew as a war monger. It is simply the same argument modified to fit current circumstances and as such constitutes hate-speech.”
    and “My complaint before the Board of the BCCSA is not that Prof Sniegoski is an anti-Semite. Rather, my complaint is against SAfm for allowing such a person to express his views. That such views were expressed unopposed is even worse.”
    and “Even a rudimentary internet research should have alerted SAfm as to the problematic nature of his views. Not problematic because they are controversial but because of their firm root in previous anti-Semitic hate-speech.” [4]
    From these excerpts it can be gleaned that there are basically two points of complaint before this Tribunal: (a) that the theory of and statements by Prof Sniegoski during the interview constitute hate speech (in contravention of section 16(2) of the South African Constitution, 1996); and (b) that the Respondent failed to present opposing points of view in a programme in which controversial issues of public importance were discussed (in contravention of clause 36.1 of the (new) Code of Conduct of the BCCSA which, by the way, came into operation on the very same day of the broadcast complained of). Hate Speech [5]

    The so-called hate speech clause is one of the limitations imposed on freedom of expression in section 16(2) of the Constitution and is stated as follows:

    The right in subsection (1)(the right to freedom of expression) does not extend to – (a) . (b) . (c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. [6]
    On quite a few occasions, this Tribunal has had the opportunity to decide on complaints regarding broadcasts dealing with what we could call the Middle Eastern conflict. The support by the USA for the State of Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians within and other neighbouring Arab states beyond its borders, is a popular topic for discussion in programmes that deal with controversial issues of public importance.

    A recent such complaint concerned the documentary by John Pilger, “Palestine is still the issue” and the debate that immediately followed the broadcast of the documentary. See J Shoot, EMETSA and Others vs e-tv, Case No:08/2003. [7]

    The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been the subject of debate for a very long time, especially since the start of the latest intifada of the Palestinians against the Jews.

    With the direct military involvement of the USA in a country (Iraq) not far from Israel, the interest has moved from the more localised Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the regionalised Middle Eastern conflict.

    It is not surprising that the theorists and commentators have found a role for Israel to play in the conflict with Iraq if the importance of Israel in the Middle East is taken into account. This theory is not new.

    Prof Sniegoski says in his interview: “I don’t claim that I’m original in my thesis at all; other people have said the same thing”.

    The question is whether Prof Sniegoski’s statements constitute hate speech. [8] In a case decided by this Tribunal, Human Rights Commission of SA v SABC and reported in 2003 BCLR 92 (BCCSA), the test for hate speech in a broadcast was laid down as being an objective one.

    This means that the norm that we have to apply is not the subjective view of any of the Commissioners on this Tribunal or of any other person, but what the reasonable listener would not tolerate. Taking into account that the reasonable listener of this programme would be a more serious, informed adult than the average listener, we think that such listeners would realise that this is but one theory on the reasons for the war against Iraq and would not accept this as the ultimate truth. We find that there is nothing of such inflammatory nature in what was said, that it exceeds the bounds of tolerance. [9]

    Section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution has a second requirement that has to be met before a finding of hate speech can be made: the broadcast must also incite to harm. Degradation was found to be an element of the requirement to incite to harm in the Human Rights Commission case, quoted above.

    After carefully studying the transcript of the interview, it is clear to us that the interview was in the nature of a popular-academic discourse and definitely not in the nature of political speech, with the intention to arouse peoples’ emotions.

    Any reasonably informed listener would know that in all wars the self-interest of the attacking state is usually the motivation for such war. If the theory is that some pro-Israeli right-wingers in the Bush administration, in promoting the interests of Israel, was able to influence the USA to the extent that the last mentioned was willing to start with military action, we find nothing degrading therein of the Israelis as a race or ethnic group.

    We fail to find any incitement to cause harm in the interview complained of. Failure to present an opposing viewpoint [10] The second point of complaint, as we understand it, is that there was lack of balance in the broadcast. Clause 36.1 of the Code of Conduct that we apply, reads: In presenting a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed, a licensee shall make reasonable efforts to fairly present opposing points of view either in the same programme or in a subsequent programme forming part of the same series of programmes presented within a reasonable period of time of the original broadcast and within substantially the same time slot. [11]

    There is substance in the argument by the Jewish Board of Deputies that the presenter did not go to any lengths to maintain a balance by asking critical questions. Evidence was placed before the Tribunal that the [South African] Jewish Board of Deputies [SAJBOD] complained to the SABC after the broadcast of the interview, on the same day, namely 7 March.

    The Board was then invited to participate in Eric Miyeni’s show on 13 March. Their response was that they would consider participating, provided they could have a meeting with Eric beforehand to discuss what should be said on the programme.

    This condition was contrary to SABC policy and the Board was informed that this condition was not acceptable to the Corporation. In reaction to this, the Board declined the invitation.

    We were informed that the SABC sent an e-mail to the Jewish Board of Deputies on 17 March in which the invitation to participate in Eric’s programme was repeated. The evidence is that the Board did not respond to this invitation. [12]

    The Complainant was at pains to inform us that he is not a member of the Jewish Board of Deputies. The Board is the obvious choice in South Africa for a spokesperson to put forward the Jewish viewpoint in public discussions on controversial matters like these. It would not have been the first time that they would have participated in public debate over the air.

    There was no legal duty on the Respondent to invite the Complainant or any other individual Jewish person to put forward an opposing viewpoint on the programme. From the above we conclude that the Respondent made all reasonable efforts to present an opposing point of view in a subsequent programme, but that the Jewish Board of Deputies declined the invitation. [13]

    In correspondence between this Commission and the Jewish Board of Deputies, their objection to participating in a subsequent programme on this matter is stated, inter alia, as follows:

    “We in fact regarded it as impudent and opportunistic of Mr Miyeni to effectively seek to dodge the substance of our complaint regarding his conduct by simply inviting us onto his show. He would have been well aware that in such an atmosphere it would not have been possible to properly present our case against him personally and instead the Board would have been put into a position in which it would be required to refute scurrilous anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Effectively, therefore, it would not be Mr Miyeni but the Jewish people that would be publicly put on trial.” [14]
    We cannot agree with this argument. First of all, the broadcaster is entitled to make and implement its own policy regarding discussion programmes of this nature. As long as it complies with the provisions of the Broadcasting Code, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the policy.

    Secondly, it is not clear on what ground the Board predicts that it would be the Jewish people that would be publicly put on trial, should it participate on such a programme. This, to our mind, would be the democratic way for the Board to put forward its view and to convince the listeners that Prof Sniegoski’s opinion is wrong. We believe that the Board let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers. [15]

    We finally have to deal with the Complainant’s argument to the effect that by inviting the Jewish Board of Deputies to put forward their argument, an image of legitimacy is projected on Prof Sniegoski’s views.

    He argues further that the interview had already done damage (to the Jewish cause, we presume), damage that will not disappear by airing an opposing view. This, to our minds, is a self-defeating argument. The very essence of freedom of expression is to allow everyone to express his or her opinion. In this sense everyone’s opinion is “legitimate”.

    How can the views of Prof Sniegoski be exposed as being “illegitimate” (as the Complainant apparently wishes to achieve) if no opposing viewpoint is allowed to be aired? As to the complaint about the “damage” done: this can only be undone by allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired.

    Should the Complainant’s argument be correct, we should never allow arguments to be aired so as to oppose viewpoints that are shocking, disturbing or unpopular. This, according to the Complainant, would lend legitimacy to such viewpoints. This argument, if accepted, would spell the end of freedom of expression in South Africa.

    The complaint is, accordingly, dismissed.

    HP Viljoen 20 October 2003

    The Chairperson, together with Commissioners Mokgoathleng, De Klerk and Lötter concurred with the judgment.


    Eric Miyeni (South Africa)



    Eric Miyeni
    Does anyone have an idea as to where Eric is, SAFM is no longer the same without him.
    Has he been fired?


  • Patriot says:

    Brownfeld Review of Transparent Cabal

    Saturday, January 16, 2010 8:50 AM
    From: “Stephen Sniegoski”


    Brownfeld Review of Transparent Cabal

    The following is an excellent review of my book, The Transparent Cabal, by Allan C. Brownfeld. Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is The Revolution Lobby (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Subcommittee.

    He is editor of Issues of The American Council for Judaism, an associate editor of The Lincoln Review and a contributing editor to such publications as Human Events, The St. Croix Review, and The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    A fuller biography can be found at:


    Allen Brownfeld has also written a more extensive review of The Transparent Cabal, which will appear in the March issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.


    Stephen Sniegoski


    The Role of Neoconservatives – and Israel’s Right Wing – in the War in Iraq January 13,2010

    By Allan C. Brownfeld


    For many Americans, the reasons for the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 remains a mystery. The reasons the Bush administration gave for going to war – that Iraq had ties with al Qaeda, that it possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that, somehow, it was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/ll – have all been proven false. It is, some argue, as if after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Mexico.

    However, a group of men and women in and out of government proposed war with Iraq even before 9/ll. These were the neoconservatives – including such leading Bush administration officials as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and L. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. What motivated these advocates of war with a country that never attacked the U.S. and posed little threat is the subject of an important new book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel (http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal) (Enigma Editions) by Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D.

    Dr. Sniegoski’s focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates the 9/ll terrorist attacks. His first major work on the subject, The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm) was published February l0, 2003 – more than a month before the American attack on Iraq.

    The new book examines the close relationship of the American neoconservatives and the Israeli Likudnik right, and its role as a fundamental driver of the Bush administration’s militant Middle East policy. Sniegoski states, “This orientation is at the root of the explanation for why our policy does not seem to address or correspond with the genuine security needs of the U.S…. Ideology and personal ties have blinded them to what most others clearly see was the foreign policy reality.”

    While U.S. policy traditionally stressed stability in the Middle East, “[T]he neocons called for destabilizing existing regimes…. Likudnik strategy saw the benefit of regional destabilization for its own sake – creating as it would an environment of weak, disunified states or statelets involved in internal and external conflicts that could easily be dominated by Israel…. Thus, unlike a true ‘cabal,’ characterized by secrecy, the neoconservatives’ was a ‘transparent cabal’ – oxymoronic as that term might be.”

    Continue at:


    Brownfeld’s review can also be found at:


    Transparent Cabal Website:


    Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:


  • Patriot says:

    Israel’s voice on Britain’s Iraq Inquiry accuses critics of “anti-Semitism”


  • Exactly, what i was looking for. Thank you.

Leave a Reply