In liberal democracies lobbyists are part of the system.

Special interest groups try to lobby governments to change policies, pass laws, or allocate funds to benefit their groups.

The more rich and powerful a given group is, the more effective its lobbying becomes. No lobby group should cross the legal line and bribe politicians or government officials, but an even more serious situation occurs when a group lobbying for a foreign country does so against its own country's national interests.

Recently two renowned American academics, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, wrote a major research paper titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which reported on how powerful the American pro-Israel lobby is and how it is working against American national interests.

Both are leading American political scientists with a respected track record. Prof. Mearsheimer authored "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Walt wrote "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy."

So you'd think that in free America, if two accomplished academics write an 83-page research paper on any topic, their findings would be evaluated objectively on their own merits. Yes, but with one glaring exception - not if the paper deals with the American pro-Israel lobby and has negative content to share!

The tactics traditionally employed by any influential lobbyists against its critics are basically twofold: first, try to suppress publication of the offending research (much harder now, thanks to the Internet), and secondly, to smear the researchers' reputations, harass them, have them fired from their jobs, etc.

In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt say the American pro-Israel lobby is so strong that they doubted their paper would be printed in any American-based publication. One clear reason why is found in their warning that the pro-Israel lobby has pushed to exaggerate to the media and public the importance of protecting Israel as a key part of American foreign policy.

The Mearsheimer and Walt report also calls AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the "de facto agent for a foreign government," and notes that AIPAC has now forged an ominous alliance with conservative evangelical Christian groups, many of whom believe that Jesus Christ will literally build a physical "New Jerusalem" at the biblical Second Coming.

"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country -- in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," Walt and Mearsheimer write.

"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat," they continue, "has [placed] the causal relationship backwards: the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult."

The authors also question the argument that Israel deserves American support as the only democracy in the Middle East, arguing that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values."

For example; "Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."

Today the American pro-Israel lobby has become the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the world, supplanting the British pro-Israel lobby that dominated there from the early 1900s through the mid-1970s.

In their excellent 1975 book, "Publish It Not," British MP Michael Adams and journalist Christopher Mayhew outline their suffering at the hands of the British pro-Israel lobby for speaking the truth. Their book is a must-read for anyone interested in the history of the international pro-Israel lobby, as much as Mearsheimer and Walt's paper is today.

The essence of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is that the American pro-Israel lobby has so successfully influenced American foreign policy in the Middle East that Washington now places the security and interests of Israel ahead of the security and interests of the United States and its own people - a situation that the authors state "has no equal in American history."

St. Jerome said, "If an offence come out of the truth, better it is that the offence come than that the truth be concealed."

True and sobering words indeed, and not a moment too soon to act on them.

Hevesi, who as the sole trustee of New York State's Common Retirement Fund oversees over $1b. of investments in Israel, added that he expects investments in Israel to continue to grow regardless of political circumstances.

"The investment community is not structured to issue a resolution of support [for political developments]. It speaks by its actions," he said. "The amount of investment has gone up and indications have been very strong from US investors that this will continue, politics not with standing."

He explained that given its stable democracy, stable currency, government that is encouraging private investment, and a regulatory system that is fair and smart and rational, Israel was an attractive arena for investors based purely on financial considerations.

Hevesi arrived in the country, on his 26th visit, as part of the World Pension Forum mission to Israel last week. During his stay, he also received the IVA Israel Hi-tech award at the Israel Venture Association Annual Hi-tech conference 2006.

The award comes against the backdrop of a commitment the New York State fund made earlier this year to create a private equity fund that would invest $100m. in Israeli hi-tech through venture capital funds. The fund is being managed by financial consulting firm Hamilton Lane, which recently opened an office in Tel Aviv for that purpose and to enhance its contact with Israeli clients for whom it invests in the US.

And while Hevesi stressed that the $100m. million is "a done deal," no investments have yet been made.

Erik Hirsch, Chief Investment Officer at Hamilton Lane, said the company was in the process of interviewing fund managers and that it would be making its first investment shortly.

This latest commitment would bring New York's investments in Israel to $1.55b., about 1% of its total $128b. holdings.

Just over half the fund's Israeli investments are in government bonds, while it also holds shares in top companies such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Aladdin Knowledge Systems, which provides information-technology security products, and Nice Systems, a developer of digital- recording technology.

In addition, the fund has put $250m. into Markstone Capital Group, making it the anchor investor in Israel's largest private equity fund.

Looking ahead, and provided he is reelected to office later this year, Hevesi hinted at a possible collaboration between New York and Israel, "to connect Israeli brain power with the US investment capacity and New York brain power," he said, noting the enormous potential that lies in the nano-technology field.

Hevesi was elected New York State Comptroller in 2003 and is running for a second term on the Democratic ticket.

Haas, who's Jewish, expressed his "genuine" remorse and conceded his hate-mongering actions were "just as bad as theirs," court heard.

Haas was given a six-month conditional sentence, 12 months probation and was ordered to write a letter of apology to the Arab and Muslim associations at Ryerson and perform 100 hours of community service.

The first thing I noticed about the conference, besides the sheer volume of participants, was the carefully manufactured atmosphere of fear and urgency. The cavernous hall that hosted all our meals and plenary sessions was always filled with dramatic classical music, red lighting and gigantic signs reading "Now Is The Time." That, combined with the montages of terrorism footage projected onto six giant screens, whipped the audience into a "Save Israel" fervor that most found inspiring. By the time we finished our meal, the audience seemed eager to agree to anything that would protect Israel - even war.

The conservative slant of the conference became obvious as I chose "Policy Perspectives: How the Democrats and Republicans View Foreign Affairs" for my first breakout session. The Republican speaker, John Podhoretz of The New York Post, got to have the first word and the last word on almost every question. Podhoretz insulted the Democratic Party, calling it "schizophrenic" and "weak" because of its division on certain issues, and calling Democratic protests about the Iraq war "inappropriate and dangerous."

Democratic speaker Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democratic Network, responded: "Debate, besides being a sign of health in a party, is important to any democracy." He addressed the "mishandling" of the Iraq war: "The Republican Party only cares about winning the war militarily, which isn't enough. We need to win culturally as well. We need to win the war and win the peace. The Republicans have won the war, but lost the peace."

Podhoretz interrupted, saying that the Democrats should have been "loyal and responsible" by supporting the war, instead of "hostile."

The mealtime plenary sessions taught me the most about the mindset of our country and about the art of rhetoric. Each speaker played upon the audience's deepest fears and greatest hopes. Even after four days, it never ceased to amaze me how easy it was to get a standing ovation out of the crowd. Even platitudes such as "I believe in democracy" or, even better, "I believe in Israel" had the crowds on their feet. How much political integrity and courage does it take to say "I will defend Israel" to thousands of pro-Israel activists? Flattery seemed to work as well, which acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proved by saying, "Thank God we have AIPAC."

Overall, I felt the conference made every issue black and white. You're either for Israel or against it. You're either pro-Democracy or pro-evil regimes, as Israeli candidate for prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu put it, "The world is split between those who oppose terror and those who appease it."

The speakers and "informational" videos left no grey area, no place for dialogue or debate, and certainly no place for dissent. I especially squirmed at the parallels AIPAC drew between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hitler. To the tune of more dramatic classical music, the six enormous screens flashed back and forth between Hitler giving anti-Jew speeches and Ahmadinejad giving anti-Israel speeches. The famous post-Holocaust mantra "Never Again" popped up several times. Everything was geared toward persuading the audience that another Holocaust is evident ... unless we get them first. Now, I don't dispute that Iran's leader is a Holocaust denier or even that he could attack Israel, but I mind very much being forced to think he's pure evil through clever sound bites and colorful images.

The screens faded to black and the speeches began, and I recognized, beneath the rhetoric, a battle cry. As U.N. Ambassador John Bolton promised "painful and tangible consequences for Iran," and as Vice President Dick Cheney said, "The terrorists have declared war on the civilized world, but we'll declare victory," I noted the scariest division of all: You're either pro-war or pro-Holocaust.

Despite all this madness, I did enjoy some aspects of the conference. First of all, picture the hilarity of thousands of Jews staying in the same hotel. Phrases like "Could you shlep this bag up to my room, please?" or "I'm shvitzing like a pig" were common in the lobby. I also loved meeting students from around the country, regardless of whether I agreed with them politically. The chance to hear all three candidates for Israeli prime minister via satellite was also priceless. But in reflection, after returning from the belly of the conservative beast, I support Israel with all my heart, but I do not support AIPAC.

Alice Ollstein is a senior at Santa Monica High School.

Eitan said the idea to set up the memorial was suggested by the Havana Mayor, who is renovating the city's old quarter.

The mayor is a professor of history and teaches at the University of Havana. For years, he researched the history of the Jews of Havana, and renovated a series of hotels which were in Jewish ownership. He also renovated the Rachel hotel, which offers its guests Israeli meals.

Eitan has enormous citrus lands in Cuba, amounting to around the size of Gaza.

Castro's door always open

He set up an enormous real estate project in the country, together with an associate, including 18 residential buildings and a commercial shopping center, at around USD 200 million.

Until he became a minister in Israel, Eitan would frequently visit Cuba, where he lived in a beautiful villa, and where he would sculpt in the basement.

Recently, he flew to Cuba to cut off business activities there, as Israeli law demands for members of the government.

A photograph of Fidel Castro hangs in Eitan's office. The two met in 1994, when Eitan received a medal for agricultural investment, and from that time Castro's door has been open to Eitan.