| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: Yes, Blame the Lobby A Response to Prof. Joseph Massad by Je |
| http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Blankfort11.htm
Yes, Blame the Lobby A Response to Prof. Joseph Massad by Jeff
Blankfort
www.dissidentvoice.org April 11, 2006
The appearance last month of a critical article on the "Israel Lobby
and US
Foreign Policy" in the London Review of Books by Professors John
Mearsheimer of
the University of Chicago and Steven Walt, Academic Dean of the Kennedy
Center
at Harvard University, two nationally known academic figures with
impeccable
credentials, propelled into the mainstream an issue that had long been
confined
to the margins, not only by the efforts of the lobby, itself, but by
those on
the Left who prefer to view US foreign policy as being determined by
corporate
elites who are largely unaffected by the agenda of what Noam Chomsky,
the
foremost proponent of this theory, has described as another "ethnic
lobby."
That the authors squarely placed the blame for US policy in the Middle
East and
for the war in Iraq on the influence of the Israel Lobby elicited the
predictable reactions from both camps. The attack dogs of the lobby,
led by Alan
Dershowitz and CAMERA, smeared the article -- an abbreviated version of
a onger
Harvard monograph -- as an updated version of the "Protocols of the
Elders of
Zion," based on sources from "Neo-Nazi" web sites and, of course,
"anti-Semitic."
>From the left, Prof. Chomsky was not long in providing a subtle
dismissal of the
paper on ZNet and on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! After a
perfunctory
sentence praising the two professors for having raised the issue, he
writes, "we
still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my
opinion." His
comments, predictably, were picked up and quoted approvingly in the
Jewish and
mainstream press. What was surprising to this writer, however, was that
the very
first attack from the Left came from someone who had himself been
victimized by
the lobby, Prof. Joseph Massad, of Columbia University.
Three years ago, Massad was the target of The David Project, a
relatively new
entrant to the lobby's ranks, which conducted a witch hunt against him
based on
statements he allegedly made to Jewish students and for allegedly
creating an
uncomfortable atmosphere in his classroom for Jewish students, none of
which
could be substantiated.
Massad's article, "Blaming the Lobby," first appeared in the March
23-29 issue
of Al-Ahram, the English-language Egyptian weekly, and was subsequently
posted
on CounterPunch. What was disturbing was not only Massad's rush to the
lobby's
defense, but that he failed to respond to the points raised by
Mearsheimer and
Walt and provided, instead, what could best be described as a legal
brief for
the Chomsky position. For those unfamiliar with the subject and details
of the
Mearsheimer-Walt paper, it was, no doubt, very convincing.
It was for this reason that, rather than write a general response, I
decided to
examine and refute his article, point by point.
Joseph Massad: "In the last 25 years, many Palestinians and other
Arabs, in the
United States and in the Arab world, have been so awed by the power of
the US
pro-Israel lobby that any study, book, or journalistic article that
exposes the
inner workings, the substantial influence, and the financial and
political power
of this lobby have been greeted with ecstatic sighs of relief that
Americans
finally can see the "truth" and the "error" of their ways.
Jeff Blankfort: There have, in fact, been very few books or articles in
either
the mainstream or alternative media that have attempted to expose the
inner
workings of the Israel lobby and when they have appeared they have
largely been
ignored by the US Left. When they have been mentioned, it has been
largely to
refute them. Moreover, the issue is never on the agenda in
pro-Palestinian
conferences or mentioned at any of the anti-war rallies that call for
an end to
Israeli occupation.
JM: The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and
again by
Washington's regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal and Arab
intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and former
politicians,
and even leftist Arab and American activists who support alestinian
rights,
namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no
longer
contribute to the oppression of Arabs and alestinians and at best it
would be
the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend.
JB: Here Massad disingenuously conflates Washington's corrupt allies in
the Arab
world with those of who have made serious, factual criticisms of the
role that
the Israel Lobby has played in influencing America's Middle East
policies. None
of the latter have advanced the notion that without the lobby, America
might, at
best, be the "the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend."
While this
might be the position held by a few former members of the Foreign
Service, it
has never been advanced by the lobby's Left critics. They have no
illusions
about the evils of US imperialism that have and will continue to exist,
irrespective of the lobby, although the lobby has been useful in
pushing the US
political agenda elsewhere.
JM: What makes this argument persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed,
why are
its claims constantly brandished by Washington's Arab friends to Arab
and
American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the
attraction of
this argument is that it exonerates the United States' overnment from
all the
responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab
world and
gives false hope to many Arabs and alestinians who wish America would
be on
their side instead of on the side of their enemies.
JB: Again, Massad creates a straw man by falling back on Washington's
Arab
friends to set the basis for discrediting Mearsheimer and Walt. There
are those,
including this writer, who are both long time opponents of US imperial
policies,
in general, and serious critics of the Israel Lobby and who in no
manner
exonerate the US from the responsibility for its actions. The latter
seem
non-existent in Massad's viewpoint.
JM: Let me start with the premise of the argument, namely its effect of
shifting
the blame for US policies from the United States onto Israel and its US
lobby.
According to this logic, it is not the United States that should be
held
directly responsible for all its imperial policies in the Arab world
and the
Middle East at large since World War II, rather it is Israel and its
lobby who
have pushed it to launch policies that are detrimental to its own
national
interest and are only beneficial to Israel.
JB: The authors are not absolving the US of its own responsibilities
but trying
to explain how US Middle East policies came to be formed. They are ot
saying
that without the interference of Israel and the Israel Lobby that the
US would
not pursue its imperial interest in the Arab world, but that it would
do so
without generating the problems that US support for Israel has
engendered and
which have been so costly in lives and money.
JM: Establishing and supporting Arab and other Middle East
dictatorships, arming
and training their militaries, setting up their secret police
pparatuses and
training them in effective torture methods and counter-insurgency to be
used
against their own citizens should be blamed, according to the logic of
these
studies, on Israel and its US lobby.
JB: Again, Massad is creating a straw man. The authors are not blaming
the
entirety of US policies on either Israel or its lobby, but dealing with
specific
issues in which US support for Israel has had negative effects on the
region and
US relations in the region.
JM: Blocking all international and UN support for Palestinian rights,
arming and
financing Israel in its war against a civilian population, protecting
srael from
the wrath of the international community should also be blamed not on
the United
States, the studies insist, but on Israel and its lobby.
JB: The authors are essentially correct. Every US president since
Richard Nixon,
with the Rogers Plan in 1969, has made an effort to get Israel to
withdraw from
the territories it occupied in 1967, not out of any love for the
Palestinians,
but because Israel's continuing occupation of those ands, from the
Sinai to the
Golan Heights, was creating unnecessary problems in a region where
maintaining
stability of the regions' oil esources was and remains a necessity.
Every one of
those plans was undermined by the lobby.
In 1975, Gerald Ford, upset because Israel was refusing to disengage
from areas
it had taken in the Sinai during the 1973 war, halted aid to Israel and
publicly
let it be known that he was going to make a major speech that would
call for a
downsizing of US-Israel relations and demanding that Israel to return
to its
1967 borders. Within three weeks, AIPAC presented Ford with a letter
signed by
76 senators, from liberal Democrats to extreme right wing Republicans,
warning
him not to take any steps that would jeopardize Israel's security. Ford
did not
make the speech.
His successor, Jimmy Carter, was repeatedly in conflict with both
Israel and the
lobby. Neither anted the Camp David treaty but Carter doggedly pushed
it
through, although it required a multi-billion dollar bribe to get
Begin's
ignature. In 1978, before the treaty went into effect, Begin invaded
Lebanon,
hoping, some speculated, that Egypt would react and the treaty ould be
nullified
since Israel did not want to give up the Sinai. Carter further angered
Israel
and the lobby by demanding that Begin withdraw sraeli troops from
Lebanon three
months later.
When he told Begin, publicly, to halt settlement building, the Israeli
prime
minister responded by announcing the start of 10 new settlements while
the lobby
criticized Carter for bringing up the subject. When UN Ambassador
Andrew Young
violated an Israeli demand and a lobby-enforced rule that prohibited US
officials from meeting with the PLO, (much like the lobby imposed rule
about US
officials meeting with Hamas officials today), he was forced to resign.
When
Carter, like Ford, was considering giving a televised speech in 1979 in
which he
planned to outline the divergence of interests between the US and
Israel and
denounce Israeli intransigence on the Palestinian issue, he was warned
by the
lobby, as one Jewish leader put it, that he would be the first
president to
"risk opening the gates of anti-Semitism in America." Carter decided
not to give
the speech.
Massad raises the issue of UN votes. There was an exception to all
those US
vetoes and it came during the Carter administration. In March 1980,
Young's
successor, Donald McHenry, also an African-American, voted to censure
Israel for
its ettlement policy, including Jerusalem. The lobby was outraged and
Carter was
forced to apologize. The last straw for the lobby was when Carter alled
for an
international conference in Geneva to settle the Israel-Palestine
question that
would include the Soviet Union. It didn't matter that he was forced to
apologize
for that, too. In 1980, he received 48% of the Jewish vote, the poorest
showing
of any Democrat since they began counting such things.
When Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982, both houses of Congress
roared their
approval, it eing, after all, an election year. When the reports of the
siege of
Beirut were becoming too much to ignore, Reagan asked Sharon to call a
alt.
Sharon's response was to bomb the city at 2:42 and 3:38 the next
afternoon,
those hours, coincidentally, being the numbers of the two UN esolutions
calling
on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories. When Reagan, like
Carter,
also publicly called on Begin to halt settlement building, the Israeli
prime
minister announced the building of new settlements and sent the
president a
"Dear Ronnie," letter letting him know who was making those decisions.
In Reagan's second term, he, too, tried to resolve the Israel-Palestine
conflict
with what ame to be known as the Shultz Plan, named after his Secretary
of
State, George Shultz. It called for an international conference to
resolve the
sraeli-Palestinian issue. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who
had
replaced Begin, was having none of it. One cartoon of the day depicted
hamir
sitting in a chair, cutting up pieces of paper while Reagan and Shultz
looked
on. "How cute," said Reagan, "he's cutting up paper dolls." "Those
aren't paper
dolls," responded Shultz. "That's our peace plan." Another showed
Reagan and
Shamir sitting in armchairs across from one nother with Shamir holding
a smoking
gun in his hand while a dove falls from the sky. Reagan says, "You
didn't have
to do that." Shamir's ntransigence finally provoked 30 senators,
including some
of Israel's biggest supporters, into sending him a letter asking him to
be more
cooperative. They were hardly prepared for the firestorm from the lobby
that
followed that sent each of them stumbling to apologize. The Shultz Plan
was
effectively dead.
When George H. W. Bush succeeded Reagan, he made it clear that he
wanted a halt
to the settlements and for Israel to get out of the OT, as well. He
arranged for
the Madrid Peace Conference over the objections of the obstinate
Shamir, making
concessions as to the composition of the Palestinian delegation to
appease both
Israel and the lobby. Was this conference, like the one alled for by
Carter,
like the one planned by Reagan just a charade? Before the conference
took place,
Shamir asked the US for $10 billion in oan guarantees. Bush made
compliance with
that request contingent on Israel agreeing to halt all settlement
building, its
agreement not to settle any Russian immigrants in the West Bank, and to
wait 120
days, to see if the first two requests had been complied with. An
enraged Shamir
decided to go over his head to the lobby-controlled Congress.
After receiving a letter signed by 242 members of Congress urging the
swift
passage of the loan guarantees, Bush realized that the Lobby had enough
votes to
override his threatened veto of the request. This led him to take the
unprecedented step of calling a national press conference on the day
when an
estimated thousand Jewish lobbyists were on Capitol Hill pushing for a
swift
passage of Israel's request. In the press conference, Bush denounced
the
arrogance of the lobby and told the American people how much aid each
Israeli
man, woman and child was getting from the US Treasury. The polls the
next day
howed that 85% of the American public was with him and a month and a
half later
only 44% of the public supported giving any aid to Israel at all hile
over 70%
supported giving aid to the former Soviet Union.
AIPAC, in the face of Bush's attack, pulled back, but then launched a
steady
attack against him which began to be reflected in the US media where
even old
friends like the NY Times columnist William Safire would eventually
desert him
for Bill Clinton. Under tremendous pressure and with the election
approaching,
Bush finally consented to the loan guarantees, but it was too late. The
Lobby
blamed him for Shamir having been defeated by Rabin and his goose was
cooked.
JM: Additionally, and in line with this logic, controlling Arab
economies and
finances, dominating key investments in the Middle East, and imposing
tructural
adjustment policies by the IMF and the World Bank which impoverish the
Arab
peoples should also be blamed on Israel, and not the nited States.
JB: It would be curious to know what Arab economies the US actually
controls.
Massad doesn't say. He is again being disingenuous, however, refusing
to refute
what Mearsheimer and Walt actually wrote, but accusing them of making
allegations that have little or nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine
issue or
the Iraq war. It is no secret, however, that pro-Israel Jewish neocons
have been
heavily involved in creating the tructural adjustment policies of the
World Bank
and the IMF. Indeed, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Gulf
War, is
now the head of the World Bank.
JM: Finally, starving and then invading Iraq, threatening to invade
Syria,
raiding and then sanctioning Libya and Iran, besieging the Palestinians
and
their leaders must also be blamed on the Israeli lobby and not the US
government.
JB: One must ask, where has Prof. Massad been? While it was not well
known, but
no secret, that the Lobby played a key role in getting the votes for
the first
Gulf War, the reporting of which resulted in the firing of the
Washington Jewish
Week's Larry Cohler at the behest of AIPAC nductee Steve Rosen, the
orchestration of the current war by a handful of Jewish Likud-connected
neocons
with the support of the Israel Lobby was idely reported in the
mainstream press.
If there was a question as to who was the chief architect, it was a
choice
between Richard Perle, Paul olfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Scooter Libby.
Massad must certainly be familiar with the "Clean Break" paper that
Perle,
Feith, and Meyrav Wurmser, wrote for Netanyahu in 1996, calling for the
overthrow of Iraq, Syria and Iran, which Mearsheimer and Walt mention.
Is he not
also amiliar with the "Project for a New American Century," another
document
drawn up by pro-Israel Jewish neocons? Not familiar with the Office of
pecial
Plans, set up by Feith and run by another Jewish neocon, Abe Shulsky,
which was
directed to provide the phony intelligence that would justify the
invasion when
the CIA staff was not prepared to do it. Is he not familiar with the
admission
by Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9-11 commission, who
admitted that
the war in Iraq was for "the security of Israel": but that would have
been a
"hard sell" to the American people? And, as for implementing and
maintaining the
sanctions, the advocacy of the lobby was equally evident.
JM: Indeed, over the years, many pro-US Arab dictators let it leak
officially
and unofficially that their US diplomat friends have told them time and
again
how much they and "America" support the Arab world and the Palestinians
were it
not for the influence of the pro-Israel lobby (sometimes identified by
the
American diplomats in more explicit "ethnic" terms).
JB: Those diplomats probably telling the truth as they saw it as
statements many
have made, after leaving the Foreign Service, attest. As far as using
ethnic
terms, in Israel they refer to it as "the Jewish Lobby." Is that what
he means?
Does that imply if a non-Jew uses the term it is anti-Semitic?"
JM: While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and
full of
awe-inspiring well-documented details about the formidable power
commanded by
groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and
its allies,
the problem with most of them is what remains unarticulated. For
example, when
and in what context has the United States government ever supported
national
liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one
of being
the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups,
including
European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except
in the
celebrated cases of the Afghan undamentalists' war against the USSR and
supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and
Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial
national
governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the
Arab world
absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.
JB: Yet another straw man. It is not a question of supporting a
national
liberation struggle but determining overall policy for the region, in
eneral. It
should have been clear that a Palestinian mini-state run by Yasser
Arafat or any
of his cronies would have been no threat to the US at all, in fact, it
would
have been useful since its reactionary policies would have had a
crushing effect
not only on the Palestinians themselves, but on those peoples in the
Middle East
and around the world that have supported the Palestinian struggle for
so many
years. Moreover, it would have been economically dependent on both
Israel and
the surrounding reactionary Arab states.
It was clear that the US intended to use the mini-state for its own
reasons when
it built a our-story PA security office in Ramallah, that Sharon had
destroyed
during the Al-Aksa Intifada, and brought PA security forces to CIA
headquarters
in Langely, Virginia for training -- many of whom were also
assassinated by
Israeli forces in the early days of that Intifada. Sharon clearly
didn't want a
sibling rival that might prove useful to the US.
JM: The United States has had a consistent policy since World War II of
fighting
all regimes across the Third World that insist on controlling heir
national
resources, whether it be land, oil, or other valuable minerals. This
extends
from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954 to the rest of Latin America all
the way
to present-day Venezuela.
JB: The US has made a modus vivendi with the major sources of oil
globally
without requiring an armed takeover until the present war. The
alestinians,
having none such resources would, at best, regain their water aquifers
that are
presently controlled by Israel but in which the US has no direct
interest, so
this argument of Massad's is irrelevant. Moreover, the Palestinian
situation is
unique among liberation struggles in that its "leadership" under Arafat
and
until Hamas's victory, rather than fighting the US, has eagerly sought
its
embrace.
JM: Africa has fared much worse in the last four decades, as have many
countries
in Asia. Why would the United States support nationalist regimes in the
Arab
world who would nationalize natural resources and stop their pillage by
American
capital absent the pro-Israel lobby also remains a mystery unexplained
by these
studies. Finally, the United States government has opposed and
overthrown or
tried to overthrow any regime that seeks real and tangible independence
in the
Third World and is especially galled by those regimes that pursue such
policies
through democratic elections.
The overthrow of regimes from Arbenz to Goulart to Mossadegh and
Allende and the
ongoing attempts to overthrow Chavez are prominent examples, as is the
overthrow
of nationalist regimes like Sukarno's and Nkrumah's. The terror
unleashed on
populations who challenged the US-installed friendly regimes from El
Salvador
and Nicaragua to Zaire to Chile and Indonesia resulted in the killing
of
hundreds of thousands, if not millions by repressive police and
militaries
trained for these important tasks by the US. This is aside from irect
US
invasions of South East Asian and Central American countries that
killed untold
millions for decades.
Why would the US and its repressive agencies stop invading Arab
countries, or
stop supporting the repressive police forces of dictatorial Arab
regimes and why
would the US stop setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in
Arab
apitals to run these countries' affairs (in some cases the US shadow
government
runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest detail ith the
Arab
government in question reduced to executing orders) if the pro-Israel
lobby did
not exist is never broached by these studies let lone explained.
JB: Massad presents a long history of US depredations of the Third
World
countries that has no relevance to this issue. Mearsheimer and Walt do
not state
or imply that, absent the Israel Lobby, the US would support
nationalist regimes
in the region. In 1958, Pres. Eisenhower sent the arines to Lebanon to
prevent
what was thought to be a radical nationalist move against the status
quo, but
the US has only invaded Arab countries wice, Kuwait in 1991, to oust
the Iraqis
and in 2003. As pointed out earlier, the first required the assistance
of the
Israel lobby capped by the phony incubator story that was orchestrated
by Rep.
Tom Lantos, an author or co-sponsor of numerous Iraqi and Syria
sanction bills
and nti-Palestinian legislation. (According to the Jerusalem Post,
Lantos
represents Israel in countries where it has no diplomatic recognition.)
Israel and the lobby had anticipated that the Senior Bush would remove
Saddam as
called for in he Clean Break and when he didn't they started
criticizing him and
planning for a future administration that would do the job and the
record on
that is very clear. AIPAC took credit for writing the anti-Syrian
legislation
that led to the withdrawal from Lebanon of the relatively mall number
of Syrian
forces that were in the country and more recently the Lobby has been
the only
sector of US society actively calling for what is unmistakably an armed
confrontation with Iran.
JM: The arguments put forth by these studies would have been more
convincing if
the Israel lobby was forcing the United States government to pursue
policies in
the Middle East that are inconsistent with its global policies
elsewhere. This,
however, is far from what happens. While US policies in the Middle East
may
often be an exaggerated form of its repressive and anti- democratic
policies
elsewhere in the world, they are not inconsistent with them. One could
easily
make the case that the strength of the pro-Israel lobby is what
accounts for
this exaggeration, but even this contention is not entirely persuasive.
JB: From the end of the Vietnam War to the beginning of the first Gulf
War, the
profits of the weapons industry continued to soar, proving that an
actual
shooting war was not necessary for the arms manufacturers to make
windfall
profits or the capitalist system to survive. Given that both US
political
parties are committed to what is euphemistically called "national
defense,"
there is no debate in Congress over the size of the ilitary budget.
Consequently, except for the Middle East, what the US has sought
politically has
been stability, the kind of stability that provides a ready source of
raw
materials and an outlet for US products. Those products include, of
course, US
weaponry, some of which may be used to quiet domestic rebellions, and
some, like
fighter jets, for national pride and kickbacks on both sides. It is
only in the
Middle East where a stable nvironment is required to maintain the oil
that fuels
much of the world's economy, including our own, where there is
continued
instability, and that is what both Mearsheimer and Walt correctly
contend is the
fault of Israel and the Israel Lobby.
JM: One could argue (and I have argued elsewhere) that it is in fact
the very
centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts,
in part,
for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around.
Indeed,
many of the recent studies highlight the role of pro-Likud members of
the Bush
administration (or even of the Clinton administration) as evidence of
the
lobby's awesome power, when, it could be easily argued that it is these
American
politicians who had pushed Likud and Labour into more intransigence in
the 1990s
and are pushing them towards more conquest now that they are at the
helm of the
US government. This is not to say, however, that the leaders of the
pro-Israel
lobby do not regularly brag about their crucial influence on US policy
in
Congress and in the White House. That they have done regularly since
the late
1970s. But the lobby is powerful in the United States because its major
claims
are about advancing US interests and its support for Israel is
contextualized in
its upport for the overall US strategy in the Middle East.
JB: Here, Massad seems to be placing the blame for Israel's
intransigence on the
Lobby while denying its effect on US policy, a curious turn of
thinking. Massad
refers to what he has written elsewhere about the "centrality" of
Israel to US
Middle East strategy but it is sorely missed in this article when such
an
explanation is required to refute Mearsheimer and Walt. It would be
more useful
than reciting the well known history of US imperialism elsewhere that
has little
bearing on this dispute. He owes it to Mearsheimer and Walt as well as
the
reader to describe what he elieves to be "overall US strategy in the
Middle
East" and how Israel serves it, to the extent that justifies the
billions of aid
and political over in the international arena.
JM: The pro-Israel lobby plays the same role that the China lobby
played in the
1950s and the Cuba lobby still plays to this day. The fact that it is
more
powerful than any other foreign lobby on Capitol Hill testifies to the
importance of Israel in US strategy and not to some fantastical power
that the
lobby commands independent of and extraneous to the US "national
interest." The
pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message and would not have any
influence if
Israel was a communist or anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed
US
policy elsewhere in the world.
JB: Comparing the Israel Lobby to the old China Lobby is like comparing
the NY
Yankees, when they are winning, to a semi-pro team. The China lobby did
not have
several dozen Chinese members of Congress, hundreds of organizations
and
thousands of religious institutions and billions of dollars in
political
contributions behind it. It did not own or control any section of the
US media
or was there, outside of the handful of the nations' Chinatowns and the
John
Birch Society, an army of grassroots activists. The Cuba lobby which
is, in
fact, more properly called the anti-Cuba lobby, not coincidentally, has
a strong
working relationship with AIPAC for their mutual benefit, but it
doesn't begin
to compare with the Israel Lobby's power although it has seen to it
that Florida
will stay in the Republican column. Of course, if Israel was a
communist or
nti-imperialist country, the Jews in the US would no doubt be like the
anti-Castro Cubans, calling on the US to liberate it.
JM: Some would argue that even though Israel attempts to overlap its
interests
with those of the US, that its lobby is misleading American policy-
makers and
shifting their position from one of objective assessment of what is
truly in
America's best interest and that of Israel's. The argument runs as
follows: US
support for Israel causes groups who oppose Israel to hate the US and
target it
for attacks. It also costs the US friendly media coverage in the Arab
world,
affects its investment potential in Arab countries, and loses its
important
allies in the region, or at least weakens these allies. But none of
this is
true. The United States has been able to be Israel's biggest backer and
financier, its staunchest defender and weapon-supplier while
maintaining
strategic alliances with most if not ll Arab dictatorships, including
the
Palestinian Authority under both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas.
Moreover, US
companies and American nvestments have the largest presence across the
Arab
world, most prominently but not exclusively in the oil sector.
JB: US support for Israel does not target it for attacks? That would be
news to
the families of the marines, soldiers and sailors killed in the bombing
of the
marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, as well as American diplomats who
have been
targeted in the region over the years. Had Israel not invaded Lebanon,
these
American servicemen killed in their barracks might still be alive, as
well the
members of the CIA who were wiped out in an earlier bombing of the US
embassy in
Beirut. Furthermore, without getting into the serious questions that
remain
unanswered about the 9-11 attack, it has been accepted by those who
believe the
official narrative that US support for Israel was one of the reasons
behind the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. If the authors and
others,
including this writer have argued are correct, a significant portion of
the
esponsibility for the dead and wounded on both sides in Iraq can be
laid at the
feet of Israel and the Israel Lobby, but the latter, in particular.
It is difficult to measure the effect on investment potential and sales
of
American products in Middle Eastern markets, but to say that it isn't
"true"
that it would increase if the US was not supporting Israel is hardly
realistic.
JM: Also, even without the pathetic and ineffective efforts at US
propaganda in
the guise of the television station Al-Hurra, or Radio Sawa and the
now-defunct
Hi magazine, not to mention US-paid journalists and newspapers in Iraq
and
elsewhere, a whole army of Arabic newspapers and tate-television
stations, not
to mention myriad satellite television stations celebrate the US and
its
culture, broadcast American programs, and attempt to sell the US point
of view
as effectively as possible encumbered only by the limitations that
actual US
policies in the region lace on common sense. Even the offending
Al-Jazeera has
bent over backwards to accommodate the US point of view but is
constantly
undercut y actual US policies in the region. Al-Jazeera, under
tremendous
pressure and threats of bombing from the United States, has for example
stopped
eferring to the US occupation forces in Iraq as "occupation forces" and
now
refers to them as "coalition forces." Moreover, since when has the US
sought to
win a popularity contest among the peoples of the world? Arabs no more
hate or
love the United States than do Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, or
even and
especially Europeans.
JB: The US, as a country, is not loved or well liked anywhere except,
perhaps,
Israel. Much depends, of course, on an individual's political
onsciousness, but
most of the peoples of the world have had a love-hate relationship with
the US,
despising its policies but colonized by its aterialism. The war on Iraq
and the
US voters' re-election of Bush have put more weight in the "hate"
column, and in
Latin America, Bush has roved to be the most unpopular US president
since they
started taking polls. It is not unlikely that as the war continues and
the US
continues to make threats against Iran, again pressured by the Lobby,
the degree
of antagonism towards the US and US products is certain to increase.
JM: Finally we come to the financial argument, namely that the US gives
an
inordinate amount of money to Israel -- too exorbitant a cost that is
out of
proportion to what the US gets in return. In fact, the United States
spends much
more on its military bases in the Arab world, not to mention on those
in Europe
or Asia, than it does on Israel. Israel has indeed been very effective
in
rendering services to its US master for a good price, whether in
channeling
illegal arms to central American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s,
helping
pariah regimes like Taiwan and apartheid South Africa in the same
period,
supporting pro-US, including Fascist, groups inside the Arab world to
undermine
nationalist Arab regimes, from Lebanon to Iraq to Sudan, coming to the
aid of
conservative pro-US Arab regimes when threatened as it did in Jordan in
1970,
and attacking Arab nationalist regimes outright as it did in 1967 with
Egypt and
Syria and in 1981 with Iraq when it destroyed that country's nuclear
reactor.
While the US had been able to overthrow Sukarno and Nkrumah in bloody
coups,
Nasser emained entrenched until Israel effectively neutralized him in
the 1967
War. It is thanks to this major service that the United States
increased its
support to Israel exponentially.
JB: Here, Massad seems to be channeling Noam Chomsky. Israel has never
seen the
US as its master. Not a single Israeli soldier has shed a drop of blood
for US
interests and as Ariel Sharon said on Israeli army radio several years
ago, the
US knows that no Israeli soldier ever will. At the time of Israel's
attack on
Egypt in 1967, France was the major arms supplier and the certain
sectors of the
US government were engaged with members of Egypt's military. To
describe the
defeat of Nasser as a service done by Israel for the benefit of the US,
which
the term, "service," clearly implies, may be convenient for Chomsky and
Massad
but it is a both an oversimplification as well as a distortion of
history. In
fact, it asn't until the 1973 war, when Israel, under attack by Egypt
and Syria,
threatened to use its nuclear weapons unless the US came through with a
massive
conventional arms airlift, that US support for Israel really took off.
So did
the oil prices as an Arab oil boycott was implemented in esponse. Was
the very
real threat of a nuclear war, which would have brought in the Soviet
Union, in
the US interest? Was the Arab oil embargo?
Israel's arms sales in Latin America and South Africa were done to
benefit
Israel's arms industry and that they were useful to the US was a
secondary
factor. What the Lobby was able to do was keep members of the
Congressional
Black aucus, including the notable Ron Dellums, from publicly
condemning
Israel's arms sales to South Africa in violation of international
sanctions, and
to silence those members of Congress who were quick to condemn US
actions in
Central America but afraid to do so when Israel was the malefactor.
That fear is
no less prevalent in Congress today where any member can get up to
criticize
George Bush but none dare say a negative word about the Israeli prime
minister,
irrespective of who holds that office.
Israel's role in the Jordanian-Palestinian conflict in 1970 is always
raised by
those who argue for Israel's usefulness. We are told that Israel was
acting at
the behest of the US when it threatened to intervene if Syrian tanks
moved south
to efend the Palestinians under attack by Jordan's King Hussein and
that this
prevented the possible overthrow of the US-friendly Hashemite regime.
his fits
neatly fits into the client state scenario, except it is missing a key
element.
What was crucial in that situation was the refusal of Hafez Al-Assad,
then head
of the Syrian air force, and not a supporter of the PLO, to back up the
Syrian
tank force that had entered Northern Jordan. Shortly thereafter,
Al-Assad staged
a coup against the pro-Palestinian president Atassi and proceeded to
throw
hundreds of Palestinians and ro-Palestinian Syrians in prison and break
up the
radical Syrian-supported militia group, Al-Saika This bit of history
has
apparently now been written out of history.
JM: Moreover, Israel neutralized the PLO in 1982, no small service to
many Arab
regimes and their US patron who could not fully control the rganization
until
then.
JB: It was appreciated in the beginning by many Lebanese, particularly
in the
south who found some elements of the PLO heavy-handed and were tired of
having a
liberation war fought on their soil, until they began to experience
Israeli
occupation for themselves and began to resist. The Israeli attack
violated an
11-month cease-fire that had been negotiated by Ambassador Philip Habib
and to
which the PLO had strictly adhered. The Senior Bush, then
vice-president,
opposed the Israeli invasion and wanted Israel to be censured and was
overruled
by Reagan and Alexander Haig. A year before Bush Sr. was angered by
Israel's
attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor and wanted Israel censured at that
time, but was
again overruled.
JM: None of the American military bases on which many more billions are
spent
can claim such a stellar record.
JB: A stellar record? What Massad has done here is only distinguishable
from an
AIPAC press release justifying increasing US aid by its criticism of US
imperialism but hardly by its tone. He has avoided dealing with most of
the
specifics that Mearsheimer and Walt raise by simply repeating what
Chomsky has
written in a dozen or so books and hundreds of speeches and rticles
with little
evidence to back it up.
JM: Critics argue that when the US had to intervene in the Gulf, it
could not
rely on Israel to do the job because of the sensitivity of including it
in such
a coalition which would embarrass Arab allies, hence the need for
direct US
intervention and the uselessness of Israel as a strategic ally. While
this may
be true, the US also could not rely on any of its military bases to
launch the
invasions on their own and had to ship in its army. American bases in
the Gulf
did provide important and needed support but so did Israel.
JB: Israel did provide training to US troops on the techniques used to
occupy
and repress a hostile Arab population, only too pleased to have the US
join it
as the only foreign occupier of Arab soil which I believe was one of
the reasons
the Israeli government (as well as the lobby) wanted the US to invade
Iraq. With
the US taking the same kind of harsh measures to repress the Iraqis, it
would be
less likely to complain about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
and this
has proved to be the case. Israel has been called by Chomsky America's
"cop on
the beat" in the Middle East, but when military intervention has been
thought
necessary it has always been American soldiers that have done the
fighting. In
fact, US soldiers were sent to Israel during the first Gulf War to
operate the
Patriot missile batteries to defend the Israelis.
JM: AIPAC is indeed powerful insofar as it pushes for policies that
accord with
US interests and that are resonant with the reigning US imperial
ideology. The
power of the pro-Israel lobby, whether in Congress or on campuses among
university administrators, or policy-makers is not based solely on
their
organizational skills or ideological uniformity. In no small measure,
anti-
Semitic attitudes in Congress (and among university administrators)
play a role
in believing the lobby's (and its enemies') exaggerated claims about
its actual
power, resulting in their towing the line. But even if this were true,
one could
argue, it would not matter whether the lobby has real or imagined
power. For as
long as Congress and policy-makers (and university administrators)
believe it
does, it will remain effective and powerful. I of course concede this
point.
JB: So it is "anti-Semitic" to believe the lobby's claims about its
power? What
an extraordinary statement. What would he call those who say the lobby
is lying?
It is quite clear that the professor is treading on very shaky grounds
here. He
has obviously not studied his history and what has befallen those
politicians
who have challenged the lobby and were ubsequently targeted and
defeated
beginning with Sen. J William Fulbright who in the early 60s sought to
restrict
the lobby's growing power. There are several books written by both
supporters of
the lobby and its critics that clearly demonstrate its influence as
well as the
tales of former members of Congress who were its victims. What is
distressing,
as this statement indicates, is that Massad has obviously not read the
available
literature on the subject and yet he believes he is qualified to
criticize
Mearsheimer and Walt's paper without having done so.
JM: What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East
absent
Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and
intensity
but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies.
JB: Absent Israel and hence the lobby one can't begin to speculate. To
raise the
question is just a distraction.
JM: Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As
someone
who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three
years
through their formidable influence on my own university and their
attempts to
get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily
responsible for
policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not.
JB: The full brunt of their power? A great deal, admittedly, but hardly
the full
brunt, which he would realize if he had made an effort to familiarize
himself
with the lobby's history. But again, Prof. Massad offers no reason why
the US
could not support a truncated Palestinian state and why the US supports
Israel's
maintaining the occupied territories despite the efforts of every
president from
Nixon to Clinton to get Israel to give them up.
JM: The United States is opposed in the Arab world as elsewhere because
it has
pursued and continues to pursue policies that are inimical to the
interests of
most people in these countries and are only beneficial to its own
interests and
to the minority regimes in the region that serve those interests,
including
Israel. Absent these policies, and not the pro-Israel lobby which
supports them,
the United States should expect a change in its standing among Arabs.
Short of
that, the United States will have to continue its policies in the
region that
have wreaked, and continue to wreak, havoc on the majority of Arabs and
not
expect that the Arab people will like it in return.
JB: Every two years, one hears or reads, regarding some issue that
deals with
Israel, that "the president" or "Congress" "is not likely to act
[against
Israel] due to domestic political considerations in an election year."
What
Mearsheimer and Walt recognize and that Massad fails to acknowledge, is
the
extent that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a domestic US issue.
That the
Palestine solidarity movement, of which Prof. Massad is a part, has
ignored that
fact is a primary reason that to this point in time it as been an utter
failure.
This should be a source of embarrassment and reflection, but it so far
there is
no sign of it.
There was another Columbia professor who had a more profound
understanding of
the situation who is sorely missed and, perhaps, never more so than at
this
moment. I refer to the late Edward Said. In his contribution to The New
Intifada, ntitled, appropriately, "America's Last Taboo," he did not
mince
words:
What explains this [present] state of affairs? The answer lies in the
power of
Zionist organizations in American politics, whose role throughout the
"peace
process" has never been sufficiently addressed -- a neglect that is
absolutely
astonishing, given the policy of the PLO has been in essence to throw
our fate
as a people into the lap of the United States, without any trategic
awareness of
how American policy is dominated by a small minority whose views about
the
Middle East are in some ways more extreme han those of Likud itself.
(Emphasis
added)
And on the subject of AIPAC, Said wrote:
[T]he American Israel Public Affairs Committee ? AIPAC -- has for years
been the
most powerful single lobby in Washington. Drawing on a well-organized,
well-connected, highly visible and wealthy Jewish population, AIPAC
inspires an
awed fear and respect across the political spectrum. Who is going to
stand up to
this Moloch in behalf of the Palestinians, when they can offer nothing,
and
AIPAC can destroy a professional career at the drop of a checkbook? In
the past,
one or two members of Congress did resist AIPAC openly, but the many
political
action committees controlled by AIPAC made sure they were never
re-elected... If
such is the material of the egislature, what can be expected of the
executive?
Although it is trying, the Israel Lobby does not yet control our
academics. On
the critical issue of the lobby's power, it is time they stop acting
like it
does.
Jeffrey Blankfort is former editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin,
long-time
hotographer, and has written extensively on the Israel-Palestine
conflict. He
can be reached at: jblankfort@earthlink.net. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: Israel Making a New Demand for War, on Iran This Time |
| Israel Making a New Demand for War, on Iran This Time
What really hangs in the balance between the new paradigms of all out rape, pillage and plunder—versus a world with a future? “Change is the order of the day” say those in the Israeli Lobby. But the only thing anyone either there or in Washington wants to do is “move-on.” Nothing apparently deserves an explanation; even death is no longer respected – no matter how many are maimed or killed. Whose War on the World is this? Why are Americans and so many others, except Israel, expected to fight in the Middle East when the only so-called state that appears to have actually wanted this current disaster is Israel? Where are the super-tough troops with the IDF patch on their shoulders – and when will Israel explain to the rest of the planet just exactly why the Israelis should remain ‘out of bounds’ on this ever-deepening disaster?
The NWO is not monolithic, nor is it of a single mind – it’s a confluence of interests that is composed of several networks; a series of spider-webs where no single race or faith is dominant. At its core what unites these interests in their black heart of darkness—is POWER & MONEY and together these are wrapped in the amoral and duplicitous use of the flags of many nations. For his part Bush keeps playing with a confluence of interests: Christian fundamentalism, Apocalypse psychology, Zionism, Imperialism, Corporatism, Cronyism, and American Exceptionalism. But through the smoke and mirrors mostly what survives is for the home audience, those immoveable and largely apathetic Americans that have always been the target of these draconian policies.
The world is embarking on the beginnings of World War III, and many have wondered where is the vaunted Israeli army? Sharon is dead, but the insanity of his plans for Palestine apparently lives on. There are plenty of Israeli troops in that area, currently tormenting an imprisoned civilian population that they savage with regularity; but where are their multi-national interests in the larger issue that the War on Muslims will bring?
The War on Iraq was supposed to create a new “Peace Process” for the entire region. After the elections in Iraq, Bush demanded that the Palestinians hold an election of their own, and when the Palestinians voted overwhelming against the invading and now occupying Israeli army – the Palestine people were suddenly DENIED the means to survive by the cowardly policies of the EU, the US and probably the UN as well. So where’s the GREAT benefit to freedom and democracy in the region now, for Israel or for anyone else?
This is again that double-standard in action and hundreds of thousands, if not millions will be directly affected, yet there is no “higher power” to reverse this: so the answer will come from the depths of the Whirlwind that has indeed been sown!
This is about Israel and the New World Order. Yet again and again the world sees not only a double standard whenever and wherever Israel is involved, but apparently Israel is making new demands—this time on Iran. Cheney, Bush & Rummy between them probably have about as much military experience as a one-year draftee has after six weeks of basic – yet these clowns are running the most costly war this nation has ever fought – and it isn’t even being fought for us. Americans are fighting and dying and being maimed for the profits of the multi-national corporations; for the international Dark Powers that owe allegiance to no flag; for the American Jewish Lobby and for the State of Israel. Remove the Americans; let the Israeli’s replace us if they feel they need to be protected: They have the arsenal for the job, the commute is minimal, and since they have ‘the finest fighting forces on the planet’ (they say) - let’s get moving and let Israel live or die in its part of this sordid affair! If Israel wants to take out Iran, let Israel launch its own war (without American “defensive” weapons) and suffer the consequences like every other nation must. (something that America seems to be avoiding, since we ‘bailed’ on belonging to the World Court).
Israel has a long history of pre-emptive attacks and other unprovoked aggressions. Iran meanwhile, while far from perfect – is trying to live in what is fast becoming a nuclear world. Iran also sits astride the Gulf of Arabia and the international shipping lanes for oil from the Gulf. Its short range missiles can reach Israel, Kuwait, our military headquarters in the Gulf, as well as Iraq. Those who have looked at nuclear development have concluded that Iran is still years away from nuclear weapons development so - What’s the rush? Bush is on record as having violated the Geneva conventions, broken international laws against murder, torture, and the US supports the killing of unarmed civilians plus there are dozens Crimes Against Humanity. Where was the authorization for any of that? Most of this came in fights that Israel should have undertaken in the first place. Now Bush has granted himself permission to attack Iran – but this is no more a US war than Iraq was. Dealings with Iran for Israel; should be an Israeli internal affair. Involving the world and the US in creating this idea of the Greater State of Israel is not in the best interests of the US or the world, despite the fact that Israel has been planning this “Greater State,” for decades!
The world has always been beset by tyrants, but any attempt at domination to the degree currently underway, has never before been even remotely possible. Now everything has changed, just as the rules have all been altered by the advent of the computer age. Unless we begin to listen to things older than Madison Avenue or Radio; wiser and more arcane than profits or competition; more subtle than deconstruction, but more effective than black-ops—we shall not have the chance to finish out our lives. People everywhere must begin to trust again, whether we belong to clans or tribes or societies – if not, we will all soon be nothing more than targets for the New Barbarians that have come to steal, to plunder and destroy. That’s what’s at stake as world listens for the approach of a The Third World War – a war that our continued silence just might enable!
Where are we going, and what lurks in the shadows of our daily lives? A number of interlocking directorates around the world, both corporate and criminal, have decided that it’s time for A Return-to-the-Crusades! The Puppet-Masters designed it, but they can only have their way - if the real people remains as silent as we’ve been, while they continue to add more shackles to our chains. This is Class Warfare, between the haves and have-nots world-wide. Religions, creeds, policies, and flags are all potential divisive flashpoints to sap the power of open revolt and to attempt to mask that ugly smell of genocide, of famine, of racism, and of Greed Gone Wild!
How Did this Happen?
Today the world is waiting for Iran to become Part Two of the War on Iraq that continues to burn, in ever-expanding chaos, around the edges of every headline from the Middle East. But it’s more than just that! The War on Iran will use the same flawed concepts that failed in Iraq: Bomb Iran back to the stone age, then the rebellious natives within will hail us as “liberators” and everybody joins in to chants of USA - USA - That was the party line in Iraq and that philosophy created fires that are still burning vigorously in the streets of the seven most populous districts in that war-torn land.
US foreign policy is non-existent. We have effectively decimated the Department of State, thanks to the total incompetence of that slithering Contessa of Lies who heads it. But competence is not something that is to be found in this administration that has killed so many people, for so much money – and for so little gain! Iran and Iraq are not isolated chess pieces in an outdated game, to be toyed with or destroyed at will. The real world is multi-dimensional, and the war game has moved well beyond the medieval chess board. There are international interests besides ours, global circles of influence that are threatened by what this cowboy nation keeps trying to do in the zeal of pomp and ignorance that seems to drive Cheney-Bush, and their minions. The new reality is unfettered by the crude simplicity of old world. planning and regimentation. Instead there are new strategies and tactics that can be ‘checked’ from almost any angle: not the least of which is that world famous “Law of Unintended Consequences”!
Tracing the history of those that planned and financed both the first and second World Wars, it is clear that they did not stop there. In the case of Europe, when the First World War erupted, there was a naiveté that was exploited because of the use of modern weapons never seen before. However; the outcome of the First World War made the Second inevitable, thanks to the redrawing of the world map by the Western Allies, and to the Armistice than impoverished Germany to the enth degree.
The Second World War was necessary to tie up the loose ends that the First World War created. But the end of that conflict still left far too much to be done, before the planet could be completely subjugated.
Old world Europe needed to be completely rebuilt due to the savagery and bombing of their entire industrial base and infrastructure. The industries and the ravaged cities were rebuilt with the latest factories and the latest innovations, to position these “new” nations for the coming financial battles for the soul of money itself.
As for the rest of the planet, The New World Order was ready with their plan to corner every market, to control the labor and parcel out the profits: but first they needed to eliminate the remaining real power among the smaller nation states. Those nations that were self-sufficient were restructured along the lines of The New Order. To comply with the restructuring, they would need to change from the diversity of their sustaining production, and switch to huge single crops or product lines for export. Assistance was readily available from the friendly global-financial agencies, and their sponsors, that made billions in those bargains.
The sustenance of the smaller nations was to be guaranteed by the imports they would need to buy, with the profits they would make, from their own exports. Lost in this shuffle was the fact that each nation was no longer self-sufficient – and could be intimidated or coerced – by the larger and more powerful markets where the longer range desires of the money-changers remained supreme! Institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF were some of what assisted with “nation building” in the undeveloped world and from the wreckage that these institutions wrought – a “third world” was created – a world that can seemingly never get out from under the debt and penury, designed especially for them by the reigning powers. Latin American is beginning to change that whole equation, but it has taken nearly a hundred years!
This brings us to Part Three of this Seizure of the World for Fun & Profit. After the diversion of the Cold War that served as cover for this plan to steal what remains of the independent family of nations; the remaining “power” in the world was the USA. Admittedly this nation was infected by much of what happened with third world counties both before and during the Cold War, because part of the power of the Jackals was based here. But once “the Wall” went down in Berlin, the Puppet-Masters became impatient to get on with their Return to the Crusades, to finally “Own the World.” Some believe this is happening: Others just watch and continue to wait.
It is not easy to believe – but the target is the coming War upon America – to turn this nation into an American version of what Baghdad is now. Why? Because there are simply too many risks involved in allowing a country that was as rich and powerful as this one was – to exist – in light of what has been planned for over a hundred years, by people who have only used the flags and words of others to achieve for themselves those things that live in eternal darkness and stand always in opposition to life in the real world. Since this plan of theirs involves the total financial and military takeover of the planet; those behind the scheme didn’t seem to think that allowing the USA to exist with our rights and wealth and ideas in tack – would be too wise – in case America suddenly wakes up!
Here’s a printable image older than recorded history – I called it Again & Again, because it’s about those who used these facets of life for personal gain or glory. How often in history have these trials been unleashed to burn their marks into the living flesh of all of us? http://www.kirwanesque.com/gallery/4_horsemen.htm
Conquest and the burning “Flag of All Nations” with its five pointed star in the colors and shades of humanity, surrounded by that thin green line for what is left of the earth; against the dirty blue background for the corruption of air and water (painted in 1977). The molten gold of the head with no need for a mouth because Conquest does not speak it only conquers War on a crimson mount; his helmet plume three flaming fists, forever closed; The shield is fashioned from the pawns of war who would not choose – and in so doing, chose! In his upraised fist the hilt of his blade reveals a captured American eagle, now darkened with the shame of Vietnam. Famine upends the scales where life-giving food is outweighed by gold, and the starving children move him not, just as his sightless eyes never see the horror that famine brings. And finally Death, for the tyranny of time that too often is cut short. The red-head on the pommel grasps one hand of a clock, in a futile effort to stop the passage of the moments left to her. His mount is translucent because it stands for the mystery of death that each of us must one day enter. These four then are some of the shadows that have haunted the march of humankind down through the centuries – and now They’re Back – AGAIN!
Despite all the deception and the lies in all the shadow play that so many have tried to bring to this sagging global stage—should those of us now caught up in this; not finally begin to ask – is MONEY all there really is? Should not human life revolve around a different set of values? Nothing in our lives is given; because everything political is fought for. We have allowed the Torch of Freedom to go out - to fall away from us. We must regain that freedom that belongs at the core of every life. Where are the Americans that we thought we were—has everybody disappeared before the onslaught of the bankers and money-changers? Have all Americans been silenced: Or is it just that so many have yet to speak?
Europe was caught off guard in World War One, but much has happened since. Both The Puppet-Masters and the Whirlwind are coming now. Will this nation will fight for life; or will we simply follow the well-worn paths of all those other failures that have gone before?
Jim Kirwan, kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: Top White House posts go to Jews |
| Top White House posts go to Jews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Guttman, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 25, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After appointing Joshua Bolten to be the White House chief of staff, US President George W. Bush nominated another Jewish staffer, Joel Kaplan, to serve as Bolten's deputy, putting him in charge of the daily policy planning.
The fact that White House policy is now in the hands of two Jews is not seen as significant by activists in the American Jewish community.
"He is simply appointing the best people for the job," said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another Jewish activist added that he "wouldn't read too much into it."
Bolten, who first served as head of the Office of Management and Budget, was the first Jewish member of Bush's cabinet. Ever since Bush took office, there has been a custom of opening cabinet meetings with a brief prayer and so, before his first cabinet meeting, Bolten's assistant contacted Diament and asked for help in finding a Jewish prayer for the security and well-being of the cabinet members. The Orthodox Union provided him with the text in English and in Hebrew and Bolten read it aloud at the next cabinet meeting.
Bolten and Kaplan will probably be the most prominent Jewish members of the Bush administration, but not the only ones. Apart from Bolten, there is another Jewish cabinet member, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and there are other Jewish senior staff members, including Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and White House staffer Jay Lefkowitz.
In the past year, several Jews who were holding senior posts in the administration have left, among them deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense Doug Feith, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and political adviser Ken Mehlman, who now heads the Republican National Committee.
Yet the policy of the administration has little to do with the religious beliefs of the staffers. "The president sets the policy goals and it is now the job of Josh [Bolten] and Joel [Kaplan] to help achieve these goals," said Noam Neusner, who served as the liaison to the Jewish community in Bush's White House from 2002-2005.
Other Jewish activists, both Republican and Democrat, agree that the nomination of Bolten and Kaplan have no affect on policy.
For Republicans, there is still a feeling that Bush does not receive the credit he deserves from the Jewish community. "We have Israel's best friend and it still hasn't changed the way the Jewish community sees him," said Fred Zeidman, a close friend of Bush and chairman of the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. "I keep hoping that one day our community will see the light and support President Bush."
Neusner recalled that in the Bush White House there was always great respect for religious practices of the staffers and predicted that this policy would remain now that Bolten is running its daily operations.
One tradition likely to go on is the reading of the Purim megilla led by Chabad Rabbi Levi Shemtov, which attracts many of the Jewish staffers.
The relatively small number of Jews in Bush's cabinet became an issue largely due to the comparison with his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The former administration had such Jewish cabinet members as Robert Reich, Robert Rubin, Sandy Berger, Lawrence Summers and Madeline Albright and State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Aaron Miller.
"I don't support this idea of bean counting," said Jay Footlik, who was Clinton's liaison to the Jewish community. He sees the fact that the former administration had many Jewish members as significant to the policy the president had in regard to the Jewish community. According to him, the reason Jews were so visible in Clinton's administration was merely a result of the community being "drawn to public involvement and political activity."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498911316&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: |
| Tom Hayden addresses Israel lobby power/influence
Tom Hayden: Things Come ’Round in Mideast
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/
Posted on Jul 18, 2006
By Tom Hayden
Editor’s note: In this essay, veteran social activist Tom Hayden, drawing upon his own rude political awakening to the realities of Israeli and Middle East politics during the 1980s, warns that the Israel lobby in the U.S. aims to “roll back the clock” and “change the map” of the region and that its neoconservative supporters will probably try to use the current Middle East crisis to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years ago I stared into the eyes of Michael Berman, chief operative for his congressman-brother, Howard Berman. I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them.
“I represent the Israeli defense forces,” Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters, Berman held a balance of power.
All that year I tried to navigate the district’s Jewish politics. The solid historical liberalism of the Westside was a favorable factor, as was the strong support of many Jewish community leaders. But the community was moving in a more conservative direction. Some were infuriated at my sponsorship of Santa Monica’s tough rent control ordinance. Many in the organized community were suspicious of the New Left for becoming Palestinian sympathizers after the Six Day War; they would become today’s neoconservatives.
I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting officials from all parties, studying energy projects, befriending peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with Palestinians and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As a result, a Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an attempt to discredit my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in the California state capital.
This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name recognition, so they were considering “renting” me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But there was one condition: that I always be a “good friend of Israel.”
This wasn’t a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. I wanted to take up the cause of the aging Holocaust survivors against the global insurance companies that had plundered their assets.
While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination, I didn’t share the animus of some on the American left who questioned Israel’s very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the politics of Israel’s Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists and human rights activists who accepted Israel’s pre-1967 borders as a reality to accommodate. I disliked the apocalyptic visions of the Israeli settlers I had met, and thought that even hard-line Palestinians would grudgingly accept a genuine peace initiative.
I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about the existence and power of an “Israel lobby.” It is not as monolithic as some argue, but it is far more than just another interest group in a pluralist political world. In recognizing its diversity, distinctions must be drawn between voters and elites, between Reform and Orthodox tendencies, between the less observant and the more observant. During my ultimate 18 years in office, I received most of my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and less observant voters. But I also received support from conservative Jews who saw themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and Democratic) establishment.
However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified “kosher,” not once but over and over again.
The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a “friend of Israel.”
In my case, a key to the “friendship issue” was the Los Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin Navon. Though politics drew us together, our personal friendship was genuine enough. I think that Benny, as he was called, wanted to pull me and my then-wife, Jane Fonda, into a pro-Israel stance, but he himself was an old-school labor/social democrat who personally believed in a negotiated political settlement. We enjoyed personal and intellectual time together, and I still keep on my bookshelf a wooden sculpture by his wife, of an anguished victim of violence.
The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared “kosher” by the ultimate source, the region’s representative of the state of Israel.
Nevertheless, throughout the spring 1982 campaign I was accused of being a left-wing madman allied to terrorism and communism. The national Democratic leader Walter Mondale commented jokingly during a local visit that I was being described as worse than Lenin. It was a wild ride.
I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed neutral. Willie Brown, Richard Alatorre and the rest of the California Democratic establishment were quietly supportive. I easily won the general election in November.
But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to be supportive. It happened that I had visited the contested border in the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian Israeli homes, and interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots—crazies, I thought, who were preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border rocket attacks and naively favored a demilitarized zone.
Ever curious, and aware of my district’s politics, I decided we should go to the Middle East—but only as long as the Israeli “incursion,” as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the “incursion” was limited, and would be followed by negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say.
There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon—with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else.
For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s “right” to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I was becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing, with ardent Jewish support in America.
Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave, took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: “Tom, you can’t do this. You have to stop.” He was right, and I did. In the California Legislature, I went to work on Holocaust survivor issues while withdrawing from the bind of Israeli-Palestinian politics. When the first Palestinian intifada began, I sensed from experience that the balance of forces had changed, and that the Israeli occupation was finished. Frictions developed between me and some of my Israeli and Jewish friends when I suggested that Israel must make a peace deal immediately or accept a worse deal later.
It is still painful and embarrassing to describe these events of nearly 25 years ago, but with Israel today again bombing Lebanon and Israeli officials bragging about “rolling back the clock by twenty years” and reconfiguring the Middle East, I feel obliged to speak out against history repeating.
How do I read today’s news through the lens of the past?
What I fear is that the “Israeli lobby” is working overtime to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel’s military effort to “roll back the clock” and “change the map” of the region, going far beyond issues like prisoner exchange.
What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of the equation.
What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S. neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives’ 1996 “Clean Break” memo advocated that Israel “roll back” Lebanon and destabilize Syria in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the “Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”
This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain.
What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats, who last week were moving gradually toward setting a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present crisis favor the Republicans and the White House in the short run. How many politicians will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq under present conditions? Isn’t this Karl Rove’s game plan for the November elections?
What I know is that I will not make the same mistake again. I hope that my story deepens the resolve of all those whose feelings are torn, conflicted or confused in the present. It is not being a “friend of Israel” to turn a blind eye to its never-ending occupation.
One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.
It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by President Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in Lebanon and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the following for now:
Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the Israeli troops and bombs.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit plan is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as the White House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent bases in an occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently eliminating their enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be further occupation, resistance and deeper quagmire.
The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not be stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional insistence on denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital first step. Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between Israel and the U.S. to dominate the Middle East militarily.
Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago. Silence is consent to occupation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll down to the 'Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: |
| Former U.S. Senator: Support for Israel in Congress is Based on Fear
By James Abourezk
December 11, 2006
I can tell you from personal experience that the support Israel has in the Congress is based completely on political fear -- fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress -- at least when I served there -- have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.
Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.
I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.
With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. The U.S. had to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.
I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.
So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."
James Abourezk was a U.S. Senator, the first Arab-American to serve in the Senate, from South Dakota from 1973 to 1979. He is the vice chairman of the Council for the National Interest.
________________________________________
Council for the National Interest Foundation
1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1
Washington, District of Columbia 20024
http://www.cnionline.org/
http://www.rescuemideastpolicy.com/
Phone: 202-863-2951
Fax: 202-863-2952
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20061204_TheLobbythatdoesn27texist.php
The Lobby (that doesn't exist)
The following letter was sent to Jewish-American journalist Jeff Blankfort from James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota
3 December 2006
The following letter was sent to me today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last month's election and all the new faces in Congress, and the immediate previous posting to you and James Petras's article earlier in the day..
START:
Dear Jeff:
I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.
I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at lleast when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.
Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.
I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.
With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.
I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.
So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."
Jim Abourezk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hidden cost of free congressional trips to Israel
Branded as 'educational’, these trips offer Israeli propagandists an
opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story.
by Senator Jim Abourezk
Christian Science Monitor
26 January 2007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0126/p09s01-coop.html
SIOUX FALL, S.D. - Democrats in Congress have moved quickly - and
commendably - to strengthen ethics rules. But truly groundbreaking reform
was prevented, in part, because of the efforts of the pro-Israel lobby to
preserve one of its most critical functions: taking members of Congress on
free "educational" trips to Israel.
The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every
member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to
quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come
with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes
certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered
important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is
fear - fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign
contributions or give money to one's opponent.
In my own experience as a US senator in the 1970s, I saw how the lobby tries
to humiliate or embarrass members who do not toe the line.
Pro-Israel groups worked vigorously to ensure that the new reforms would
allow them to keep hosting members of Congress on trips to Israel. According
to the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, congressional filings show Israel as
the top foreign destination for privately sponsored trips. Nearly 10 percent
of overseas congressional trips taken between 2000 and 2005 were to Israel.
Most are paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, a sister
organization of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the major
pro-Israel lobby group.
New rules require all trips to be pre-approved by the House Ethics
Committee, but Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts says this setup will
guarantee that tours of Israel continue. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency reported consensus among Jewish groups that "the new
legislation would be an inconvenience, but wouldn't seriously hamper the
trips to Israel that are considered a critical component of congressional
support for Israel."
These trips are defended as "educational." In reality, as I know from my
many colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offer
Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only
their side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation was
created, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit important
truths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinian
territories.
What the pro-Israel lobby reaps for its investment in these tours is
congressional support for Israeli desires. For years, Israel has relied on
billions of dollars in US taxpayer money. Shutting off this government
funding would seriously impair Israel's harsh occupation.
One wonders what policies Congress might support toward Israel and the
Palestinians absent the distorting influence of these Israel trips - or if
more members toured Palestinian lands. America sent troops to Europe to
prevent the killing of civilians in the former Yugoslavia. But when it comes
to flagrant human rights violations committed by Israel, the US sends more
money and shields Israel from criticism.
Congress regularly passes resolutions lauding Israel, even when its actions
are deplorable, providing it political cover. Meanwhile, polls suggest most
Americans want the Bush administration to steer a middle course in working
for peace between Israelis and the Palestinians.
Consider, too, how the Israel lobby twists US foreign policy into a
dangerous double standard regarding nuclear issues. The US rattles its
sabers at Iran for its nuclear energy ambitions - and alleged pursuit of
nuclear arms - while remaining silent about Israel's nuclear-weapons
arsenal.
Members of Congress may not be aware just how damaging their automatic
support for Israel is to America's interest. At a minimum, US policies
toward Israel have cost it valuable allies in the Middle East and other
parts of the Muslim world.
If Congress is serious about ethics reform, it should not protect the Israel
lobby from the consequences. A totally taxpayer-funded travel budget for
members to take foreign fact-finding trips, with authorization to be made by
committee heads, would be an important first step toward a foreign policy
that genuinely serves America.
____________________________________________________
Jim Abourezk is a former Democratic senator from South Dakota.
Additional at the following URL:
New Book: The Power of Israel in the United States
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/17/new-book-the-power-of-israel-in-the-united-states.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: 'Outposts' Thriving in the West Bank |
| The powerful AIPAC (pro-Israel) lobby has the US Congress look the other way on the following which is a blatant violation of international law (UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, etc.) as such support of Israel continues to fuel hatred of US in the Arab/Muslim world:
Subject: 'Outposts' Thriving in the West Bank (intro by General Jim David who is mentioned on Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book
From: Jim David
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:18:57 EST
Subject: 'Outposts' Thriving in the West Bank
The Israeli government has been criticized numerous times by many human rights organizations for its cruel and mean-spirited demolition policy of Palestinain homes. According to Amnesty International and B'tselem, a Jewish Human Rights group, Israel has demolished more than 12,000 Palestinian homes. Israel tries to justify this policy by stating that the homes are built without approved building permits thereby making the construction illegal. But since building permits are issued to Jews only, it makes it impossible for the Palestinians to legally add on or to build new homes.
Amnesty International reports, and I quote, "Thousands of Palestinians, like Ahmed, live under constant fear of their home being demolished by the Israeli authorities because they have no chance of getting a building permit -- even on land that has belonged to their families for generations. Without a permit their home is effectively illegal. There is normally no warning of the time or date of a house demolition; the family may only have 15 minutes to take out what belongings they have before the furniture is thrown into the street and their home
bulldozed.":
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE150781999
Now let me quote one more part of the report and it goes on to say, "The Palestinians are targeted for no other reason than because they are Palestinians. The demolition of their houses is in no doubt linked with Israeli discriminatory policy to restrict Palestinian development to existing urban areas."
Israel: House demolitions - Palestinians given "15 minutes to leave..." - Amnesty International It just stuns me that after more than 12,000 homes of innocent Palestinians have been demolished leaving more than 30,000 children homeless, the U.S. government has never taken action. What other nation in this world would we allow such crime to go unpunished while continuing to award with such generous foreign aid? Never do we see any member of the Bush Administration condemning such an act. Never do we see the State Department issuing any threats. The only time we hear or see any of the Bush people condemning any violence is when the Israelis suffer any attacks. It seems that the only warning that the Bush people give is warning the Palestinians to stop the violence. I guess condemning the Israelis for demolishing 12,000 homes of innocent people would be considered "anti-Semitic."
The below Associated Press story came out just a few hours ago. It's a story about the hundreds of Jewish Outposts in the West Bank constructed without the approval of the Israeli government. These are beautiful homes with manicured yards but built without any legal permit. Will any of these homes be demolished? Will these Jews be given only 15 minutes to take out their belongings? Of course not. These are homes owned by Jews on Palestinian land and the Israeli government just turns a blind eye as you will read in the following story. This is the double standard that we see with the Israeli government.
I will be attending a breakfast at the Carter Center this week and Jimmy Carter will be there. This is one subject I plan to discuss with him.
02/17: AOL News: 'Outposts' Thriving in the West Bank
'Outposts' Thriving in the West Bank
By RAVI NESSMAN
.c The Associated Press
BRUCHIN, West Bank (AP) - With its playgrounds, identical houses and manicured flower beds, Bruchin looks like any placid Israeli suburb. Except that Bruchin is not supposed to exist.
Bruchin is among more than 100 West Bank outposts never officially authorized by the Israeli government. And Israel's repeated commitments to freeze settlement construction haven't hampered Bruchin's transformation from a cluster of trailers less than eight years ago into a thriving community of 380 people, girded by government supplied roads, electricity and water.
``Normally, when you think of an outpost you think of a water tower. This is a real town,'' said Amishai Shav-Tal, one of Bruchin's founders.
Unlike the full-blown settlements that have been built in the face of international criticism, the outposts have never gone through the public process of gaining official government approval. Many of them began as little more than a cell phone tower or trailer erected by settlers on a West Bank hilltop to establish a presence there, a seed they used to quickly establish a new community.
The outposts infuriate the Palestinians, who see them as part of a plan to strengthen the Jewish grip on land they want for an independent state.
With the international community focusing its disapproval mainly on the traditional settlements, Israel has managed to quietly plant a slew of the outposts across the West Bank, say Palestinians, Israeli critics and even the settlers themselves.
``This is the game that the government always played with the settlers: 'You will do it, we will turn a blind eye and then one day when we are politically able to, we will legalize it,''' said Dror Etkes, who monitors settlements for the Israel's Peace Now movement.
Israel has not built an official settlement in more than a decade. When it approved a new one in late December, it quickly backed down under international condemnation.
But Bruchin is a different story. Settler leaders and a former Cabinet minister say the government cooperated through every phase of its creation in the northern West Bank. In recent talks with the Defense Ministry, which must approve new settlement construction, the settlers demanded Bruchin be the first in a string of developed outposts to be recognized as full settlements, which would ease fears that they could be forcibly removed.
``They have no choice, they have to recognize most of the outposts,'' said Bentzi Lieberman, a settler leader.
Over the 40 years since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast War, the settlers have cultivated political allies and manipulated divided coalition governments in their favor. They capitalized on Palestinian hostility toward Israel to push the claim that the entire West Bank is the Jews' biblical birthright and a vital security buffer with the Arab world.
But some outpost residents fear the government may be turning against them.
As prime minister, Ehud Olmert started out with what looked like a campaign to tear down the unauthorized settlements, and was elected on a platform calling for the country to abandon much of the West Bank and all but the largest settlement blocs.
Political troubles following last summer's war in Lebanon have forced Olmert to put his plan on hold, but the settlers of Bruchin say they felt the change.
The army office in charge of the West Bank has issued orders to stop construction at the outpost and to demolish what has already been built, spokesman Capt. Zidki Maman said without providing details. It has also prevented Bruchin from upgrading its electricity hookup, which the settlers complain is too small for its growing population.
``Bruchin is an illegal outpost,'' Maman said.
The settlers blame U.S. pressure, and say they feel betrayed by the government.
Meanwhile, Bruchin continues to thrive - with the government's help.
On a sunny winter morning, soldiers sent by the government stand guard at Bruchin's gates, while the squeals of children at play ring out from the outposts' nine preschools, many of them funded by the Education Ministry.
Down a tidy road lined with tall street lights and brick sidewalks, past the marble-walled synagogue and the community center, stand 40 two-story yellow stucco houses in two rows. A large sign says they were built with Housing Ministry help.
Nearby, a cluster of nearby trailers houses another 40 families, who arrived in recent years.
Residents describe Bruchin as a quiet, close-knit, religious suburb. They have neighborhood barbecues, cooking classes for the wives, and after-school judo, ceramics, basketball and Torah for the kids.
``It's a good place,'' said Avi Galimidi, a 30-year-old student who moved here 2 1/2 years ago with his wife and four children. ``It has wonderful and good people. And I want to settle the land.''
Israel has repeatedly promised to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, where nearly 270,000 settlers - a 6 percent increase from a year ago, according to government figures - live among 2.4 million Palestinians.
Several thousand Israelis are believed to be living in outposts.
Under the 2003 ``road map'' peace plan, Israel agreed to remove dozens of outposts built since March 2001, but that deal that does not include Bruchin, since it was started two years earlier. Israel also agreed to freeze settlement growth, which should have ended all expansion at Bruchin. Israel did not follow through on either of those commitments.
The Palestinians have also failed to live up to their road map commitment to disband militant groups, who effectively rule the streets of the West Bank and fire missiles at Israeli towns from Gaza.
The U.S. sees the settlements and their continued construction as obstacles to peace, at a time when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has scheduled a Feb. 19 summit between Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to foster a rapprochement.
``The Israel government should live up to its commitments, and that includes on the settlements, that includes on outposts. These are commitments, by the way, to the United States, they're not commitments to the Palestinians,'' U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones said.
The Israelis ``should not create facts on the ground,'' he said.
But more than 100 outposts have been built since 1995, and most now have at least some form of basic infrastructure, Etkes said.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat calls the outposts ``baby settlements.''
``Our worst fear there is being realized, which is that they will boom and become major settlements,'' he said.
Like many outposts, Bruchin was a response to violence - the fatal shooting of an Israeli woman, Yael Mevar, as she drove near an Arab town on Dec. 31, 1997.
Angry settler leaders dusted off old plans for a settlement about 12 miles east of Tel Aviv, between Israel and the large settlement of Ariel, deep in the West Bank. In the spring of 1999, Jewish seminary students moved into trailers on a hilltop.
``You can't come and just shoot Jews and we'll do nothing,'' said Shav-Tal, 31. ``We'll show them that we live in this country, and we are the people that own this country.''
In October, Shav-Tal and five other families answered the students' call to settle in Bruchin. They moved into trailers powered by electricity generators, with water tanks filled every three days, Shav-Tal said.
``The challenge that you have of building something where there is nothing - that's real Zionism,'' he said.
That core group posted fliers in nearby settlements, advertised on the Internet, and were flooded with applications, Shav-Tal said.
``Our problem from the first day was more people want to come than the places we have,'' Shav-Tal said.
More trailers rolled in. The government-owned electricity company hooked Bruchin up to the grid. The water company installed a pump and pipes. The local council paved 1.5 miles of roads. Public bus service began.
The settlers received approval from the Housing Ministry to build 40 permanent houses, and their occupants moved in 2 1/2 years ago, well after the road map was unveiled. Their newly empty trailers became available for new arrivals, and by December, these too were filled, bringing Bruchin's population to 380.
The army may call Bruchin illegal, but in her government-commissioned report on the outposts two years ago, attorney Talia Sasson said the Housing Ministry spent $785,000 on Bruchin's infrastructure and public buildings.
The government was deeply complicit in the creation of many of the outposts, Sasson wrote.
``Most of the outposts were financed by some ministry in Israel,'' she told The Associated Press.
``We helped build it,'' said Yitzhak Levy, who was housing minister in 1999. ``It is supposed to be a city. It has a large area. It is clear that this is a place that was going to grow, and therefore there was investment. It was done openly.''
Yehudit Passal moved here 1 1/2 years ago with her husband and two children because it allowed her family to be near the Tel Aviv job market while strengthening Israel's hold over the West Bank, she said.
Her decision was strengthened, she said, by Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which included the dismantling of 21 settlements and another four in the northern West Bank.
She said she wanted the remaining settlements to be large, ``so it would be that much harder to take them down.''
A few hundred yards down the hill lies a town of 4,000 Palestinians. Its name is Brukhin, the Arabic form of Bruchin. Mayor Akrima Samara says the outpost's existence blocks Palestinians from their olive groves and grazing land, and has dimmed their hopes for a state of their own.
``With every passing day we see the outpost grow,'' he said. ``This land is lost.''
The settlers of Bruchin have big plans. A detailed blueprint envisages expanding their community tenfold, to 750 families, said Itzik Turk, the outpost's general secretary.
But the sympathy the settlers once enjoyed in Israel has weakened as Israelis have wearied of war with the Palestinians and the burden of being an occupying power.
Galimidi, the student, says he is not worried about Bruchin's future.
``I believe that all the problems will be solved little by little,'' he said. In another 20 years, ``Bruchin will be a city, and we will have malls.''
02/17/07 11:31 EST | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: |
| Rosner's Blog
Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent www.haaretz.com/rosner Biography | Email me
Obama will soon make the case that he'll be as strong on Israel as anyone
My weekend column for the Hebrew print edition is a lengthy piece on U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois). Most Israelis don't know him, and my editors thought he was enough of a political phenomenon to make him worth writing about, even at this early stage of the campaign. Most of the piece was not translated into English, as much of the material in it will not be of any value to American readers who have gotten more than their fair share of Obamania in the last couple of months. The only part of it that's worth presenting here is the section on Obama and Israel. (You can read a news story on Obama's comments about Israel here.)
I've written about Obama and Israel before, in the context of The Israel Factor project. My goal at the time was to try to explain why this bright, charismatic, viable candidate was not getting high marks from our Israel Factor panelists: What is it about Obama that makes them uncomfortable about his possible future attitude toward Israel?
If you don't know someone, then you don't trust him. And "if you don't trust someone, you try to be careful with him," one panelist told me. It's "the unknown factor," another one explained. "What kind of constituency does he bring with him, and how will they influence his positions?"
"We need more time to trust him," a panelist told me. "Voting for Israel a couple of times doesn't constitute enough of a track record on which to make a more favorable judgment." Nathan Diament of the Orthodox Union, who knows Obama from their days at Harvard, made a similar argument this week in his blog: The short political life of Obama hasn't "provide[d] many opportunities for a new politician to establish the kind of record that longer-serving officeholders have built up over time."
Obama has not been deaf to such suspicions. And now that he is not just a "possible candidate" but an officially declared one, he will try to fix these perceptions. "Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," were Obama's words to Haaretz. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction."
In my 60-minute interview with him last week, Obama was not shy about explaining why a viable peace has not yet been achieved. Like all the other major Democratic candidates, he will be a strong advocate for American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nonetheless, he said he is yet to see - "particularly in the Palestinian community - "leaders who have both the will and the capacity to renounce violence as a strategy to resolve the problems and to actually enforce any agreement that might be reached with the Israelis." Talking about the current prospects for an agreement, Obama said that under the existing conditions, "I think we're not going to see much progress."
But this is just the short version of the policy Obama will be officially presenting soon. This week I was told that while the venue has yet to be selected, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs conference in Washington at the end of February is one possibility. There's also a chance that he will make his comments on Israel at a Washington rally calling for the release of the abducted Israeli soldiers or while speaking to a group of Chicago Jews. One thing is quite clear: It will happen in the next two to three weeks.
I asked about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention in March and was told that he will speak there too, but wants to have another speech sooner. Obama doesn't want to wait such a long time - not when he is running a campaign in which he will need the support of many people who care deeply about Israel. (Oh, let's just say it: Jewish voters are major donors to the Democratic Party and its nominees.) He also wants to make sure that people will hear him, and him alone. After all, Obama will not be the only candidate speaking and getting attention at the AIPAC conference.
On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Dan Shapiro, a senior adviser to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida), was saying goodbye to the job he has held for six years. He is as knowledgeable as anyone on Israel and the Middle East, and apart from the "real" job he got himself now, he has joined Obama's campaign as an adviser on issues related to Mideast policy.
I spoke to Shapiro about Obama and his views earlier this week, and I asked him to highlight for me the differences between Obama and the current Bush policy regarding Israel. The first difference, he said, will be a greater emphasis on the need for constant engagement by the U.S. Obama will tell you that Bush wasted some long years without investing in diplomacy. You can either agree with him on that or not, but this has become the Democratic party line. All candidates condemn Bush for the hands-off approach.
A second possible difference will involve the question of whether to talk to Syria. Obama believes that America should talk to the Assad regime, so it's hard envisioning him objecting to an Israeli-Syrian dialogue. And then there's the question of Iran - the most important of them all.
A Washingtonian familiar with the Obama campaign reminded me that Obama is the anti-war candidate, and thus will have some maneuvering to do on Iran. He will probably warn of a possible deterioration in relations that could lead to an unintentional war, but by the same token he can also be expected to agree that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and that no U.S. president should take any of the options off the table.
This will be a position similar to those of other Democratic candidates. Some might say that it's a problematic position when it comes to the real world - what if talks with Tehran do not provide an agreement that can actually prevent a nuclear Iran - but nevertheless, it's a good one politically. It sounds anti-war enough for the Democratic Party at large, and anti-Iran enough for those who really understand the significance of the issue at hand.
All these policy points will not even wait for the promised speech. A position paper outlining Obama's views is in the making, and will be distributed to as many Jewish voters as possible.
Will he be able to win over these voters?
After talking to people about him all week, I can tell you this: They very much want to be persuaded that Obama should win their backing, as they all understand the excitement and enthusiasm surrounding his candidacy and the importance of Obama's adding his voice to the camp of Israel supporters.
With such an attitude, it is relatively easy to be convinced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama is a fraud with his 'anti-war' status as he supports the coming attack on Iran for AIPAC (Israel):
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Smith1012.htm
Obama is all for the coming attack on Iran as well:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=11963
Additional at following URL:
AIPAC hacks Clinton/Edwards call Iran threat to U.S., Israel
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/02/02/aipac-hacks-clinton-edwards-call-iran-threat-to-u-s-israel.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: |
| http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1248.html
Payvand's Iran News ...
3/19/07
The US, Israel and Iran: An Interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh
By Mehran Ghassemi, Iranian journalist, Roozna newspaper, Tehran
Sasan Fayazmanesh is chair of the Department of Economics at California State University, Fresno.
Q. How do you evaluate the relationship between the US and Israel at this time? What is this relation based on?
A: Allow me to say beforehand that I am currently writing a book-tentatively entitled The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment- which chronicles the US, Israel and Iran relation since 1979. The book-which is to be completed by the end of summer-examines, in a comprehensive manner, the evolution of the US policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq, particularly as it pertains to Iran. I believe, without such a comprehensive analysis, it is difficult to give meaningful and satisfactory answers to many questions that I am often asked about the current entanglement between Iran on the one side and the US and Israel on the other. With this caveat, I would answer your question by saying that under no previous administration has the relation between US and Israel been as close as under the current, Bush Administration. Why this is the case and what the relation is based on requires the kind of comprehensive analysis that I was referring to above. But let me just say that, as it is well known, the Middle East Policy of the current administration has been determined by the "neoconservatives," individuals who virtually see no distinction between the "interest" of the US and Israel and might even put the "interest" of the latter above the former. Now, I put "neoconservative" in quotation marks because, for reasons that I will not go into here, it is an ambiguous and overrated expression. Also, I put the term interest in quotation marks, since one has to distinguish between perceived and actual interests on the one hand and the interest of ordinary citizens and those of the elite on the other. The individuals who make the US foreign policy, particularly the "neoconservatives," represent a privileged group of people with a unique and peculiar view of the world. To these "neoconservatives" waging wars against Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and possibly Iran and Syria, might appear to be in the "interest" of the US, even though in actuality such policies might be very harmful to the interest of ordinary citizens of the US, particularly in the long-run.
The current relation between the US and Israel, of course, goes beyond the issue of the strength of the "neoconservatives" in the White House. The US Congress, too, has traditionally been, and remains to this day, a close ally of Israel. However, given that the US war against Iraq is going very badly-and the fact the US was egged on to start this war by some Israeli politicians and their "neoconservative" allies in the US-it appears that a few US Congressmen have become lately somewhat uneasy about their blind, unequivocal support for Israel.
Q. How do you evaluate the integration of US and Israeli policy?
A: As it is clear from my answer above, the integration of the US and Israeli policy is nothing new, it is many decades old. But, as I also indicated above, under the current administration this integration has reached a level not seen before. Even at the beginning of the Bush Administration the integration was not as strong as it became later. We all remember that immediately after the September 11 (2001) events the Bush Administration spoke of the creation of a Palestinian State and started a courtship dance with Iran. But the talk and dance ended as soon as the Israeli forces inside and outside the US intervened. Binyamin Netanyahu's September 21, 2001, testimony before the US congress-when he stated that "if the US includes terrorism-sponsoring regimes like Syria, Iran, or the Palestinian Authority in a coalition against worldwide terrorism, then the alliance 'will be defeated from the beginning'"- set the stage for a radical reversal of the US newly conceived policy. Similarly, Ariel Sharon's October 6, 2001, warning that the US should not "repeat the terrible mistake of 1938" stifled any attempt to moderate the US policy. Finally, the January 6, 2002, Karine-A affair-when Israel allegedly captured a ship carrying Iranian arms to the Palestinian Authority group-put a complete stop to any rapprochement between the US and Iran or attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The result was the January 29, 2002, State of the Union Address by President Bush, when the "neoconservative" concept of "axis of evil," coined apparently by David Frum, was put forward. From then on the "neoconservatives" seemed to have complete control of the US Middle East policy and integrated this policy fully with that of Israel.
Q. How do you see the role and the position of the Israeli lobby in the US? Are there similar lobbies in Israel that advocate for US interest?
A. This is a very broad and complicated question that requires at least a book to answer. There are, of course, a number of articles and books written on the subject of various Israeli lobby groups in the US, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The most recent essay, and probably the most comprehensive and academic one, is that of John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt, which can be found online. But even this analysis is not detailed enough and, unfortunately, details that are provided appear only in the footnotes. My own book will deal with the subject matter in a greater detail, but only in so far as Iran is concerned. In other words, I investigate the role that various Israeli lobby groups and individuals have played, particularly since the early 1990s, in formulating the US foreign policy towards Iran. The role, I would argue, is quite extensive. Indeed, I argue, that we have to trace this role to Martin Indyk, the communication advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a staffer at AIPAC, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (which is an offshoot of AIPAC), the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the US Department of State under the Clinton Administration and the former US ambassador to Israel. In his 1993 inaugural address as the national security advisor to Clinton, Indyk stated:
The Clinton administration's policy of "dual containment" of Iraq and Iran derives in the first instance from an assessment that the current Iraqi and Iranian regimes are both hostile to American interests in the region. Accordingly, we do not accept the argument that we should continue the old balance of power game, building up one to balance the other. . . The coalition that fought Saddam remains together, as long as we are able to maintain our military presence in the region, as long as we succeed in restricting the military ambitions of both Iraq and Iran, and as long as we can rely on our regional allies Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the GCC, and Turkey-to preserve a balance of power in our favor in the wider Middle East region, we will have the means to counter both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. We will not need to depend on one to counter the other.
As I argue in my book, Indyk's claim that the policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq was something new was exaggerated and the roots of the policy go back to the Carter Administration and particularly Zbigniew Brzezinski. Setting aside this issue, however, I argue that with the help of Martin Indyk, a few other individuals in the Clinton White House and a few powerful people in the US Congress, various Israeli lobby groups, especially AIPAC, became the underwriters of the sanction policy of the US against Iran. This is particularly true of the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. But Indyk, I argue, represented the moderate wing of the Israeli lobby groups in general and the Washington Institute in particular. He was close to the Israeli Labor party.
When the Bush Administration came to power, more radical members of the Washington Institute, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, took over the formulation and implementation of the White House Middle East policy. These "neoconservatives" were closely linked to the Likud party members, particularly Binyamin Netanyahu. As such, their idea of "containment" of Iran and Iraq went beyond the roundabout way of passing sanctions to ruin the economy of these countries, bringing about discontent, causing revolt and then overthrowing their governments; they advocated a more direct way for "regime change": using the military might of the US to attack these countries. Even though some of these individuals have left office, there are still many such characters in the current administration. One such person is Elliott Abrams, the current deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy. He is, of course, a well-known figure who was convicted, and subsequently pardoned, on charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal. Another one is Stephen Hadley, the current national security adviser to President Bush. Under former President George H.W. Bush, Hadley served as an assistant to Wolfowitz, who was then Undersecretary of Defense. Yet, another individual is Stuart Levey, the present Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Levey has been working zealously to stop foreign banks from dealing with some Iranian banks. In 2005 Stuart Levey gave an address at AIPAC that began with: "It is a real pleasure to be speaking with you today. I have been an admirer of the great work this organization does since my days on the one-year program at Hebrew University in 1983 and 1984. I want to commend you for the important work that you are doing to promote strong ties between Israel and the United States and to advocate for a lasting peace in the Middle East." Then he goes on to talk about what his office does and how "[w]e levy economic sanctions to pressure obstructionist regimes, and we have the ability to freeze the assets of wrongdoers."
The Israeli lobby groups' influence is, of course, not confined to its members and associates in the White House. The lobby has a great influence in the US Congress as well. Its own current website verifies this influence by stating:
For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."
Political advocacy is one of the most effective ways in which AIPAC works to accomplish its mission. Each year, AIPAC is involved in more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives aimed at broadening and deepening the U.S.-Israel bond.
Among the "more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives" that each year AIPAC helps to underwrite are the numerous sanctions bills against Iran that I alluded to above. Obviously, given the short space here, I can't elaborate on this and you have to wait until I finish my book.
As far as the second part of your question is concerned, I don't have an answer. That is, whether there are similar lobby groups in Israel that advocate for US interest is not something that I have followed.
Q. You have used the term USrael. What interpretation did you have in mind? What are the implications of this concept for international relation?
A. It seems that some individuals have attributed coining the term "USrael" to me. Unfortunately, I am not the originator of the term. It existed before it appeared in some of my essays. I used it in the sense that under the Bush Administration the US and Israel's foreign policy towards the Middle East converged and became virtually indistinguishable. As I explained earlier, this started to happen a few weeks after the events of the September 11, 2001, when the "neoconservatives" aligned the US policy in the Middle East with that of Likud. Given this alignment, there is no significant policy difference between the US and Israel over Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria or Lebanon. This was not the case under the previous administrations. For example, during the Clinton Administration the Likud and their "neoconservative" counterparts in the US were trying to toughen the US stand towards Iran. But near the end of the Clinton era US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, under the pressure from the US corporate lobby, tried to modify the direction of the US belligerent policy towards Iran, much to the dismay of the Israeli lobby groups. Her March 17, 2000, speech-in which she nearly apologized for the CIA's 1953 coup in Iran and spoke of the "regrettably shortsighted" US policy of supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war-was part of her attempt at rapprochement. We have not seen such rapprochements since the "neoconservatives" took over the US Middle East foreign policy and made it almost identical to that of Israel.
The nearly complete alignment of the US and Israel foreign policy has had a profound implication for the Middle East. For example, the US used to pretend to be an "honest broker" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But now that veneer has mostly disappeared and the US does not even pretend to be a neutral mediator. Since post September 11, Israel has had a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians. It also has had a free hand in waging the summer of 2006 war against the people of Lebanon. Indeed, as the world watched, the US became the partner of Israel in that war. With regard to Iran, as I have argued above, the implication is clear. Israel and its various affiliates in the US are now the leading force in pushing the US in the direction of confrontation with Iran.
Q. How do you evaluate political developments in the US and Israel? For example, does the change in the balance of power in the US Congress or the coming to power of a different faction in Israel have any impact on strategic interest?
A. It is evident from what I stated earlier that historically both the Democratic and Republican Parties have supported the policy of "containment" of Iran since 1979. This support appears to continue in the future as well. For example, on January 24, 2007, The Jerusalem Post reported from Herzliya Conference in Israel that at "a time when most US Democrats are calling for less military involvement abroad Edwards of South Carolina told conference participants his country must do everything it can to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." According to this report, Edwards, a leading Democratic presidential candidate stated: "All the options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." Similarly, the Associate Press of February 2, 2007, reported that Hilary Clinton, another leading Democratic presidential candidate, addressed an AIPAC event a day earlier and stated: "I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies." The prime "enemy" of both countries was, of course, Iran. According to the same report, Hilary Clinton, then stated that the "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. . . In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table." On the same day, the Associated Press reported that the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lashed out at Hilary Clinton and accused her of "timidity" regarding the security threat posed by Iran. Romney, according to the report, told the conservative Republicans that at "this point, we don't need a listening tour about Iran. . . Someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat of a nuclear Iran." The same Mitt Romney also appeared at the Herzliya Conference, according to The Jerusalem Post, and stated that "Iran must be stopped, Iran can be stopped, and Iran will be stopped. . . The heart of the jihadist threat is Iran. . . I believe that Iran's leaders and ambitions represent the greatest threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union and before that Nazi Germany." In a more recent interview with ABC News on February 16, 2007, Mitt Romney called the whole nation of Iran "genocidal" and "suicidal," adding that "you say to yourself this is a setting where, of course, you have to consider the possibility of military action, but we're not there." The rest of the Republican presidential candidates are not much different. The same Jerusalem Post that I referred to above also stated that another "Republican hopeful Sen. John McCain said the US should 'intensify' its military support for Israel to ensure that the country maintained it strategic edge over those who were bent on destroying it such as Iran."
As we can see from the above, presidential candidates from both parties are singing the same tune. The question is which wing of the Israeli lobby groups will be put in charge of formulating the Middle East policy when one of these candidates is elected. Will it be Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross type or Wolfowitz and Perle kind?
Given that the US policy towards Iran is devised by different wings of the Israeli lobby groups, and given the affiliations of these groups with Israeli parties, it is natural to expect the same kind of mind set among the Israeli leaders. These leaders, too, are unified in their policy of "containment" of Iran. Whether it is Likud, Labor or Kadima party, the essence of the policy will remain the same. The only difference appears to be how each party or individual intends to "contain" Iran. Some Israeli politicians are more aggressive and fanatical in their "containment" policy than others. For example, in their campaign to demonize Iran, both Binyamin Netanyahu, the "hawkish" former Prime Minister, and Shimon Peres, the "dovish" former prime minister, have repeatedly compared today's Iran to Nazi Germany. But, according to the Agence France Presse of December 5, 2005, Benjamin Netanyahu promised "a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's nuclear installations if he were to be re-elected." Shimon Peres might think twice about such a strike.
Q. How does the US establish a balance between its relation with Arab allies and Israel?
A. Historically, successive US administrations have maintained a symbiotic relation with both their Arabs client states and Israel. At times US's alliance with the Arabs states has caused some annoyance on the part of Israel and its lobby groups. For example, in the early years of the Iran-Iraq war the US decided to sell Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) to Saudi Arabia to assist Saddam Hussein with intelligence. This decision did not sit well with some Israeli politicians and their allies in the US who were interested in "containing" Iraq first. Similar frictions and fissures have appeared at other times. The interesting issue is what has happened in recent times. Some "neoconservatives" in the Bush White House, such as David Wurmser-currently, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney-who saw the policy of "dual containment" as too roundabout and time consuming, advocated adopting a new policy: "Dual Rollback of Iran and Iraq." According to this policy, the US was supposed to attack Iraq, bring the Shiite majority to power, use this power-which supposedly would be friendly to the US and Israel-as a counterweight to Shiite Iran, and then do a "regime change" in Iran. The policy, however, has so far not worked as planned. That is, the Iraqi Shiites have not challenged Iran or shown a great affection and admiration for the US and Israel. Given this reality, we now hear something new in the US-Israeli circle: a dangerous "Shiite crescent," headed by Iran, is appearing in the Middle East, stretching from Lebanon to Iraq and beyond. This crescent, we are told, must be defeated by an alliance of the US, Israel and Sunni Arab states. The implication of this policy is that Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US might no longer oppose a close relation between US and its traditional Arab client states, such as Saudi Arabia. The new policy is, of course, based on the old dictum of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The US and Israel have played this game many times before in their pursuit of colonial domination, sometimes with costly blowbacks. The sad fact is that some Arab states appear to be going along with this old colonial trick and are joining the alliance against the "Shiite crescent."
Q. What is the role of Israel in pressuring Iran regarding the nuclear issue?
A. The role is extensive, particularly if you also include Israel's lobby groups and associates in the US. But showing how extensive it is requires writing a detailed account, which obviously I can't provide here. In my book I trace one of the first official claims about Iran making an atomic weapon to the "neoconservative" Kenneth L. Adelman. According to the July 1984 Department of State Bulletin, on May 2, 1984, Adelman-who was at the time the US Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency-gave an address before the "Mid-America Committee" in Chicago in which he spoke of some "frightening thoughts," such as Iran, Libya, or Palestine Liberation Organization acquiring a nuclear bomb. Adelman then stated that "today, talk about the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran is in the news. A British defense journal recently alleged that Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran is only 2 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons." Twenty three years later, we are still told by the "neoconservatives" and their counterparts in Israel that Iran is 2, 5 or 10 years away from the nuclear bomb. In my book I will provide details of twenty three years of such claims by the Israelis and their associates in the US. Let me just mention one interesting claim. Starting in 1992 Israelis and some "Iranian dissidents," who have been working closely with the Israeli intelligence, began to claim that Iran actually possesses three or four nuclear warheads. According to this claim, Iran had acquired these warheads from Kazakhstan, after the break up of the Soviet Union.
As late as 1998 the news still percolated within the Israeli, "Iranian dissidents" and some American circles. For example, on April 9, 1998, The Jerusalem Post stated: "Iran received several nuclear warheads from a former Soviet republic in the early 1990s and Russian experts maintained them, according to Iranian government documents relayed to Israel and obtained by The Jerusalem Post." "The documents," the Israeli newspaper went on to say, "deemed authentic by US congressional experts and still being studied in Israel, contain correspondence between Iranian government officials and leaders of the Revolutionary Guards that discusses Iran's successful efforts to obtain nuclear warheads from former Soviet republics." The paper then went on to say: "The documents appear to bolster reports from 1992 that Iran received enriched uranium and up to four nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan, with help from the Russian underworld." The following day The Jerusalem Post ran another piece on the same story. This time it claimed that "Iran paid $25 million for what appears to have been two tactical atomic weapons smuggled out of the former Soviet Union in a highly classified operation aided by technicians from Argentina, according to Iranian government documents marked top secret and obtained by The Jerusalem Post." All this, of course, was pure, sheer fabrication by Israel, their US allies and their "Iranian dissidents" partners. The sensational story, however, soon disappeared as the CIA and US government admitted that there was no truth to it. Afterward, the Israelis and their allies went back to estimating how soon Iran will have the atomic bomb; and since the bomb never materialized, they kept pushing the estimate back. Of course, as I will show in my book, the alleged Iranian bomb, similar to the proverbial "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is an excuse. The real intention is to complete the "dual containment" by "containing" or destroying the one country that is still standing.
Q. The US is facing the anger of the Middle Eastern people as the result of its support for Israel. Is it possible to continue this? Or will the US reach a point when it will be ready to change the equation.
A: As long as the anger of the people of Middle East does not translate into overthrowing the corrupt, tyrannical and reactionary regimes in the Middle East who have symbiotic relation with the US and Israel, I don't see much fundamental change in the US foreign policy. So far, the anger has resulted mostly in sporadic, isolated and individual acts of violence. Such acts have removed the veneer of US being an "honest broker" between Israel and her opponents. Yet, at the same time, these actions have hardened the position of the US, brought her even closer to Israel and resulted in more acts of violence on the part of the US and Israel.
Q. How do you access the prospect of development in the Middle East in the next year?
A. It is very difficult and dangerous to predict the future, especially if one is familiar with the past and its complexities. This is particularly true if one is dealing with individuals who appear to be irrational or believe in a Hobbesian world. Will there be another election in Israel to bring back Binyamin Netanyahu to office? Will he fulfill his promise of "a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's nuclear installations if he were to be re-elected"? Will "neoconservatives" push for the use of a "shock and awe" air strike against Iran and carpet bomb Iranian nuclear and military sites, however irrational that action might appear to be to the rest of the world? Or will Iran capitulate, give up its right under Article IV of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accept the US-Israeli demand-which is now backed by a UN sanction-to stop all enrichments activities? If Iran does accept this demand, what other demands will be put forward by the US and Israel, given that the nuclear issue, as I argued, is merely an excuse for "containment" of Iran? If Iran does not accept the demand, and if rational people around the world can stop the US and Israel from military adventurism, will there be more severe sanctions drafted against Iran by the UN? Will Russia and China be bribed, cajoled, arm twisted again to go along with these sanctions? Will these sanctions bring about what the US and Israel have been after for years, namely, to ruin the Iranian economy, bring about unrest, and make Iran ripe for a US invasion, as was the case in Iraq? These are difficult questions to answer and make predicting events in the future nearly impossible. The ultimate question, however, is this: is Iran ready to deal with all and every contingency? Does Iran know how this game is played and does it have a well-thought-of, well-articulated and unified game plan of its own? Is Iran fully aware that the US and Israel have patiently and meticulously worked for decades to push Iran into the current corner, where UN sanction has been finally imposed on it? Is Iran ready for the further tightening of the UN sanction noose? Could the economy of Iran, which is already under severe constraints, withstand further pressure? Are Iranians willing to tolerate additional economic hardship, such as the reduction in foreign investment, falling employment and rising inflation? Having carefully studies the history of the US-Israel-Iran entanglement, and having heard many voices from Iran, empty rhetoric and wishful thinking, I am not sure if the answers to the above questions are all affirmative.
Q. In your view is the confrontation of the US with Iran directed toward the strategic position of Iran and its potential impact in the region or is this effort directed to weaken the political and spiritual influence of Iran in the region?
A. It seems like most empires in the past the US does not tolerate disobedience and will not accept any challengers in the world, whether it is Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Cuba or Venezuela it does not make much difference. Thus, it is not necessarily the strategic position of Iran or its political and spiritual influence in the region that has led to the confrontation between the two countries. The confrontation, as it is well known, goes back to 1979, when the US "lost" Iran. Ever since the US has been trying to bring back the old order and make Iran another obedient, client state. To use an American expression, until Iran says "uncle" to the US and Israel it is considered to be an "out law," a "rogue nation" that must be punished. Of course, the strategic position of Iran and its political alignment with groups such as Hamas and Hezbolah puts her on the top of the US's agenda.
Q. Will Iran be able to have the capacity to form an alliance against Israel in the region? Or will Iran be forced to collaborate with Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to form an anti-Israel alliance as opposed to moderate Arab countries?
A. As mentioned earlier, having failed to achieve the desired result in Iraq, the US and Israel are now trying to create the myth of the Shiite crescent headed by Iran. As I also indicated, the traditional Arab client states of the US appear to be accepting this new myth and are going along with the idea of joining US and Israel in the "containment" of Iran. Whether Iran can change this trend appears to be doubtful given the nature of these Arab regimes and their long, historical, and symbiotic relation with the US. That leaves Iran with a very limited choice of allies, such as Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. But, obviously, this alliance doe not do much for Iran in terms of security. Actually, a major reason for the US-Israel policy of "containment," and the resulting insecurity that Iran faces, is Iran's support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. As I have argued elsewhere and will argue in my book, when the policy of "dual containment" was announced in the early 1990s, Iran was said to commit three "sins:" 1) sponsoring terrorism worldwide-which was meant support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad-2) opposing Middle East peace efforts-which was meant the Oslo "peace process"-and 3) developing weapons of mass destruction-which, at the time, was left ambiguously defined. The sin of opposing the Olso "peace process" was soon dropped out of the equation, since Israel opposed it as well. But the other two sins remained; and, to paraphrase Paul Wolfowitz's explanation for invading Iraq, for bureaucratic reasons the US and Israel settled on the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the core reason for "containing" Iran. In actuality, the main reason for Israel's belligerent policy towards Iran has been the latter's support for Hamas and Hezbollah. As long as that support remains, the attempt to "contain" Iran and the resulting insecurity will remain.
Q. Will Israel serve as pressure lever against Iran? Or will she, by exaggerating the nuclear threat of Tehran, try to create Western shield for itself?
A. Israel, as I have alluded to above and will show in my book, has been the prime force behind "containing" Iran since the end of the US invasion of Iraq in 1991 and the subsequent UN sanctions imposed on the country. Also, given what I said earlier, it is clear that Israel does not need a Western shield and is not really worried about Iran building a nuclear weapon. It is well known-and lately Olmert admitted it indirectly- that Israel has many nuclear warheads. With those warheads, and her advanced Western technology, Israel cannot possibly feel threatened by Iran supposedly developing a primitive nuclear bomb. As President Jacques Chirac stated in his January 31, 2007, interview with The New York Times: "Where would Iran drop this bomb? On Israel? . . It would not have gone off 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground." As I have argued above, the issue of Iran allegedly developing a nuclear weapon is an excuse by the US and Israel to "contain" Iran in the same manner that they "contained" Iraq. The "containment" of Iraq, of course, did not go exactly as planned, but Iraq will be economically and militarily out of action for decades to come. For some of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq, this is a good enough "containment."
Note: This interview is available in Persian on Roozna's web site. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: |
| Activists Assail AIPAC Agenda
Demonstrators outside an AIPAC fund-raising luncheon held at San Francisco’s Moscone Center (Staff photo S. Twair).
Californians opposed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) influence on U.S. foreign policy and the $3 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel protested at the pro-Israel lobby’s recent Northern California membership fund-raisers. Some 70 activists demonstrated outside Sacramento’s Radisson Hotel Dec. 3, while an equal number protested at Santa Clara’s Convention Center the same day. The following day, while AIPAC supporters dined inside San Francisco’s Moscone Center, demonstrators outside the tony fund-raiser venue held a large banner reading “AIPAC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR US.” Later that evening more than 75 activists rallied outside Oakland’s Marriott City Center. The two-day campaign against AIPAC was organized by www.StopAIPAC.org, a group of Bay Area peace and justice activists. Through the fiscal sponsorship of The Rebuilding Alliance, www.rebuildingalliance.org/ the group placed a full-page statement of conscience endorsed by 200 individuals in the Nov. 29 edition of the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Calling on congressional representatives to “reject the dangerous politics of militarism and confrontation promoted by AIPAC,” the group demands that their representatives “support a new foreign policy based on respect for human rights and international law.”
http://www.wrmea.org/archives/March_2007/0703046.html | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
