| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: THE HIGH COST OF SUBSERVIENCE TO ISRAEL (by Paul Findley) |
| THE HIGH COST OF SUBSERVIENCE TO ISRAEL (by Paul Findley)
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/06/15/the_high_cost_of_subservience_to_israel?blog=7&posts=25&c=1&page=1&more=1&title=the_high_cost_of_subservience_to_israel&tb=1&pb=1&disp=single
http://tinyurl.com/396x44
by Paul Findley
In the greatest service of his long public life, former President Jimmy Carter warns of the grave consequences of America ’s phenomenal subservience to Israel . In his latest book and recent lectures, he focuses on how Israel ’s cruel occupation, made possible by massive and unconditional U.S. support, has subjected the Palestinian people to terrible suffering for forty long years. Beyond that grave human tragedy, candid observers must cite U.S. complicity in Israeli lawlessness as the major factor that prompted the horror of 9/11 and lured America into launching three costly, wrong-headed, and failing wars—Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror
The linkage is easily identified.
America ’s support of Israel ’s brutality was the main motivation for 9/11. It was the ultimate expression of Arab fury over America ’s double standard that routinely ignores Israeli violations of Arab human rights. Nine-eleven would not have happened if any U.S. president in the last forty years had refused to finance Israel ’s humiliation and destruction of Palestine . Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst now a consultant to CBS News, recently told a congressional committee that “our unqualified support of Israel ” was the main reason for 9/11. Marine General Anthony Zinni, President George W. Bush’s first special envoy to the Middle East , has stated that the United States invaded Iraq for Israel and oil. Osama bin Laden repeatedly said it was payback for U.S. support of Israel ’s brutal treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs and for U.S. complicity in 1982 when Israeli forces used U.S.-donated munitions to massacre over 18,000 innocent Arabs in Lebanon .
The U.S. acts of war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror were President Bush’s retaliation for 9/11. Israel —and only Israel —urged the United States to invade Iraq . Israel ’s lobby in Washington pushed hard and prevailed. To our foreign critics, these wars focus on killing people outraged by our pro-Israel bias. Our government has done nothing to redress the grievances of Israel ’s victims.
Despite this grim record, U.S. subservience to the wishes of Israel ’s leaders does not change. Unconditional aid to Israel keeps flowing, as does Israel ’s savage treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs. Moreover, the Bush administration is fully and openly pledged to do whatever is necessary—even acts of war--to halt Iran ’s nuclear program even if its projects are lawfully limited to peaceful purposes. Israel is the only nation urging the United States to attack Iran . The lobby is pushing hard again. If the U.S. assaults Iran it will be on Israel ’s behalf.
Congress, like the rest of America , is totally devoid of debate on the amazing role of this small nation in critical U.S. policy. Members are fulsome in public praise of the Jewish state, but no politician mentions the illegal behavior of Israel or the staggering burden it imposes on our country.
How did Israel gain this influence?
It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967 , the U.S. commander-in-chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the crew of a U.S. navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the ship was under deadly assault by Israel ’s air and sea forces. The Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to join Israel ’s battle against Arabs.
The scheme almost worked. It failed because, despite the carefully-planned multi-pronged assault, the Liberty crew managed to broadcast an SOS over a makeshift antenna. When the appeal reached U.S. aircraft carriers nearby, the commanders immediately launched fighter planes to defend the ship. Informed of the launch, President Johnson ordered the rescue planes to turn back immediately.
For the first time in history, forces of the U.S. Navy were denied the right to defend a Navy ship under attack. Johnson said, “I don’t care if the ship sinks, I am not going to embarrass an ally.” Those were his exact words, heard by Navy personnel listening to radio relays. The ally Johnson refused to embarrass was Israel . To him, saving Israel from embarrassment was more important than saving the lives of the Liberty crew.
The day yielded infamy—deceit, lies and cover-up at the highest level. When the SOS reached the top military commanders in Israel , they immediately cancelled ousHous the assault, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. ousHous At the White House, Johnson accepted Israel ’s claim, even though he knew it was a lie. Then Johnson magnified the day’s infamy by ordering a cover-up of the truth. Liberty survivors were sworn to secrecy. Even those in hospital beds and badly wounded were threatened with court martial if they told anyone what actually happened. The cover-up has been continued by every administration since Johnson’s.
It proved to be a fateful turning point in Israel ’s power over U.S. foreign policy. The Liberty experience convinced Israeli officials that they could get by with literally anything—even the murder of U.S. sailors--in their manipulation of the U.S. government. Financial aid to Israel began to pour like a river, all of it with no stings attached. According to The Christian Science Monitor, this outpouring has now cost U.S. taxpayers over $1.4 trillion. Costs go far beyond money. Thousands of American families are blighted forever, with America ’s once high moral standing in shambles. Because of its unqualified support of Israel , Washington is hated worldwide as never before.
The principal source of Israel ’s influence is the fear it seems to instill in every sector of our society. The most effective instrument of intimidation employed by its lobby is the reckless accusation of anti-Semitism, often leveled at anyone criticizing any aspect of Israeli behavior. Several organizations, fundamentalist Christian as well as Jewish, lobby for Israel , but the principal one is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]. I can personally certify that for many years it has cast a blanket of fear over Capitol Hill and blocked any semblance of unfettered discussion.
I unintentionally contributed to that fear in 1985 when my book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s lobby, was published. It reports in detail the efficiency of Israel ’s U.S. lobby, its history and tactics. Most of the text arose from my personal experience as AIPAC’s prime target during my last five years as a Member of Congress. It also details the lobby’s important role in the defeat of Senators Percy and Adlai Stevenson, and U.S. Rep. Paul “Pete” McCloskey. In a rare burst of public candor about its partisan activities, AIPAC claimed credit for defeating reelection bids by myself in 1982 and Senator Charles Percy in 1984.
My book became a bestseller. I hoped it would inspire public officials and other citizens to revolt against the lobby’s influence on U.S. policy, but several of my former colleagues told me it had the opposite effect. One said, “After what AIPAC did to you and Percy, I vote with the lobby every time.”
Israel ’s grip on America seems impervious. Two distinguished political scientists, John Mearshiemer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, strode resolutely into the Middle East minefield a year ago by co-authoring a paper on Israel ’s lobby. More recently, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a book written by former President Carter, revered worldwide for his effective work on international conflict resolution, was published.
These brave statements should have produced a groundswell of public protest demanding America ’s liberation from Israel . Although the professors and Carter have pursued the lecture circuit, no tide of outrage has developed. With few exceptions, America ’s major editors, producers, commentators, academics and politicians have given these courageous initiatives the silent treatment. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill simply said, “Carter doest not speak for the Democratic Party.”
Nationwide, the lobby’s influence is pervasive, sustained and deep, a phenomenon unprecedented in U.S. history. Because of that power, the “other” Israel is almost never discussed openly and candidly any place in America , even in private conversation. It is impossible to explain the silence except as a reflection of profound fear.
The situation is highly dangerous. America has already paid a towering price for our subservience to Israel , and great additional burdens seem inevitable. If the United States is involved in acts of war against Iran , anti-American protest will rise to new heights, especially throughout the Islamic world. It will inevitably deepen the widely-held belief among Muslims that America seeks to undermine Islam.
The outlook for reform is grim. Elected officials of both major political parties in Washington seem hopelessly captured by Israel ’s agents. So does every serious candidate for the presidency in 2008. A senior U.S. Senator told me recently that Israel cannot expect to experience true security until Palestinians are secure in an independent state of their own, but he spoke off the record and has not made that wise declaration in public.
All U.S. citizens must accept a measure of responsibility for Israel ’s grip on America . Those of us who knew what was happening did not protest with sufficient force and clarity. Those who did not know should have taken their responsibility as citizens more seriously. They should have informed themselves.
The scene is likely to improve only if U.S. elected officials are criticized so forthrightly from home that they fear a constituent revolt more than they fear Israel ’s lobby. This, of course, will not happen until the countryside benefits from a rigorous and edifying public debate about Israel ’s role in our national life.
Paul Findley, a U.S. Representative from Illinois 1961-83, resides in Jacksonville, Illinois. He is the author of five books, including the Washington Post seven-week bestseller, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, Chicago Review Press [Lawrence Hill Books)
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. must face reality that surge won’t halt insurgency
by Paul Findley
The U.S. Senate recommends that Iraq be converted into a loose confederation of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Although well intentioned, it is a bad idea. Confederations are prone to fail, as colonial Americans learned after their insurgency against British rule. The Senate would be more helpful by initiating legislation to prohibit U.S. personnel in Iraq from engaging in nation-building or policing. This conclusion arises from my 40 years of close study of the Middle East, 18 of them on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Congress.
Iraq is better off without our guidance in local politics. During four pre-war trips to Baghdad, I learned that Iraq has many well-educated citizens of great competence--local scholars, government officials, business leaders, and average citizens. They understand the complexity of local society and have the skill, I believe, to build a strong central government that can satisfy Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions. Some who fled the present chaos will return when Iraqis are allowed to undertake nation-building on their own.
Advice from Washington must be near the bottom of the Iraqis wish list. How could they be eager for advice from the government that led them into the present mess? It is a sign of meddling, if not arrogance, for the U.S. government to pretend to have answers for a society that has had great universities and introduced the rule of law centuries before the U.S. government came into being and in recent years has suffered under Western as well as Ottoman colonial rule.
Terrorism against unwelcome foreign troops is nothing new. Despite the cautious, misleading optimism recently expressed by General David Petraeus, the Iraqi scene is no brighter than a year ago. Casualties [dead plus those wounded seriously enough for hospitalization] and the number of violent outbreaks remain the same, and civilian life is still miserable and dangerous.
The Iraqi government is lethargic, to say the least. It is widely viewed as a puppet of Washington and the U.S. military forces as unwelcome foreign occupiers. Present signs suggest a massive, long-term U.S. presence. Our 2,000-plus diplomats there will soon be housed in the world’s largest embassy. A dozen U.S. military bases in Iraq have the air of permanence. U.S. administration officials and generals speak openly about “needing to stay” for years.
We cannot expect local citizens to be content with the prospect that Washington will control for years to come the activities in Iraq of two large groups of powerful U.S. employees: first, thousands of troops now engaged in combat and policing; second, several thousand bureaucrats tasked with guiding Iraqis employed in governmental responsibilities.
No wonder insurrection continues.
History suggests that the insurgents in Iraq will ultimately prevail, no matter how many troops the United States sends into combat. The present U.S. course is hopeless, reminiscent of the Vietnam ordeal, an earlier insurgency that, as a Member of Congress, I observed closely from start to finish. The glimmer of hope Petraeus claims to see a few years down the road is a dim reflection of the “light at the end of the tunnel” that President Lyndon B. Johnson lured Congress into believing 40 years ago. Years later in Vietnam, and thousands of U.S. lives later, the remnants of President Gerald Ford’s mission left Saigon in a panicky scramble aboard helicopters launched from the roof of the U.S. embassy.
Is a similar nightmare ahead for President Bush or his successor? It can be avoided, I believe, if Bush quickly accepts the reality that no surge in U.S. forces can conquer the insurgency.
He should take these immediate steps:
1. Stop U.S. participation in policing and military combat. No more U.S. bombing of ”suspected insurgent bases”; no more helicopter assaults; no more kicking in doors and terrorizing Iraqi families. Restrict U.S. military forces to these tasks: protection of American official personnel, military and civilian; training of Iraqi security forces; and humanitarian assistance anywhere in the country side. U.S. forces in Iraq were at their best recently when they helped victims of an earthquake.
2. Get out of Iraq’s politics. Cut the U.S. diplomatic mission in Baghdad to normal size, about 30 diplomats.
3. Pledge in unambiguous language the total withdrawal of U.S. military forces and all U.S. contractors when an Iraqi government controls the country.
While these steps do not entail full immediate withdrawal, they offer has important advantages. No one can properly accuse the administration with abandoning Iraq. The cessation of U.S. policing and combat will permit a quick reduction in total U.S. forces and likely reduce all casualties. Taken together, the steps should moderate anti-U.S. passions and the grave fear that U.S. combat operations may expand into Iran and spiral downward into an horrific clash between Islam and Christianity.
If Bush acts now, the Iraqi scene has a chance to improve vastly by the time he leaves office. -0- [Paul Findley, U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1961-83, lives in Jacksonville.] Published in the State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL Op-Ed page 7, Wednesday, October 9, 2007.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary: Bridges too far
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/08/02/commentary-bridges-too-far.php
General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' (the third edition) about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) in the USA:
General James David wrote:
"The bill for urgent work on the nation's bridges is estimated at $80 billion."
We have bridges in our country falling in the rivers because we don't have the money to repair them, but just this week the Bush administration announced that it will sign a ten-year agreement for $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel . The deal is reported to include a new generation of F-35 fighter jets, advanced bombs, and laser-guided missiles. It was just last summer that the Israelis bombed and destroyed more than a dozen bridges in Lebanon and completely wiped out a major electricity power plant in Gaza. Where in the world are our priorities? Wake up America before it's too late.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:45 pm; edited 4 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: |
| From: "Jeff Blankfort"
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:58:30 -0700
Subject: FT: Europe warns US on Iran sanctions
So now we will see a battle on Capitol Hill between the reigning champ, the Jewish Zionist lobby vs. that of the governments of Western Europe and the European-based oil companies. I wonder who the Las Vegas oddsmakers would pick to win and by what odds? Will the Zios, after likely pleading my the Bush White House, release the members of Congress to vote in the US public interest? If so, it would be a first. -JB
http://www.ft. com/cms/s/ c87fa5ba- 411a-11dc- 8f37-0000779fd2a c.html
Europe warns US on Iran sanctions
By Daniel Dombey and Javier Blas in London and Francesco Guerrera in Detroit
Published: August 2 2007 18:45b
European governments are warning Congress that US legislation aimed at Iran
could hit European energy groups, undermine transatlantic unity on Tehran’s
nuclear programme and provoke a dispute at the World Trade Organisation.
Diplomats from France, Germany and the UK, among other countries, have
stepped up a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill against moves that would
mandate sanctions on energy companies that invested more than $20m (€14.6m,
£9.9m) in Iran.
Among such companies – already marked out by a US campaign to disinvest in
energy companies that trade with Iran – are Royal Dutch Shell, Total of
France and Repsol of Spain.
Royal Dutch Shell and Repsol, which are both looking for oil in US
territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico, are involved in a project worth up
to $10bn to produce Iran’s first liquefied natural gas. The companies are
due to take a final decision about their investment in 2008.
“It’s paradoxical that the targets of this effort are companies from
countries that are making an effort to strengthen sanctions against Iran,”
said one European diplomat, referring to the European Union’s support for a
new wave of United Nations sanctions on Iran.
“The House of Representatives will decide on this bill some time this autumn
so you have to try to talk to everybody [in Congress],” said another EU
diplomat. “We are telling them that if it became a law as it stands now, it
would be a breach in WTO rules and we would not accept that.”
President George W Bush has the power to waive sanctions on third parties
doing business with Iran, but a bill introduced by Tom Lantos, chairman of
the House foreign affairs committee, would remove his ability to do so. The
bill has 322 co-sponsors, enough to overcome a presidential veto.
Diplomats stress that a parallel bill being considered by the Senate would
leave Mr Bush’s waiver intact while seeking to introduce other measures
against Iran.
But European officials say they are unsure what would emerge from efforts to
hammer out a deal between the House of Representatives and the Senate and
are worried that it could make some sanctions mandatory.
“Which do we fear more?” asked Jon Kyl, Republican senator from Arizona,
last week. “A trade dispute with Europe or China or what Tehran will do with
the revenues of a fully reconstituted energy sector?”
In principle the Iran Sanctions Act, a successor to a 1990s measure,
requires the president to impose at least two out of six possible sanctions
on foreign companies investing more than $20m in Iran, although in practice
both Mr Bush and former President Bill Clinton have always exercised the
waiver.
These sanctions include denial of Export Import Bank loans, denial of US
bank loans exceeding $10m, prohibition of US government procurement and
restrictions on imports from the company concerned.
This week, the House of Representatives backed a separate piece of
legislation, that would oblige the federal government to keep a record of
energy companies violating the $20m threshold and make it easier for state
pension funds to disinvest in them.
Some states have passed or are considering legislation to move towards
disinvestment in such companies.
Public sector pension funds such as Calpers and Calstrs, the giant
California pension plans, are opposed to any forced divestments of companies
involved in Iran. They have argued the move would be counterproductive as it
would hurt their returns and restrict their ability to provide for billions
of dollars in pension liabilities.
Caution has been urged from unexpected quarters. “If we go forward and we
begin to sanction foreign companies through more stringent sanctions in the
Iran Sanctions Act, I think there will be serious repercussions for our
multilateral effort,” said Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise
Institute, the conservative Washington think-tank. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
