Showing posts with label Zionist Lobby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zionist Lobby. Show all posts

The Gertler Steinmetz Bling Bang Torah Gang: ISRAEL AND THE ONGOING HOLOCAUST IN CONGO

"while Africans are victims of perpetual Holocaust, the persecutors
hide behind history, complaining that they are the persecuted,
or pretending they are the saviors."

Maurice Templesman is one of big funders of Barrack Obama,
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Templesman
was the unofficial ambassador to the Congo (Zaire) for
years, always working the CIA and Mobutu to instill terror
and steal minerals, but a new Israeli-American tycoon
has replaced him.

In the world of bling bling and bling bang, some things
change, some stay the same. The CIA, MOSSAD,
the big mining companies, the offshore accounts
and weapons deals—all are hidden by Western media.
The holocaust in Central Africa has claimed some six
to ten million people in Congo since 1996, with 1500
people dying daily.[1] But while Africans are victims
of perpetual Holocaust, the persecutors hide behind
history, complaining that they are the persecuted,
or pretending they are the saviors. Who is responsible?
For The Full Story :
download pdf
Share:

HumanRights Let us caucus for peace in 2008

Mazin Qumsiyeh

Some Iowa residents will caucus for peace this evening while Israeli newspaper analyze who is the most supportive of the election primary candidates to Zionist aspirations (Clinton and Giuliani win). Let us all take notes and plan for a new year of work for justice (=peace). The 2007 Statistics: 899 US Troops killed in Iraq (most in one year since the illegal occupation), 18,610 Iraqis killed, 373 Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces, 13 Israelis killed by Palestinians, and on and on. Hundreds of billions of dollars siphoned off from us and our children for war and occupations from Afghanistan to Palestine. In the first three days of 2008: 12 Palestinians and dozens of Iraqis killed. Let us all say loudly: enough. Let us all "caucus" to do positive actions for peace.

Can we at least do what the hundreds of Children in Gaza who started the new year by forming a human chain calling for ending the siege (http://www.freegaza.ps/english/ )

Can we sacrifice a little like these hosts and principles of the Wheels of Justice bus tour arrested in Iowa at HUckaby headquorters for asking "who would Jesus bomb"? ( http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29679
For more information about the campaign please visit http://vcnv.org or
http://www.desmoinescatholicworker.org/sodapop.html )

Or can we imitate the villagers of Bil'in who continued their non-violent resistance on the first day of 2008 by lying underneath caravans for new "outpost" (illegal Jewish colony) being constructed on their land and were attacked by racist Jewish settlers protected by a racist state?

What was your/our new year pledge?

In other news and commentaries:

Arab hackers target Israeli websites: Various commerce sites, Likud party site among those affected. Israeli-Arab youth leads hacking cell.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3488978,00.html
(BTW, the Likud Party Platform and its hymns are fascist and racist and in many ways even more radical and certainly more dangerous than current racist white supremacist website)

Nakba is now: Only by understanding the Nakba as a unified continuing strategy
can we hope to reverse it, writes Serene Assir
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/877/re82.htm

Palestine Is Being Destroyed By Mark Braverman, The Day, New London, CT
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=876a32a6-a92f-4821-8d88-de89e6cbdaa8

Democracy: An existential threat? by Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti,
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9187.shtml

It's Secular by Charley Reese (on role of religion in US politics)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese421.html

Rice Compares Israeli Occupation to US Segregation: If a Jewish state is legitimate in principle, how and why did "the only democracy in the Middle East," end up looking like apartheid South Africa and the segregated American south. By Lenni Brenner http://palestinechronicle.com/story-123007162104.htm

Personal story: Dina Takruri of Georgetown University School of Foreign Service talks about her experience crossing into Palestine
http://www.kabobfest.com/2007/12/blind-israeli-injustice.html

Interesting quote: "if the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished." Ehud Olmert ( news.bbc.co.uk - 11/29/07)
[Olmert's actions and other words show he means a Jewish sovereign state and Palestinian bantustans not two sovereign states and his other statements clarify that to him State of Israel means only a Jewish racist state not a state of its citizens].

Mazin Qumsiyeh
http://qumsiyeh.org
http://justicewheels.org
Share:

A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby

By Mark Weber

For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.

Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as illegal and outrageous. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.

"The whole world," said United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world... can be wrong." [1]

Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and defend its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

Why is the US such a staunch bastion of support for Israel?

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason. Speaking to an audience in Boston, he said:

"But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic . People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful." [2]

Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only two or three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence - much more than any other ethnic or religious group.

As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out: [3]

"Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked...

"Jews are only three percent of the nation's population and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry." [4]

Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [5]

"During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series."

Vanity Fair magazine in October 2007 published a list of what it calls "the world's most powerful people" - a lineup of the one hundred most influential media bosses, bankers, publishers, image makers, and so forth, who determine how we view ourselves and the world, and who - directly and indirectly - shape our lives and our futures. Jews made up more than half of the powerful men and women on the Vanity Fair list, reported a leading Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post. [6]

The influence of American Jewry in Washington, The Jerusalem Post has also noted, is "far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and US official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign." [7]

A Grip on Hollywood

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." [8]

One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [9]

"In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation .

"Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish - one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 per­cent among top-grossing films.

"The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America's most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates."

Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Americans readily accept such imagery, not everyone is impressed. "I am very angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering." [10]

A Well-Entrenched Factor

This intimidating power is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life. In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [11]

"How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles.

"The extent and depth to which organized Jewry reached - and reaches - in the U.S. is indeed awesome . The most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control . Jews, toughened by centuries of persecution, have risen to places of prime importance in the business and financial world . Jewish wealth and acumen wields unprecedented power in the area of finance and investment banking, playing an important role in influencing U.S. policy toward the Middle East . In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles."

One-Sided 'Holocaust' History

The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had a profound impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is the well entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious than in the "Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II.

Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [12]

"Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes by without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating."

Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are, for example, the tens of millions of victims of America's World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims of China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives.

The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational" campaign is crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: "With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy." [13]

Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught political science at City University of New York (Hunter College) and DePaul University in Chicago, says in his book, The Holocaust Industry, that "invoking The Holocaust" is "a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews." [14] "By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure ... Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel's and its own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the brazen "shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other countries by Israel and organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The Holocaust," Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery in the history of mankind'.

Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." [15]

Foreign Policy Role

In Britain, a veteran member of the House of Commons candidly declared in May 2003 that pro-Israel Jews had taken control of America's foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US and Britain into war in Iraq. Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy known as "Father of the House" because he is the longest-serving Member of Parliament, said: "A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians . There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States." [16]

Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [17]

"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Today the danger has never been greater. Israel and Jewish organizations are prodding the United States into new wars against Israel's enemies.

As the French ambassador in London has put it, Israel - which he called "that shitty little country" - is a threat to world peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?," he said. [18]

To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American interests. In fact, they often conflict.

As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of current affairs and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the US political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace .

Notes

1. On April 8, 2002, in Madrid. Quoted in Forward (New York), April 19, 2002, p. 11.

2. D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.

4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001. (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html)

5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.

6. N. Burstein, "Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Oct.12, 2007. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257286817&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull <http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257286817&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull > )

7. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

8. M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37

9. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291.

10. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks.

11. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 209, 212, 218, 228, 229.

12. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306.

13. Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79.

14. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149

15. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from which this article is adapted."

16. F. Nelson, "Anger Over Dalyell's 'Jewish Cabal' Slur," The Scotsman (Edinburgh), May 5, 2003; M. White, "Dalyell Steps Up Attack On Levy," The Guardian (London), May 6, 2003. See also: M. Weber, " Iraq: A War for Israel" (http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml)

17. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.

18. D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens World Peace," The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The ambassador is Daniel Bernard.

About the author

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review.


__,_._,___
Share:

Holding Zionism To Account

Open Letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

From Alan Hart, author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

Dear Secretary Rice,

According to a widely quoted Reuters report, you are “so anxious not to repeat mistakes of past Middle East peace-making” that you sought the advice of, among others, former President Jimmy Carter. (The others included, apparently, former President Bill Clinton and three of your predecessors – Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Madeleine Albright).

Your spokesman, Sean McCormack, was quoted as saying: “She’s trying to draw on the historical record and the experience of others to see what she can glean and how far that may be applicable to the current day… She is a student of history and has a keen appreciation for how we can apply the lessons of history, what we can learn from those who have gone before us.”

Apparently you’ve also been “scouring historical records for pointers”.

And, most impressive of all, you’ve made it clear that you will devote all of your energy in the Bush administration’s final 14 months “to get what others have failed to attain in the past – a viable, independent Palestinian state living side by side with a secure Israel.”

Secretary of State, in principle it really IS do-able, it’s the practice that’s the problem, and I’ll come to that in a moment.

I am presuming to offer you some advice because, although I say it myself, I know the Middle East at least as well and perhaps even better than any of those (the named ones) you have consulted on your side of the water. In my television reporting and early book-writing days, for example, I enjoyed, uniquely, intimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, the two greatest opposite in all of human history, Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. One way and another I have been engaged with the conflict in and over Palestine, and why a resolution of it has remained beyond the reach of politics and diplomacy, for slightly more than four decades. (The Gentile me first went to Israel as a 23 year-old ITN reporter in 1965).

The problem with the “historical record” - I mean the first and still existing draft of Judeo-Christian history - is that it’s mostly nonsense. Propaganda nonsense. Zionist propaganda nonsense. At its core are two myths.

One is that the Zionist state of Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. The truth of history is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger. Not in 19448/49. Not in 1956. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover which allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most, America and Western Europe, with presenting its aggression as self-defence and itself as the victim when it was, and is, the oppressor.

The other is that Israel has not had a Palestinian partner for peace. The truth of history on this account is that the ground for peace on the Palestinian side was prepared by Yasser Arafat as far back as 1979 – more than a quarter of a century ago. In that year, 1979, Arafat persuaded the Palestine National Council, the highest decision-making body on the Palestinian side, to back his policy of politics and (until then) unthinkable compromise with Israel.

As I recorded in my book Arafat (the title of the American edition, the original title was Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?), it took him six long years to persuade first his Fatah leadership colleagues and then other PNC members to accept the reality of Israel’s existence. When the vote was eventually taken, in 1979, it was 296 for his policy of politics and compromise and four against. Arafat, who had risked his life as well as his credibility to turn his people around, was then at the height of his powers; and from that moment on, and as President Carter knew, there could have been successful negotiations for a real and lasting peace based on a genuine two-state solution - Israel back behind its pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem, preferably as an open city, the capital of two states.

The problem was that Arafat did not have a partner for peace on the Israeli side - because Zionism was not, and is not, interested in peace on any terms the vast majority of Palestinians and other Arabs and most Muslims everywhere could accept. It’s true that in 1993, and thanks in part to President Clinton’s stage management and pulling power, Arafat did have a “perhaps” Israeli partner for peace in the shape of Yitzhak Rabin, but he was assassinated by a gut-Zionist. And Rabin was succeeded by Israeli leaders whose prime objective was to re-demonise and destroy the Palestinian leader. Arafat the terrorist they could handle. Arafat the peacemaker they could not. (Didn’t Barak offer Arafat “95 percent” of everything he had said he wanted? No, he did not! That, too, is a propaganda lie).

One of the few Westerners - they could be counted on the fingers of two hands - who understood that by the end of 1979 Arafat had prepared the ground on his side for peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief, was Brian (now Sir Brian and long-retired) Urquhart. In my view he was in his working life one of the the greatest Englishmen of his time. In 1979 he was Under-Secretary-General of the UN, and in that capacity he was, effectively, the world’s number one trouble-shooter and hands-on crisis manager. He knew the Middle East better than anybody else and he was respected by leaders in the East as well as the West, and by Israelis as well Arabs.

Urquhart told me of the message Arafat had asked him to give to Israel’s leaders when Sharon, then Prime Minister Begin’s defence minister, was preparing to invade Lebanon to exterminate Arafat and all of his PLO leadership colleagues. Arafat said to Urquhart: “Please tell these stupid people in Jerusalem that they will be sorry when I am gone. I am the only one who can deliver the compromise to make peace.” To me, and as quoted in my book on Arafat, Urquhart said: “It’s tragic. Arafat was speaking nothing less than the truth. From the beginning he has been the only Palestinian leader who could talk about dealing with Israel and not be killed the next day for saying so.” Subsequently Urquhart said to me that he feared it would only be when Arafat was dead that Israelis would realise how much they had needed him for peace.

Secretary of State, if you really want the best advice, you should talk to Urquhart.

And if you really want to come to grips with the truth of history in order to formulate a real policy for peace, I suggest you read my latest book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. It’s epic in length (two volumes) as well as sweep and substance because I’ve re-written the whole history of the making and sustaining of what used to be called the Arab-Israeli conflict, replacing Zionist mythology with the documented facts and truth of history. Though it’s available from Amazon, it’s not yet published in America because all American publishers are too terrified of totally offending Zionism to take it on. I should stress that it’s the opposite of anti-Semitic. It’s my Gentile call for the Jews to become the light unto nations by demonstrating that right can triumph over might, and that there is a place for morality in politics.. The key to understanding is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism - why they are total opposites: and thus why it is (a) perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise) without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic; and (b) why it is wrong to blame all Jews for the crimes of the hardcore Zionist few.

Now to the principle of real peace-making. Often on public speaking platforms I put it this way:

If the President of America had a magic wand, and if he could wave it overnight to get Israel back behind its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem and open city and the capital of two states, he would have (with one wave of the wand) the thanks, respect, friendship and support of not less than 95%, and probably 99%, of all Arabs and Muslims everywhere.

In other words, with one wave of the magic wand to end Israel’s occupation of Arab land grabbed in 1967, the President and you as his Secretary of State would go down in history as the greatest of all peacemakers; and you would undo all the damage that’s been done to America’s standing in the world by neo-con driven policies including support for Israel right or wrong. And, the bonus, you would make winning “the war against global terrorism” by political means a mission possible.

The question is: What can the President do without a magic wand?

Short answer: He could use the leverage he has to require Israel to end its occupation in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and international law. (I am aware that President Bush promised Prime Minister Sharon that Israel could keep the main settlements it has established on the occupied West Bank, but it was a promise the President should not have made and was, is, without legal authority of any kind. On this the President would have to come clean and say, “I made a mistake and I am now correcting it.”)

The truth of the matter, or so it seems to me, is that in his last 14 months in the White House, President Bush is well placed to be the first American President to call and hold Zionism to account – because he can’t run for office again and so doesn’t need Zionist lobby support in the form of campaign funds and votes. Simply stated, he now has 14 months of freedom to do what is right and best for America’s real interests. (And also those of the Jews of the world).

Secretary of State, I am aware that right now the Mother and Father of all political battles is going on behind closed doors in Washington DC – to determine whether or not Vice-President Cheney and his neo-con-and-Zionist associates will continue to call the policy shots. If he and they do, I think it’s highly likely that two things will happen. Iran will be bombed by America or Israel (probably in February, March or April) triggering catastrophe, possibly even a nuclear one, for all; and Israel, after it has failed to impose its will on the Palestinians (they won’t accept crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of two or three bantustans) will be given the green-light to go for a final round of ethnic cleansing. (The full horror of the first round is now fully documented by Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “revisionist” historian, in his latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).

It’s my understanding that Defence Secretary Gates is quietly leading the campaign to stop the madness Cheney and his associates represent. Once upon a time you, Secretary Rice, had great influence on President Bush. You were subsequently sidelined to a very large extent by Cheney and Zionism’s watchers in the White House and your own department. But what of today? I have the impression that your seven visits to Israel/Palestine have led you to the conclusion (of course you can’t say so in public) that the Zionist state of Israel is the obstacle to peace.

If my impression is correct (and, of course, I could be wrong), it’s my hope that you’ll now use your influence to tip the balance of power in Washington DC in favour of those on the side of justice and peace and sanity.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Hart

Alan Hart, author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
Share:

The chorus of slander on Palestine

By GREGORY HARMS

There is a mountain of literature and documentation regarding the basic history of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and where scholars may disagree one would need a magnifying glass to examine the dispute. However, the level of "controversy" surrounding the subject in the United States seems to remain steady, if not increase. What allows this, and therefore the conflict, to continue can be viewed as the function of three basic factors: lack of information (on the part of the population), silence (on the part of academics and the media), and intimidation (on the part of supporters of US-Israeli state power). While each of these three frames of reference is symptomatic in nature, they can nevertheless aid us in seeing more clearly why the conflict is so problematic in America. It must be emphasized that Palestine-Israel is not mystical, obscure, or even, one could argue, entirely unique. Quite the contrary, it's a conflict that can be easily understood -- and solved. So why all the contention when there's little to contest?

In cases such as these there oftentimes isn't too much of a problem. If we are talking about, say, the subject of China's involvement in Tibet, we look at the facts, assess those facts, and form some opinions about the situation. The room for opinion, however, is quite narrow because the facts, in essence, speak for themselves. In the US one would have difficulty finding two or more people heatedly arguing about China and Tibet. On the contrary, a solid consensus exists on the matter and with good reason. Moreover, concerts and music festivals are held in an effort to generate awareness on the subject. All the while, no one is accused of being "anti-Chinese"; no one is looked upon with suspicion as being "pro-Tibetan." These accusations would naturally be viewed as irrational, and the accuser as not being of sound mind. One never hears the retort, "We need to look at both sides of this issue!" This is because the China-Tibet issue doesn't have two sides, it has one: China occupies and has brutalized Tibet and its culture. The issue is understood with cool detachment and is seen as being a political matter; and the political matter has nothing to do with how we feel about the Chinese and the Tibetans. There's little to discuss, and as a result, one doesn't hear much discussion.

The above example is a best-case scenario for confronting a political conflict (if "conflict" is indeed the appropriate word here). As Americans we handle the subject pretty well. There is much we can learn from how it is we approach it, and there is also much we can learn from why it is we remain so composed on the matter. Understanding this is key. If we compiled a list of reasons for our prudence regarding China and Tibet, it might include the following points:

(1) the topic is physically, politically, and culturally remote;
(2) no US clients are involved;
(3) criticizing China is acceptable;
and (4) the Tibetan culture is romanticized and revered. As a result, honest discussion of the subject comes at no expense.

The public discourse can be conducted openly and freely, films can be made, rock concerts can be held, and so on.

While the example of China and Tibet isn't perfect, the principle obtains. The Palestine-Israel conflict, as mentioned, is clear, well-documented, and the general history is agreed upon by scholars and specialists representing points far and wide on the political spectrum. It is uncontroversial. Yet, controversy and debate abound. Our composure and prudence falter when we move the conversation to the Middle East and consider the US's involvement in the region. Why then the change in temperament when, for all intents and purposes, the issues are fairly similar and the history is undisputed? Plugging Israel and Palestine into our four points can reveal where American consideration of the conflict has gone awry.

1. The Palestine-Israel conflict, though remote in the above-mentioned aspects, touches home: News coverage of the subject is virtually uninterrupted; it involves Jews, which in turn invites introduction of the Holocaust -- a subject many Americans know and feel strongly about; and the Middle East in general is becoming increasingly topical by the day, especially after 9/11 and the current campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. Israel is an ally and client of the US. Washington provides it immense support in the form of cash, loan guarantees, military equipment, and diplomatic protection. As a rule of thumb, clients receive velvet treatment in the press. The human rights abuses of our "friends" fall beneath the radar while those of official enemies are emphasized and reiterated time and again. Saddam Hussein's crimes received serious attention after he'd fallen from grace. Saudi Arabia, whose human rights record is probably one of the worst in the region, garners thin attention in the media, and usually with respect to business or social "reforms" when it does. The reflexive agreement of the major news outlets with the overarching, big-picture interests of planners in Washington produces skewed media treatment, thus affecting our perceptions and opinions.

3. Criticizing Israel can evoke a range of negative responses. At the lighter end, one can be pigeonholed as a "liberal," though the meaning of the term in this context (or most others for that matter) is never clear. At the heavier end, charges of antisemitism are not uncommon.

First, Israel being a close associate of the US plays a major hand in this. Second, Israel being a Jewish state is a factor; criticism of the Jewish state is (wrongly) construed by some as criticism of the Jewish people. However, any other experiment in this line of thinking nearly elicits laughter, e.g., criticism of Kim Jong Il suggests one's racist hatred of Koreans -- an argument difficult to take seriously.

The vocabulary and syntax that have been adopted in talking and writing about the conflict is a third key determinant and is directly related to the first two. Unlike our China-Tibet example, the Palestine-Israel conflict is linguistically polarized: so-and-so is pro-Israeli, such-and-such book is pro-Palestinian, etc. As a result, "objectivity" and "bias" are terms that have been firmly integrated into the rhetoric. Unlike our example again, one is encouraged to step lightly when taking Israel to task for its occupation of the Palestinian territories. However, if the history of the conflict is clear and undisputed, there seems to be little room for polarity and the attendant charges of lack of "balance." That this kind of language predominates automatically suggests legerdemain and dismissal of the facts.

4. While in the West Bank during November and December 2005, I was out one evening talking to a group of Palestinian boys, most in their late teens and early twenties. I had met with them a couple of times prior and had become friends with all of them. Like most young men anywhere they were energetic, eager to discuss everything under the sun, and quite comical. Any given exchange, however, eventually turned to the conflict and life in the territories. During the evening's conversation we touched on external perceptions of the Palestinian people, especially American views on account of my citizenship. One of the boys started laughing and, for my amusement, bent over, pointed to his posterior, and announced, "See Gregory, no tail!" The rest of the group erupted into hysterics, myself included. When Palestinians are shown on the evening news, they are typically donning black hoods, toting machine guns, and chanting in the streets.

Palestinians don't eat lunch, they don't play soccer, they don't hang out laundry, they don't get the flu, and they don't fall in love: they just scream and shoot guns and exhibit animalistic behavior. Again we can inquire as to the factors at work in influencing our assumptions: Knowledge of the Middle East in the US is dismal.

Anti-Arab racism, largely a function of that ignorance, is profound in America. Israelis are closer in appearance and culture to white Europeans, remind us of the Holocaust and the sympathy it induces, and as a nation are allied with the US. The Palestinians belong to an ethnicity viewed with fear and contempt, are involved in a conflict with Jews, and, by default, receive negative news attention. American celebrities remain silent on Palestine. There are no concerts raising awareness.

Hollywood gives it a wide birth. While certainly worthwhile, taking up the Tibetan cause offers the image of political consciousness at low stakes.
There then seem to be two basic procedures for doing politics and history. One can approach them as a detective or as a public relations agent. The detective follows the trail of facts and documents and allows them to tell their own story. The person doing PR, on the other hand, promotes (and protects) the reputation of a given entity, be it a person, business, country, etc. If we have cultivated an idealized picture of the country we live in, introduction of the actual, less enchanting historical record is less likely to find purchase with us; these unsavory features of our country's past and present disturb the idyllic construct and therefore our framework of thinking. Yet despite the unpleasant experience, it behooves us to take seriously what the "detective" has unearthed and brought into the light. Naturally, one doing this kind of work is, by virtue of the uncomfortable nature of his or her findings, going to be unpopular in some circles. Heretics must be burned after all.

This phenomenon has become a serious problem in academia.
A number of professors have come under attack in recent years, most visibly Norman G. Finkelstein, who this summer was, along with colleague Mehrene Larudee, denied tenure at DePaul University in Chicago. Various writers such as former President Jimmy Carter, Joel Kovel, et al., have also felt the heat of this contrived debate. Intense disagreement over the Israel lobby and the amount of influence it does or does not wield in Washington continues to escalate. Yet, Finkelstein's work as a scholar is rather uncontroversial. Though the word controversy follows him around now like a shadow, one need only go through his findings and documentation to see the precise and careful nature of his work, along with the validity of what he's reporting. That his critics tend to use general and abstract characterizations of him -- rarely his work -- to make their condemnations is revealing. Ad hominem judgments are quick and easy; reading human rights reports and footnotes is less so.

The maelstrom surrounding Carter and his largely conservative and cautious Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is another such example. Kovel's Overcoming Zionism, while I cannot agree with him to the letter (i.e. his argument for a one-state solution), does offer an informative, eye-opening, and well-reasoned critique of Zionism and Israel's policies and behavior. Like those against Finkelstein, the criticisms leveled at Kovel are generic renderings bearing no resemblance to what appears in his book. The work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on the Israel lobby, also something I don't agree with one hundred percent, is worth considering as it enhances legitimate debate. But, regardless of where there may be rational disagreement, open and unsuppressed dialogue about US-Israeli relations and Palestine is the singular path to broader understanding and popular active support for a just resolution benefiting both sides.

Nevertheless, the chorus of slander towards those attempting to widen the parameters of discourse on the Palestine-Israel conflict will most likely continue. The tactics work after all: Professors are denied tenure. Pressure is applied to publishers and distributors, in the case of Kovel, his (and my) publisher Pluto Press in London, and University of Michigan Press. (It should be noted that on Oct. 25, UMP decided to continue distributing Pluto's books in the US despite the uproar over Kovel's book; a perfect and rare example of defiance against this kind of intolerance.) Lectures are cancelled, and so on.

What allows these tactics such success is the accommodating atmosphere of confusion and fear in which they are employed. Americans must address these concerns -- their lack of knowledge, the dearth of good information, and the forces attempting to squelch critical analysis -- along the blurry line between one's susceptibility to one's circumstances and one's responsibility for his or her actions. That US involvement in the Middle East is distorted at best and ignored at worst by mainstream news outlets is a reflection of how economic and political power work fist in glove, and how the dominant intellectual culture falls in line; our confusion is proof. Likewise, Israel's supporters, including lobby groups and academic organizations, are allowed the influence they enjoy owing to their interests running parallel with Washington's global intrigues. Still and all, we the people cannot control the actions of others. We can, however, impose considerable pressure if we so choose: our lobby has a membership of roughly 300 million people.

Providing this pressure is our burden should we find the prevailing circumstances unacceptable. We have a part to play. For the intellectual and academic class, the accountability brought to bear is even greater.

Gregory Harms is the author of The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction (Pluto Press), entering its second edition in spring 2008.
Share: