The Two Great Myths

The Israel Lobby disseminates two great myths in order to perpetuate Israel's occupation of Palestine and to promote the death and destruction of Israel's enemies. The first myth is that the U.S. is under attack from "Islamofascists" for the purpose of spreading Islam. The second myth is that Israeli/Palestinian peace is impossible, so don't bother trying. Looking ahead to the 2008 elections, the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" has an article entitled "Rosner's Domain----The Israeli Factor: Ranking the presidential candidates." On a score of one to ten: worst for Israel is one, and best for Israel is 10. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml Leading the pack at 8.13 is Rudy Giuliani under whose picture is written, "The former New York mayor returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 following his comments on Israel." In other words, Giuliani is a hero to the Lobby because he keeps the truth from the American people, thus helping to keep myth #1 alive. The $10 million, intended for families of 9/11 victims, was contingent upon the prince being able to tell the American people that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our foreign policy favoring Israel. This was of course eventually shown to be true by the 9/11 commission (see previous blog "The Great Debate, Part 3" 10/19/06). At the bottom of the pack is Senator Chuck Hagel at 3.88. Under his picture is stated, "The Senator for Nebraska believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to Middle East peace." That is the death knell for Hagel as far as the Lobby is concerned since the Lobby prefers to deny the truth that Israel was a factor, for instance, in our invasion of Iraq (see previous blogs "Why Iraq? Parts 1-7" 1/15/06-1/21/06). Most elected officials are merely politicians who prostitute themselves to the Lobby to raise funds for their re-elections. Rarely, however, there comes along a true statesman willing to debunk myths for the greater good of our country.

The JINSA Crowd, Part 2

After 9/11, the neoconservative/Zionists had persuaded President Bush to include the Palestinians in his War Against Terror and to refuse to meet with duly-elected Palestinian President Arafat. As Karen DeYoung writes, "In his new 'with us or against us' view of the world, Powell thought Bush tended to see the Israeli/Palestinian situation in black-and-white terms---'Sharon good, Arafat bad.' " ("Soldier---The Life of Colin Powell," p. 356) This was particularly tragic because in 2002, the Arab League endorsed the Saudi Peace Plan, (See previous blog "The Saudi Peace Plan" 1/11/06), which was accepted by Arafat's Palestinian government and virtually the rest of the world except for Israel and the U.S. Rather than Mideast peace, Bush had his heart set on war with Israel's enemy, Iraq. Just as the neoconservative/Zionists trumped up false evidence supporting an Iraq invasion, they trumped up false evidence against Arafat. From Israel came death threats against Arafat in line with their beloved policy of targeted assassinations. In September 2003, the U.N. General Assembly voted 133-4 to condemn Israeli threats against Arafat. The four opposed to the condemnation were Israel, the US, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. An article in "The Guardian" (UK) 4/24/04 , entitled "Sharon: 'We May Kill Arafat,' " quoted Sharon, (having just spoken to President Bush), "I told the president the following. In our first meeting about three years ago, I accepted your request not to harm Arafat physically. I told him I understand the problems surrounding the situation, but I am released from that pledge." A few months later Arafat died of a "mysterious illness," poisoning, no doubt. Thus, instead of Mideast peace, we have increasing numbers of civil wars in countries which oppose Israel's occupation. The Zionists may believe this is fine for Israel, but it is fatal for the U.S.

The JINSA Crowd, Part 1

Speaking before the National Press Club on October 11, 2001, Winston Churchill, grandson of Britain's famous prime minister, recalled asking Israel's General Sharon in 1967 what was to become of the Palestinians. Churchill stated that Sharon's "chilling" reply was, "We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them." By this he meant that Palestinians in the occupied territories would be separated by layers of Israeli settlements. Surely, that has come to pass. Churchill went on to say that after the 1973 war, Sharon telephoned Churchill boasting, "We have peace. A piece of Egypt. A piece of Lebanon. A piece of Jordan. And a piece of Syria." One might wonder if it was to this definition that President Bush was referring when he labeled Sharon "a man of peace." Bush's statement was made following a peace-making trip which Secretary of State Colin Powell made to the Middle East in 2002, as described in Karen DeYoung's book "Soldier---The Life of Colin Powell." Powell realized the importance of Israeli/Palestinian peace but was up against strong opposition. DeYoung writes, "Cheney, Rumsfeld and their senior aides continued to urge Bush to think small in terms of any Mideast initiative, although Powell privately questioned why the defense secretary was being allowed a decisive say on what was essentially a diplomatic issue." (p.355) "Powell referred to Rumsfeld's team as the 'JINSA crowd.' JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was a Washington-based organization that equated U.S. national security with a strong backing for Israel's defense needs. Feith, a Washington lawyer who had actively opposed Mideast peace talks for most of his career, had served on its board, as had Perle and Cheney." (p.356)

The Lobby's Blitzkrieg, Part 2

If the hysterical falsehoods hurled at President Carter sound familiar, it is because they are slung at all others who dare speak out. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, who published the taboo-shattering paper "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" (See previous blogs "The Lobby" and "WSJ Response" 3/26/06 and "The Great Debate, Parts 1-4" 10/17/06-11/26/06) , were subjected to the same verbiage verbatim. It is crucial to The Lobby's agenda that the American public be kept in the dark concerning Israel's despicable treatment of the Palestinians, as described in Carter's book. It is important that America be kept unaware of the real reason we are hated in the Muslim world. Otherwise America might wake up to the importance of establishing a just peace in Palestine not only #1: to prevent future 9/11's, but also #2: to be able to enlist Muslim nations to join us in establishing peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and #3: to prevent the Israel Lobby from pushing us into invading more countries, such as Iran, on behalf of Israel, as was true with Iraq. A just peace between Israel and her neighbors, as outlined in the 2002 Arab League Peace Plan, (see previous blog "The Saudi Peace Plan" 1/11/06) , would bring this unnecessary so-called war on terror to an end. The problem is, of course, Israel does not want to give back its stolen land.

The Lobby's Blitzkrieg, Part 1

The goose-stepping footsoldiers of the Israel Lobby have their marching orders. Order #1: Prohibit any criticism of Israel, including any discussion of Israel's occupation of Palestine. Order #2: Crucify those who disobey Order #1. President Jimmy Carter is the Lobby's latest victim. Carter had the audacity to publish his observations of conditions in Israeli-occupied Palestine. (See "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid") He has thus been branded a bigot, a fabricator, a plagiarist, a liar, a dangerous terrorist-abetter, and of course, an anti-Semite. Defense attorney Alan Dershowitz called Carter's book "indecent" and plans to confront him when Carter addresses students and faculty at Brandeis later this month. The speech is not open to the public except for Dershowitz, it appears. Dershowitz vows, "This will be the toughest encounter he has ever had in his professional career." (The Boston Globe, 1/11/07) Carter has written, "The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks..." (Los Angeles Times 12/8/06) In this country all those who discuss the plight of the Palestinians are called anti-Semites unless they are Jewish. In that case, they're called "self-hating Jews." In other words, Jews who uphold the high moral precepts of Judaism should hate themselves. One gets the impression that the venomous Lobby is hoping the 82-year-old former president has a heart attack on the Brandeis podium.

Somaliization

Tolstoy wrote, "War is the vilest thing in life." ("War and Peace") Yet, worse than war is civil war, and worse than civil war is chaos, warlordism, i.e. Somaliization. This is where Iraq is headed, thanks to a "perfect storm." Iraq's fate resulted from the tragic confluence of these factors: (1) a neophyte president, apparently with a brain the size of a pea, shown to be ignorant, stubborn, and determined to be influenced by the wrong people, namely (2) the neoconservative Zionists, on record for many years prior to 9/11 as pushing for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, many of whom are members of (3) the omnipresent highly profitable military/security industrial complex, and (4) the Israel-Lobby-controlled media and politicians. Why does Al Qaeda hate us? It is because we invade Muslim countries and support Israel's occupation of Palestine. If America could escape the pernicious influence of the ultra-Zionists, we would no longer be pursuing unnecessary endless wars. If countries want Islamic governments, so what? We don't have the resources to convert every country to our form of democracy, which, by the way, is fatally flawed itself due to the role of the Israel Lobby's funding of politicians. (In other words, don't expect the Democrats to be any better vis-a-vis the Iraq war than the Republicans.) Somalia, a country notoriously in chaos for many years, finally achieved stability through an Islamic government, but the US brought in the Ethiopian Christian crusading army (Somalis hate the Ethiopians) to boot out the Islamists. The final result will no doubt be back to chaos for Somalia, ditto Iraq, ditto Afghanistan, and soon to be dittoed Iran. Henry Kissinger, a close adviser (minder?) of the president, was, of course, very much in favor of the Iraq invasion. Ted Koppel stated recently in a documentary about Iran for the Discovery Channel, "Back in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, Henry Kissinger famously said, 'It's a pity they can't both lose.' " This pretty much sums up the Zionist view of the Muslim world and also describes our dimwitted foreign policy.

In Memorium: Iraq?

This past week, we witnessed the contrasting departures of President Ford and Saddam Hussein. The former's memorial service was marked by a subtle irony due to the prominence therein of several architects of the Iraq invasion, which we are now told Ford opposed. On the other hand, Saddam's final moments were marked by raucous taunts to which he was subjected, as he stood with a noose around his neck, waiting for the trap door to open. Screaming at him were masked members of the Shiite militias he had subdued during his reign. As described in The New York Times, December 31, Saddam had been roused at 5 a.m. by his American keepers and handed over to Iraqis at 5:30 a.m. He was taken to a judge's room where he was read the guilty verdict. He then exclaimed, "Long live the nation! Long live the people! Long live the Palestinians!" He died at 6:10 a.m. Thus, until the end, he was loyal to the Palestinian cause which had been his undoing. As reported by Reuters, November 25, 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert recently admitted (11/22/06) that the Iraq war has been a boon for Israel's security. Indeed, this is why the Neoconservative Zionists (N.Z.s), assisted by the Israel Lobby, concocted the Iraq invasion to begin with. (See blog entries "Why Iraq? Parts 1-7, " January 15-21, 2006.) Now, of course, the Israel Lobby pretends it never wanted war with Iraq. (See blog entry "The Great Debate Part 2" October 18, 2006.) Furthermore, the N.Z.s are now claiming that Iraq would be a peaceful united democracy if others had not botched it up. Nonsense! It was the N.Z.s themselves who insisted that only a small force was needed, that Americans would be welcomed, and that Iraq oil would pay for it. The truth is that: first, if the N.Z.s had told us how much the war would cost in blood and treasure, America never would have undertaken it. Second, the N.Z.s never wanted a peaceful united Iraq. (See blog entry "Civil War Advocates" April 15, 2006.) As described in "Neo-conned Again" (p. 84-85), Oded Yinon, an Israeli who had been attached to Israel's Foreign Ministry, wrote in "Kivunin" (Directions), the periodical of the World Zionist Organization, a February 1982 article "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s." Yinon pointed out that Iraq was Israel's greatest threat and advocated breaking Iraq up into three or more provinces along religious/ethnic lines. Instability and civil wars within Israel's enemies have long been in Israel's interest, especially when the blame can be placed on the victims. Saddam's final moments show that this goal has come true, and this is why some N.Z.s, in the spirit of "Mission Accomplished," are advocating American withdrawal. Thomas Friedman wrote in yesterday's New York Times. "As Saddam's hanging underscored, Iraqis are doing things their way. So maybe it's time to get out of their way."