Woensdag 5 februari 2014 publiceerde Truthout het volgende commentaar van Noam Chomsky:
Prerogatives of Power.
As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of the WIN/Gallup International poll on the question: 'Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?'
The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning three times the votes of second-place Pakistan.
By contrast, the debate in American scholarly and media circles is about whether Iran can be contained, and whether the huge NSA surveillance system is needed to protect U.S. security.
In view of the poll, it would seem that there are more pertinent questions: Can the United States be contained and other nations secured in the face of the U.S. threat?
In some parts of the world the United States ranks even higher as a perceived menace to world peace, notably in the Middle East, where overwhelming majorities regard the U.S. and its close ally Israel as the major threats they face, not the U.S.-Israeli favorite: Iran.
Few Latin Americans are likely to question the judgment of Cuban nationalist hero José Martí, who wrote in 1894 that 'The further they draw away from the United States, the freer and more prosperous the [Latin] American people will be.'
Martí’s judgment has been confirmed in recent years, once again by an analysis of poverty by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean, released last month.
The U.N. report shows that far-reaching reforms have sharply reduced poverty in Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela and some other countries where U.S. influence is slight, but that it remains abysmal in others - namely, those that have long been under U.S. domination, like Guatemala and Honduras. Even in relatively wealthy Mexico, under the umbrella of the North American Free Trade Agreement, poverty is severe, with 1 million added to the numbers of the poor in 2013.
Bill de Blasio wants you to know he shovels his own snow-encrusted sidewalk, arranging feel-good photo-ops to show off his civic pride. The New York mayor feels a bit differently, however, about wooing the powerful pro-Israeli lobbying group AIPAC, whose members he spoke to in a Manhattan hotel on Thursday night, for a speech omitted from his public itinerary.
The event’s security staff removed Azi Paybarah, a reporter for Capital New York, who managed to get past the secret event’s coat check. Paybarah later obtained several minutes of audio, where the mayor can be heard praising the United States’ strategic alliance with Israel as “elemental to being an American” because America has “no greater ally on earth.” According to Capital, de Blasio promised that 'City Hall will always be open to AIPAC.'
And though de Blasio crafted his mayoral campaign around his cutting criticisms of Mike Bloomberg, in front of AIPAC’s constituents he found only praise for his predecessor’s re-development of Roosevelt Island, where the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology plans to build a satellite campus.
'The rich and powerful [have] their voices heard above the rest of us,' de Blasio declares on his campaign website. He adds: 'It is enough to shake one’s faith in our system.'
Bill de Blasio is niet de burgemeester van Tel Aviv, maar van New York, hij is een politicus die gekozen werd om de geloofwaardigheid van Amerikaanse politici en bestuurders te herstellen, nadat de joods Amerikaanse miljardair Michael R. Bloomberg er 12 jaar lang de eerste burger was geweest. Onmiddellijk nadat De Blasio op 1 januari 2014 aantrad verklaarde hij in een besloten bijeenkomst met Aipac onvoorwaardelijk achter de internationaal recht schendende 'Joodse staat' te staan. Aipac is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, de propaganda organisatie voor Israel in de Verenigde Staten, de buitengewoon rijke en daarmee invloedrijke lobbygroep in het land. Aipac is zelfs zo machtig dat de International New York Times dinsdag 4 februari 2014 verbaasd op de voorpagina constateerde dat
Israel lobby faces a rare setback over Iran. Failure to win sanctions calls dominant position of Aipac into question.
The last time the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobbying group lost a showdown with the White House was 33 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan agreed to sell Awacs surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia over the group's bitter objections.
Since then, the group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has run up an unbroken record of legislative victories in its quest to rally American support for Israel, using a vast network of grass-roots supporters and a wealthy donor base to push a raft of bills pressuring Iran through Congress. Typically, they pass by unanimous votes.
Wat Aipac eist wordt 'unaniem' ingewilligd door de Amerikaanse volksvertegenwoordigers van zowel de Democratische als Republikeinse Partij. De brutaliteit waarmee dit gebeurd is legendarisch. Een illustrerend voorbeeld daarvan is een zaak die de geschiedenis is ingegaan als de 'David Steiner Affair':
David Steiner was President of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and later was a New Jersey real-estate developer.
Controversy and resignation from AIPAC.
He resigned his AIPAC Presidency in November 1992 after Haim Katz, a New York real estate developer, secretly recorded a telephone conversation with him and released it to the Washington Times. [1] Steiner told Katz he had significant influence over American foreign policy and the selection of US political leaders.
Among the things Steiner told Katz:
'I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear.... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.... I have friends on the Clinton campaign, close associates.... I've known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis.... One of my friends is Hillary Clinton's scheduler, one of my officer's daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absence to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in the campaign, in the headquarters, in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs.... I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers... Steve Spiegel.... We have Bill Clinton's ear. I talked to Bill Clinton. He's going to be very good for us.... A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships.... Susan Thomases, who's in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She's in there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country.... He's said he's going to help us. He's got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish friends.... Clinton is the best guy for us.... We're just negotiating. We're more interested right now in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency.... I've got a list. But I really can't go through it. I'm not allowed to talk about it.... We'll have access.' […]
Steiner was replaced as President of AIPAC by Steve Grossman.
Een andere topfunctionaris van Aipac was Steve Rosen, research director van deze joods zionistische lobbygroep, die 'served for 23 years… was indicted in August 2005 for alleged violations of the Espionage Act in the conduct of AIPAC’s work, but the charges were dropped.' Hij verklaarde in 2001:
A lobby is a night flower, it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.
Toen Jeffrey Goldberg, voormalig journalist van het tijdschrift The New Yorker aan Steve Rosen vroeg of de Steiner-affaire had geleid tot een afname van de invloed van Aipac op de besluiten van de 100 leden van de Amerikaanse Senaat
A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. 'You see this napkin?' he said. 'In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.'
Op zijn beurt verklaarde Martin Sieff, Managing Editor of International Affairs, van het persbureau United Press International in 1999:
So great is the perceived power of AIPAC to mobilize financial support for pro-Israel candidates or to challenge those perceived as hostile, that this year, as is usually the case, around half the members of the Senate and one-third of the House of Representatives were expected to attend the policy banquet at [AIPAC's annual] conference.
'Is it any wonder why President Bill Clinton would grovel before a Jewish audience at a $350 a plate dinner, and butter something as ridiculously pathetic as the following statement — The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die.'
De door de joods zionistische lobby gefinancierde president Bill Clinton verklaarde zonder enige schroom dat Aipac 'beter' was 'in het lobbyen dan wie dan ook in deze stad,' daarbij doelend op Washington, 'You have been stunningly effective.' Hetgeen niet vreemd is een cultuur waar alles om geld draait, en waar Congresleden worden gekocht en verkocht. Ook Hillary Clinton wordt nu achter de schermen door Aipac gesteund en zal daarvoor als ze president mocht worden een politieke rekening krijgen gepresenteerd, dat spreekt voor zich. Het is Aipac dat de afgelopen vier decennia de Amerikaanse Midden-Oosten politiek, namens Israel heeft bepaald, niet alleen via het financieel steunen van verkiezingscampagnes, maar naar wordt aangenomen ook via het chanteren van volksvertegenwoordigers over wie de Israëlische geheime dienst 'gevoelige' privé-informatie bezit. Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, wees op een ander aspect toen hij verklaarde dat:
AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member.
Een politicus die door Aipac als 'vijand' wordt gezien kan erop rekenen dat voortaan de verkiezingscampagne van zijn tegenkandidaat door de joods zionistische lobby met grote bedragen wordt gefinancierd. De eerste senator die dit overkwam was de gezaghebbende William Fulbright, de ‘longest serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,’ en 30 jaar lang lid van het Amerikaanse Congres. De joods Amerikaanse criticus van Israëlische staat Alfred M. Lilienthal schreef over hem:
The one senator who, over many years, consistently refused to bow to Zionist pressures and who defied the Israeli lobby was Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright. He incurred Zionist wrath when he stated on ‘Face the Nation’ in 1973 that: ‘The Israelis control the policy of the Congress and the Senate ... Somewhere around 80% of the Senate of the U.S. is completely in support of Israel-of anything Israel wants...’
Jews in Arkansas blasted the Senator: Fulbright's rival in the May 1974 Democratic primary, Governor Dale Bumpers boasted:
'I could have bought central Arkansas with the offers of money from the Jewish community ... The offer of assistance came from people in New York and California who had raised a lot of money in the Jewish community for political purposes.’
To the great satisfaction of the lobby, this flow of money helped defeat Senator Fulbright and return him to private life. But this victory in the long run may turn out to be only a Pyrrhic one for American Jews.
In a memorable speech on the floor of the Senate, Mr Fulbright had placed ‘the whipsawing of foreign policy by certain minority groups to the detriment of the national interest’ in its broader, historical perspective:
‘Mr. President, this nation has welcomed millions of immigrants from abroad. In the nineteenth century we were called the melting pot, and we were proud of that description. It meant that there came to this land people of diverse creeds, colors and races. These immigrants became good Americans, and their ethnic or religious origins were of secondary importance. But in recent years we have seen the rise of organizations dedicated apparently, not to America, but to foreign states and groups. The conduct of foreign policy for America has been seriously compromised in this development. We can survive this development, Mr. President, only if our political institutions -and the Senate in particular- retain their objectivity and their independence so that they can serve all Americans.’
But as long as legislative staff members kept their Jewishness uppermost in mind, vital objectivity could never be accomplished.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, likewise, has done its share in ‘converting’ congressmen at critical moments. Opposition to sending the deadly C-3 concussion bombs to the Zionist state immediately brought overt suggestions from the ADL that opponents were secretly anti-Semitic. ‘That's the perversive force they strike at in the hearts of members up here,’ one Capitol Hill aide was quoted as saying. ‘If you're in opposition to anything Israel wants, you get a big white paintbrush that says you're anti-semitic.’
De voormalige 'speaker' van het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden, Newt Gingrich, sprak uit ervaring toen hij verklaarde:
You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet.
21 januari 2014 schreef de Britse correspondent in Israel Jonathan Cook:
Israel lobby has Economist on the run
The Economist has found itself at the centre of another of those 'anti-semitic cartoon' rows. The cartoon has upset the Israel lobby because it shows, well, that the Israel lobby has a lot of influence in Congress. The article it illustrated refers to President Obama’s attempts to reach a deal with Iran, a diplomatic process being subverted by AIPAC’s efforts to persuade Congress to intensify sanctions.
And just to prove how little influence the lobby really has, it has made a huge fuss (again) about anti-semitism and the Economist has … quickly pulled the cartoon (from this article). So just how anti-semitic is it? Here it is for you to judge:
In fact, I’m not sure if you’ll notice the Star of David on the cartoon, so here it is highlighted to make sure you do see it.
To my mind, this cartoon underestimates the influence of the Israel lobby in Congress, certainly on issues relating to the Middle East – which, after all, is what the cartoon is about. Most analysts, even very conservative ones, nowadays concede that the lobby is extremely powerful in Congress, as occasionally do lobby members themselves.
The Israeli media have regularly noted that the Israel lobby is the chief driver for intensified sanctions against Iran.
There’s nothing secret about this. It is on AIPAC’s website: 'Congress must pass legislation that will increase the pressure on Iran and ensure any future deal denies Tehran a nuclear weapons capability.'
There is also nothing new about this relationship. A British intelligence report shortly before the British left Palestine in 1948 referred to the 'effective pressures which Zionists in America are in a position to exert on the American administration.'
Here are just a few relevant quotes on the lobby’s powers:
Former US President Jimmy Carter: 'It’s almost politically suicidal … for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government.'
A Congressional staffer supportive of Israel told journalist Michael Massing: 'We can count on well over half the House – 250 to 300 members – to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants.'
Former AIPAC staffer M. J. Rosenberg recounts a conversation with Tom Dine, AIPAC’s executive director in the 1980s. Dine told him he did not think a US president could make Israel do anything it didn’t want to do given the power of AIPAC and 'our friends in Congress.'
James Abourezk, former Senator from South Dakota, said: '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.'
Uri Avnery, veteran Israeli journalist and former Israeli MP: 'For five decades, at least, US Middle East policy has been decided in Jerusalem. Almost all American officials dealing with this area are, well, Jewish. The Hebrew-speaking American ambassador in Tel Aviv could easily be the Israeli ambassador in Washington.'
Note too this interesting figure: Since 2000, members of Congress and their staffs have visited tiny little Israel more than 1,000 times. That’s almost twice the number of visits to any other foreign country. Roughly three-quarters of those trips were sponsored by AIPAC. These trip are particularly popular with Congress members who serve on foreign policy–related committees.
Benjamin Ginsberg, een prominente joodse conservatieve jurist en politieke commentator benadrukte nog eens hoe machtig Aipac is toen hij verklaarde:
Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics.
Als National Security Adviser onder president Bush junior verklaarde Condoleezza Rice in maart 2003 over Aipac kort maar krachtig:
A great asset to our country.
Wie precies wil weten hoe ver de arm van de joods zionistische lobby reikt in de VS zou het uitgebreid gedocumenteerde boek They Dare To Speak. Peoples and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (1985) van Paul Findley moeten lezen, een Republikeinse 'Congressman from Illinois for twenty-two years,' die zijn zetel in het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden verloor nadat
a former AIPAC president called him 'a dangerous enemy of Israel,'
en de joods zionistische lobby, die geen enkele kritiek op Israel duldt, de verkiezingscampagne van zijn tegenkandidaat financierde. In de epiloog van zijn studie schreef Paul Findley dat 'activists for Israel create fears in others,' en verduidelijkte dit aan de hand van eigen ervaringen:
In conducting interviews for this book, time and again I found professors, politicians, business leaders and others anxious lest their identity as a source of information become known. One said, 'If my name gets into this, my career will be ended.' When a university administrator supplied me a document issued by the American Jewish Committee, he warned, 'You must never tell anyone — not anyone — where you got this.' Others said, 'I applaud what you are doing and would like to help, but I am afraid.' A Texas professor, after suggesting a source of information in Arizona pleaded, 'Please forget you made this call.' A businessman said: 'I am taking a big chance in telling you this. I hope I can trust you to keep this confidential.' […] A well-known retired diplomat, now providing consulting services part-time in Washington, encouraged me to write this book, but withdrew his offer to write a public endorsement when he learned this would upset his major client. 'I'm embarrassed to admit it,' he said ruefully, 'because my decision is an example of the intimidation which is the central theme of your book.'
Een soortgelijke angst voor de joods zionistische lobby heeft jarenlang ook in Nederland geheerst. Het CIDI is de Nederlandse variant van Aipac. Hoewel het Centrum Informatie Doceumentatie volgens de Israelische kwaliteitskrant Haaretz een 'zionistische lobbygroep' is, mengen deze betaalde lobbyisten zich ook in binnenlandse affaires in Nederland en beschikken ze soms zelfs over informatie waarover zelfs de Nederlandse parlementariërs niet beschikken. http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.nl/2008/01/cidi-en-aivd-2.html Bovendien verspreidt het CIDI regelmatig pure propaganda voor de 'Joodse staat,' zoals ondermeer ik regelmatig heb proberen aan te tonen op deze weblog.
In 2007 vertelde een hoge Nederlandse diplomaat een groep Nederlandse juristen en mij dat hij na een kort verblijf in Nederland bij aankomst op het vliegveld in Israel tot op de bilnaad was gecontroleerd door Israëlische autoriteiten, in strijd met de internationale regels. Op mijn vraag waarom hij zo behandeld werd vertelde hij te vermoeden dat zijn kritische verslagen over de Israëlische politiek in de bezette gebieden, de reden was dat ze hem probeerden te intimideren. De toenmalige Nederlandse regering heeft hier nooit een zaak van durven te maken, uit angst voor Israëlische en joods zionistische repercussies. De diplomaat zelf durfde het niet naar buiten te brengen omdat hij daar nog gestationeerd was en vroeg daarom zijn identiteit niet te vermelden. Ik vertel dit nu omdat ik de volgende keer wil ingaan op de laffe houding van de polder-intellectuelen ten aanzien van Israel en het Midden Oosten.
In 2007 vertelde een hoge Nederlandse diplomaat een groep Nederlandse juristen en mij dat hij na een kort verblijf in Nederland bij aankomst op het vliegveld in Israel tot op de bilnaad was gecontroleerd door Israëlische autoriteiten, in strijd met de internationale regels. Op mijn vraag waarom hij zo behandeld werd vertelde hij te vermoeden dat zijn kritische verslagen over de Israëlische politiek in de bezette gebieden, de reden was dat ze hem probeerden te intimideren. De toenmalige Nederlandse regering heeft hier nooit een zaak van durven te maken, uit angst voor Israëlische en joods zionistische repercussies. De diplomaat zelf durfde het niet naar buiten te brengen omdat hij daar nog gestationeerd was en vroeg daarom zijn identiteit niet te vermelden. Ik vertel dit nu omdat ik de volgende keer wil ingaan op de laffe houding van de polder-intellectuelen ten aanzien van Israel en het Midden Oosten.
Hartelijk ontvangst voor Netanyahu die alles doet om een Palestijnse staat onmogelijk te maken. De heer Rutte toont intussen de rest van de wereld dat terreur loont.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten