In The New York Times van 19 april 2006 wees de alom gerespecteerde joods-Britse historicus en hoogleraar, wijlen Tony Judt, op het volgende:
In its March 23rd 2006 issue the London Review of Books, a respected British journal, published an essay titled ‘The Israel Lobby.’ The authors are two distinguished American academics (Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago) who posted a longer (83-page) version of their text on the Web site of Harvard's Kennedy School.
Judt’s positieve bespreking van Walt’s en Mearsheimer’s essay, waarin wordt gewaarschuwd voor de greep van de joodse lobby op de Amerikaanse Midden-Oosten politiek, eindigde met de constatering:
The damage that is done by America's fear of anti-Semitism when discussing Israel is threefold. It is bad for Jews: anti-Semitism is real enough (I know something about it, growing up Jewish in 1950's Britain), but for just that reason it should not be confused with political criticisms of Israel or its American supporters. It is bad for Israel: by guaranteeing it unconditional support, Americans encourage Israel to act heedless of consequences. The Israeli journalist Tom Segev described the Mearsheimer-Walt essay as ‘arrogant’ but also acknowledged ruefully: ‘They are right. Had the United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better… the Israel Lobby in the United States harms Israel's true interests.’
But above all, self-censorship is bad for the United States itself. Americans are denying themselves participation in a fast-moving international conversation. Daniel Levy (a former Israeli peace negotiator) wrote in Haaretz that the Mearsheimer-Walt essay should be a wake-up call, a reminder of the damage the Israel lobby is doing to both nations. But I would go further. I think this essay, by two ‘realist’ political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind.
Looking back, we shall see the Iraq war and its catastrophic consequences as not the beginning of a new democratic age in the Middle East but rather as the end of an era that began in the wake of the 1967 war, a period during which American alignment with Israel was shaped by two imperatives: cold-war strategic calculations and a new-found domestic sensitivity to the memory of the Holocaust and the debt owed to its victims and survivors.
For the terms of strategic debate are shifting. East Asia grows daily in importance. Meanwhile our clumsy failure to re-cast the Middle East — and its enduring implications for our standing there — has come into sharp focus. American influence in that part of the world now rests almost exclusively on our power to make war: which means in the end that it is no influence at all. Above all, perhaps, the Holocaust is passing beyond living memory. In the eyes of a watching world, the fact that an Israeli soldier's great-grandmother died in Treblinka will not excuse his own misbehavior.
Thus it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state. It is already not at all self-evident to Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans or Asians. Why, they ask, has America chosen to lose touch with the rest of the international community on this issue? Americans may not like the implications of this question. But it is pressing. It bears directly on our international standing and influence; and it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. We cannot ignore it.
Desondanks blijft een tot het Joodse geloof bekeerde CIDI-propagandist, Hidde J. van Koningsveld, voorzitter van de jongerenorganisatie van het CIDI (Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israel), berichten door twitteren als deze:
Uri van As over jodenhaat in ons land: ‘Café Weltschmerz (biedt) een podium aan een bonte stoet antisemitische complotdenkers. Mensen als Arnoud van Doorn, Stan van Houcke, Cees Hamelink, George van Houts, Karel van Wolferen en Kees van der Pijl.’
Hoewel het CIDI claimt namens de Israelische samenleving te spreken, negeert het stelselmatig de zionistische repressie en soms zelfs het geweld tegen de 20 procent Israeli’s van Palestijnse afkomst, die als tweederangs burgers worden behandeld. Bij het CIDI tellen alleen de Joden mee, niet de Palestijnse Israeli’s, en al helemaal niet de Palestijnse bevolking in de bezette en belegerde gebieden die al sinds 1947/1948 de terreur van de zionisten over zich heen krijgt. Kritiek hierop wordt afgedaan als al dan niet ‘rabiaat antisemitisme.’ De Joods-Israelische journalist en auteur Tom Segev heeft gelijk wanneer hij stelt dat joodse en christelijke propagandisten in het Westen ‘Israel's true interests’ schaden. In mijn boek De oneindige oorlog (2009) waarschuwen kritische joodse auteurs, filosofen en een voormalig hoofd van de Israëlische Militaire Inlichtingendienst voor hetzelfde. Ik interviewde eveneens de Amerikaanse hoogleraren John Mearsheimer en Stephen Walt naar aanleiding van het verschijnen van hun boek The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2008), waarin de uitgangspunten van hun essay verder worden uitgewerkt.
De Amerikaanse hoogleraren Mearsheimer en Walt tijdens een druk bezochte persconferentie.
In het interview met beiden, vertelde Mearsheimer mij:
Wij hebben uiterst zorgvuldig gekeken naar de oorzaken van de Amerikaanse onvoorwaardelijke steun aan Israël en telkens weer kwamen we terecht bij de grote invloed van de lobby, die het Israëlische beleid blind steunt. Ik denk dat dit beleid gedicteerd wordt door de aloude zionistische ideologie van Eretz Israel, het Groot-Israël. Men eiste al meteen een zo groot mogelijke staat en dat betekende ook het veroveren van het grondgebied van de West Bank en de Gazastrook. De zionistische leiders zijn nooit in staat geweest met dit idee af te rekenen. Dat is de oorzaak van hun expansionisme en van de weigering om de grenzen van vóór 1967 te accepteren als ultieme grenzen. Daar komt bij dat vanaf het begin de zionisten, en later de Israëlische elite, stelden dat ze omgeven zijn door vijanden, dat zij de kleine David zijn te midden van allemaal Goliaths. Ze hebben zichzelf wijsgemaakt dat de Arabieren hen te grazen willen nemen. En hoewel dit niet langer het geval is, als het ooit al het geval was, is dit wereldbeeld zo diep verankerd in hun bewustzijn dat ze menen dat militair geweld doorslaggevend is om de meeste problemen waarmee ze geconfronteerd worden succesvol te lijf te gaan. Stephen en ik denken dat het ware probleem op een veel dieper niveau ligt. Het heeft te maken met hun zelfbeeld en het beeld dat ze van hun staat hebben en van de wereld om hen heen.
Stephen Walt: ‘Ik zou daar het volgende aan willen toevoegen: omdat de Verenigde Staten sinds tenminste de Juni Oorlog in 1967 de Israëli’s onvoorwaardelijk hebben gesteund, hoefden de Israëli’s zich nooit neer te leggen bij de grenzen van hun ambities. Volgens mij hebben wij in het Westen Israël geen dienst bewezen door een abnormale relatie met het land op te bouwen. Het heeft de Israëli’s in staat gesteld door te gaan met een beleid dat uiteindelijk niet in hun eigen belang is. Omdat ‘s werelds machtigste staat hen al die tijd hielp, hoefden ze niet al te helder na te denken, ze zijn nog steeds niet gedwongen oplossingen te aanvaarden die op langere termijn veel veiliger zijn. Nogmaals, de macht van de lobby is niet goed voor de Verenigde Staten, maar ook niet voor Israël.
Decennialang was in Nederland het CIDI in staat om zijn propaganda moeiteloos te slijten. Daar is geleidelijk aan een eind gekomen nadat in 1987 de Eerste Intifada uitbrak, en niemand meer zijn ogen kon sluiten voor het massale geweld van de Joods-Israelische strijdkrachten. Bijna een kwart eeuw nadat ik voor het eerst getuige was van die terreur, gaf de Amerikaanse oud-correspondent van The New York Times, Chris Hedges de volgende samenvatting:
I would like to begin by speaking about the people of Gaza. Their suffering is not an abstraction to me. I was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I spent seven years in the region. I speak Arabic. And for much of that time I was in Gaza, including when Israeli fighter jets and soldiers were attacking it.
I have stood over the bodies, including the bodies of children, left behind by Israeli airstrikes and assaults. I have watched mothers and fathers cradle their dead and bloodied boys and girls in their arms, convulsed by an indescribable grief, shrieking in pitiful cries to an indifferent universe.
And in this charnel house, this open-air prison where 1.8 million people, nearly half of them children, live trapped in an Israeli ghetto, I have witnessed the crimes of occupation — the food shortage, the stifling overcrowding, the contaminated water, the lack of health services, the crippling poverty, the endemic unemployment, the fear and the despair. As I have witnessed this mass of human suffering I have heard from the power elites in Jerusalem and Washington the lies told to justify state terror.
An impoverished, captive people that lack an army, a navy, an air force, mechanized units, drones, artillery and any semblance of command and control do not pose a threat to Israel. And Israel’s indiscriminate use of modern, industrial weapons to kill hundreds of innocents, wound thousands more and make tens of thousands of families homeless is not a war. It is state-sponsored terror and state-sponsored murder.
The abject failure by our political class to acknowledge this fact, a fact that to most of the rest of the world is obvious, exposes the awful banality of our political system, the cynical abandonment of the most vulnerable of the earth for campaign contributions. Money, after all, has replaced the vote.
The refusal to speak out for the people of Gaza is not tangential to our political life. The pathetic, Stalinist-like plebiscite in the [U.S.] Senate, where all 100 senators trotted out like AIPAC windup dolls to cheer on the Israeli bombing of homes, apartment blocks, schools — where hundreds of terrified families were taking shelter — water treatment plants, power stations, hospitals, and of course boys playing soccer on a beach, exposes the surrender of our political class to cash-rich lobbying groups and corporate power. The people of Gaza are expendable. They are poor. They are powerless. And they have no money. Just like the poor people of color in this country whose bodies, locked in cages, enrich the prison-industrial complex.
Als uiteindelijke ‘rechtvaardiging’ voor het zionistisch geweld tegen de Palestijnse bevolking is het al dan niet vermeend ‘antisemitisme’ overgebleven. De achterliggende Holocaust-cultus kent inmiddels geen grenzen meer. Het zionistisch geweld moet hoe dan ook worden gelegitimeerd of domweg worden verzwegen. Maar ondanks de kwalijke rol die de westerse politiek speelt, is onder grote delen van de westerse bevolking en zelfs onder joodse westerlingen de steun aan deze terreur tot een minimum gedaald. Tegelijkertijd laten zowel politici als mainstream-journalisten zich nog steeds door de joodse lobby chanteren door middel van haar ‘antisemitisme’ wapen. Wat dit betreft is de situatie er niet op vooruit gegaan, zo valt op te maken uit het in 1985 verschenen boek They Dare To Speak Out. People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, van Paul Findley, 22 jaar lang Congreslid en 'senior member of the House Middle East Committee.' Zijn 362 pagina's tellende publicatie was destijds
the first book to speak out against the pervasive influence of the American-Israeli Public Affairs
Paul Findley's uitgebreid onderzoek toont nauwgezet aan hoe ook Amerikaanse volksvertegenwoordigers door de joodse lobby permanent onder druk worden gezet. In zijn boek beschrijft hij ondermeer het lot van één van de belangrijkste naoorlogse senatoren, te weten senator William Fulbright de ‘longest serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,’ en 30 jaar lang lid van het Amerikaanse Congres. Dat Fulbright één van de meest gerespecteerde senatoren was blijkt tevens uit de opmerking van de bekende senator Frank Church, 'candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 1976’ en ‘known for heading the Church Committee, which investigated abuses in the U.S. intelligence agencies.' Church verklaarde: 'When all of us are dead, the only one they'll remember is Bill Fulbright.' Om een waarheidsgetrouw beeld te krijgen van William Fulbright, naar wie het 'prestigieuze Amerikaanse uitwisselingsprogramma voor studenten in het Hoger Onderwijs, het zogenaamde Fulbright-programma, werd genoemd,' blijf ik wat langer bij hem stilstaan. Bovendien laat zijn loopbaan zo duidelijk het verzet zien tegen de inmiddels verregaande corrumpering van de Amerikaanse politiek. Om een beeld van hem te krijgen, geef ik eerst een fragment uit Fulbright's boek The Pentagon Propaganda Machine (1971):
Since the 1950s, as we have moved from crisis to crisis, the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress have been eroded in dangerous measure by the diversion of power to the President and the Joint Chiefs and the Department of State.
It seems to me we have grown distressingly used to war… War and the military have become a part of our environment, like pollution.
Violence is our most important product. We have been spending nearly $80 billion a year on the military, which is more than the profits of all American business, or, to make another comparison, is almost as much as the total spending of the federal, state, and local governments for health, education, old age and retirement benefits, housing, and agriculture. Until the past session of the Congress, these billions have been provided to the military with virtually no questions asked.
The military has been operating for years in that Elysium of the public relations man, a seller's market. Take the climate into which the Sentinel ABM program was introduced. Many people looked on it, as they now look on Safeguard, not as a weapon but as a means of prosperity. For the industrialist it meant profits; for the worker new jobs and the prospect of higher wages; for the politician a new installation or defense order with which to ingratiate himself with his constituents… There are 22,000 major corporate defense contractors and another 100,000 subcontractors. Defense plants or installations are located in 363 of the country's 435 congressional districts. Even before it turns its attention to the public-at-large, the military has a large and sympathetic audience for its message.
These millions of Americans who have a vested interest in the expensive weapons systems spawned by our global military involvements are as much a part of the military-industrial complex as the generals and the corporation heads. In turn they have become a powerful force for the perpetuation of those involvements, and have had an indirect influence on a weapons development policy that has driven the United States into a spiraling arms race with the Soviet Union and made us the world's major salesman of armaments…
Militarism has been creeping up on us during the past thirty years… Today we have more than 3.5 million men in uniform and nearly 28 million veterans of the armed forces in the civilian population… The American public has become so conditioned by crises, by warnings, by words that there are few, other than the young, who protest against what is happening.
The situation is such that last year Senator Allen J. Ellender of Louisiana, hardly an apostle of the New Left, felt constrained to say:
‘For almost twenty years now, many of us in the Congress have more or less blindly followed our military spokesmen. Some have become captives of the military. We are on the verge of turning into a military nation.’
This militarism that has crept up on us is bringing about profound changes in the character of our society and government-changes that are slowly undermining democratic procedure and values.
Zie: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/Pentagon_Propaganda_JWF.html En: http://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/history/j-william-fulbright En: http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-propaganda-machine-William-Fulbright/dp/0871405229
Dat Fulbright een ware Democraat was, blijkt tevens uit zijn kritische opstelling tegenover iedereen die naar fanatisme neigde. Findley:
Fulbright first gained national attention by condemning the 'swinish blight' of McCarthyism. (de heksenjacht op progressieve Amerikanen. svh) In 1954 while many Americans cheered the crusade of the Wisconsin Senator's Permanent Investigations Subcommittee (Joseph McCarthy, de man van het mccarthyisme. svh), Fulbright cast the lone vote against a measure to continue the subcommittees funding. Because of this vote he was accused of being 'a Communist, a fellow traveler, an atheist, [and] a man beneath contempt.
Fulbright opposed U.S. intervention in Cuba in 1961 and in the Dominican Republic four years later, and was ahead of his time in calling for detente with the Soviet Union and a diplomatic opening with China. When he proposed a different system for selecting presidents, Harry Truman was offended and called him 'that over-educated Oxford son of a bitch.' Twenty-five years later, in 1974, the New York Times recognized him as 'the most outspoken critic of American foreign policy of his generation.’
His deepest and most abiding interest is the advancement of international understanding through education, and thousands of young people have broadened their vision through the scholarships that bear his name. But Fulbright became well known for his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War as 'an endless, futile war, […] debilitating and indecent' — a stand which put him at odds with a former colleague and close friend, President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Fulbright geloofde evenwel niet in de zogeheten 'dominotheorie,' waarbij ‘communisten’ alle landen in het grondstoffenrijke Zuid-Oost-Azië één voor één in handen zouden krijgen, maar zag onmiddellijk dat hier sprake was van de 'arrogance of power' van de Amerikaanse politieke en economische elite. Even kritisch stond hij tegenover de verregaande zionistische invloed op de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek. Findley:
In 1963 Fulbright chaired an investigation that brought to public attention the exceptional tax treatment of contributions to Israel and aroused the ire of the Jewish community. The investigation was managed by Walter Pincus, a journalist Fulbright hired after reading a Pincus study of lobbying. Pincus recalls that Fulbright gave him a free hand, letting him choose the ten prime lobbying activities to be examined and backing him throughout the controversial investigation. One of the groups chosen by Pincus, himself Jewish, was the Jewish Telegraph Agency — at that time a principal instrument of the Israeli lobby. Both Fulbright and Pincus were accused of trying to destroy the Jewish Telegraph Agency and of being anti-Semitic.
Pincus remembers, 'Several Senators urged that the inquiry into the Jewish operation be dropped. Senators Hubert Humphrey and Bourke Hickenlooper (senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee) were among them. Fulbright refused.'
The Fulbright hearings also exposed the massive funding illegally channelled into the American Zionist Council by Israel. More than five million dollars had been secretly poured into the Council for spending on public relations firms and pro-Israel propaganda before Fulbright's committee closed down the operation.
Despite his concern over the pro-Israel lobby, Fulbright took the exceptional step of recommending that the United States guarantee Israeli's borders. In a major address in 1970 he proposed an American-Israeli treaty under which the United States would commit itself to intervene militarily if necessary to 'guarantee the territory and independence of Israel' within the lands it held before the 1967 war.
Maar zoals nu niet langer meer ontkend kan worden, willen de zionistische extremisten dit laatste nu juist niet, zolang niet het hele grondgebied van Groot-Israel is ‘bevrijd,’ aldus het woord dat Ben-Goerion al in de jaren dertig van de vorige eeuw gebruikte. Mede door het feit dat Israel chronisch met waterschaarste wordt bedreigd, blijft het zionistisch regie de Westbank, met zijn omvangrijke aquifers, beschouwen als onvervreemdbaar Joods. Vanuit die optiek moet het bericht worden geïnterpreteerd op de voorpagina van de International New York Times van dinsdag 17 maart 2015, dat 'Netanyahu says he won't back state for Palestinians.' Het is niet vreemd dat de grenzen van de meeste illegale Joodse nederzettingen nu samenvallen met de ondergrondse watervoorraden. Het zijn deze feiten waardoor de zionisten, na de veroveringen van 1967, de kritiek van de invloedrijke senator Fulbright op zowel het Amerikaans militair-industrieel complex als op de joodse lobby als een bedreiging zagen van de Amerikaanse militaire steun aan ‘het beloofde land.’
Het voormalige Congreslid Findley schreef in They Dare To Speak Out over Fulbright's voorstel voor een Amerikaans-Israelisch verdrag dat de Joden in Israel zou beschermen:
The treaty, he said, should be a supplement to a peace settlement arranged by the United Nations. The purpose of his proposal was to destroy the arguments of those who maintained that Israel needed the captured territory for its security.
Fulbright saw Israel's withdrawal from the Arab lands it occupied in the 1967 war as the key to peace: Israel could not occupy Arab territory and have peace too. He said that Israeli policy in establishing settlements on the territories 'has been characterized by lack of flexibility and foresight.' Discounting early threats by some Arab leaders to destroy the state of Israel, Fulbright noted that both President Nasser of the United Arab Republic and King Hussein of Jordan had in effect repudiated such Draconian threats, 'but the Israelis seem not to have noticed the disavowals.'
During the 1970s Fulbright repeatedly took exception to the contention that the Middle East crisis was a test of American resolve against Soviet interventionism. In 1971 he accused Israel of 'communist-baiting humbuggery (bedrog. svh)’ and argued that continuing Middle East tension, in fact, only benefited Soviet interests.
Appearing on CBS television's Face the Nation in 1973, Fulbright declared that the Senate was 'subservient' to Israeli policies that were inimical to American interests. He said that the United States bore 'a very great share of the responsibility' for the continuation of Middle East violence. 'It's quite obvious [that] without the all-out support by the United States in money and weapons and so on, the Israelis couldn't do what they've been doing.'
Fulbright said that the United States failed to pressure Israel for a negotiated settlement, because:
The great majority of the Senate of the United States-somewhere around 80 percent-are completely in support of Israel, anything Israel wants. This has been demonstrated time and time again, and this has made it difficult for our government.
The senator claimed that 'Israel controls the Senate' and warned, 'We should be more concerned about the United States' interests.' Six weeks after his 'Face the Nation' appearance, Fulbright again expressed alarm over Israeli occupation of Arab territories. He charged that the United States had given Israel 'unlimited support for unlimited expansion.'
His criticism of Israeli policy caused stirrings back home. 17 Jews who had supported him in the past became restless. After years of easy election victories, trouble loomed for Fulbright in 1974. Encouraged, in part, by the growing Jewish disenchantment with Fulbright, on the eve of the deadline for filing petitions of candidacy in the Democratic primary Governor Dale Bumpers surprised the political world by becoming a challenger for Fulbright's Senate seat.
Het feit dat Fulbright de zionistische staat wilde dwingen het internationaal recht te respecteren, met als argument dat het ‘could not occupy Arab territory and have peace too,’ was voor de zionistische extremisten de druppel die de emmer deed overlopen. Zeker nadat Fulbright ook nog eens benadrukte dat de Joodse nederzettingen in bezet gebied kenmerkend waren voor het ontbreken van ‘flexibility and foresight.' Gouverneur Bumpers werd naar voren geschoven, dankzij omvangrijke financiële steun van de zionistische lobby. Op die manier wist het zionistisch regime in samenwerking met de joodse lobby de kritische stem van Fulbright in de Senaat tot zwijgen te brengen. Findley:
Following the election, a national Jewish organization actually claimed credit for the young governor's stunning upset victory. Fulbright had a copy of a memorandum circulated in May 1974 to the national board of directors of B'nai B'rith. Marked 'confidential,' the memo from Secretary-General Herman Edelsberg, announced that 'all of the indications suggest that our actions in support of Governor Bumpers will result in the ousting of Mr. Fulbright from his key position in the Senate.’
Following his defeat, Fulbright continued to speak out, decrying Israeli stubbornness and warning of the Israeli lobby. In a speech just before the end of his Senate term, he warned, 'Endlessly pressing the United States for money and arms — and invariably getting all and more than she asks — Israel makes bad use of a good friend.' His central concern was that the Middle East conflict might flare into nuclear war. He warned somberly that 'Israel's supporters in the United States... by underwriting intransigence, are encouraging a course which must lead toward her destruction — and just possibly ours as well.'
Pondering the future from his office three blocks north of the White House on a bright winter day in 1983, Fulbright saw little hope that Capitol Hill would effectively challenge the Israeli lobby:
'It's suicide for politicians to oppose them. The only possibility would be someone like Eisenhower, who already feels secure. Eisenhower had already made his reputation. He was already a great man in the eyes of the country, and he wasn't afraid of anybody. He said what he believed.'
Then he added a somewhat more optimistic note: 'I believe a president could do this. He wouldn't have to be named Eisenhower.' Fulbright cited a missed opportunity:
'I went to Jerry Ford after he took office in 1975. I was out of office then. I had been to the Middle East and visited with some of the leading figures. I came back and told the president, 'Look, I think these [Arab] leaders are willing to accept Israel, but the Israelis have got to go back to the 1967 borders. The problem can be solved if you are willing to take a position on it.'
Fulbright predicted that the American people would back Ford if he demanded that Israel cooperate. He reminded him that Eisenhower was reelected by a large margin immediately after he forced Israel to withdraw after invading Egypt:
'Taking a stand against Israel didn't hurt Eisenhower. He carried New York with its big Jewish population. I told Ford I didn't think he would be defeated if he put it the right way. He should say Israel had to go back to the 1967 borders; if it didn't, no more arms or money. That's just the way Eisenhower did it. And Israel would have to cooperate. And politically, in the coming campaign, I told him he should say he was for Israel, but he was for America first.'
Ford, Fulbright recalled, listened courteously but was noncommittal. 'Of course he didn't take my advice,' said Fulbright. Yet his determination in the face of such disappointment echoes through one of his last statements as a U.S. senator:
'History casts no doubt at all on the ability of human beings to deal rationally with their problems, but the greatest doubt on their will to do so. The signals of the past are thus clouded and ambiguous, suggesting hope but not confidence in the triumph of reason. With nothing to lose in any event, it seems well worth a try.'
Fulbright died on February 9, 1995, ending one of the most illustrious careers in American politics. Reared in the segregationist South, he left an imposing legacy as a fearless, scholarly, and determined champion of human rights at home and abroad.
'Standing ovations' in het Congres voor Netanyahu.
Bijna een halve eeuw later beseft iedere serieuze waarnemer nu hoe gelijk Fulbright heeft gehad in zijn vergeefse pogingen om de zelfbenoemde ‘Joodse Staat’ aan banden te leggen. Destijds gold het als 'suicide for politicians to oppose' AIPAC, en getuige de ‘ovationele bijval’ die Netanyahu in 2015 in het Amerikaanse Congres ten beurt viel, is het niet overdreven te stellen dat het Israelisch regime nog steeds machtiger is in Washington dan Amerikaanse presidenten als Obama en Trump. De enige waarheidsgetrouwe conclusie moet zijn dat 'money talks' in een corrupte 'democratie.' Maar juist deze waarheid als een koe wordt door het gecorrumpeerde westers journaille angstvallig verzwegen. Mijn nauwelijks geïnformeerde mainstream-collega’s weten tegelijkertijd tot op de millimeter waar de grenzen liggen van de joodse invloed. En mochten zij zich desondanks te veel vrijheden veroorloven dan is er altijd nog het CIDI, dat hen via allerlei kanalen snel tot de orde kan roepen. Lukt dit nog niet dan krijgen de dissidenten het predikaat 'antisemiet' opgeplakt, en dat is meer dan voldoende om kritiek te smoren, dat wil zeggen: tot nu toe. Maar zoals bekend is niets eeuwig, en dus ook niet de zionistische macht. Daarover de volgende keer meer.
Aldus de Joods Amerikaanse columnist van The New York Times. Op zijn beurt typeerde Jon Stewart (eveneens joods. svh) de 'staande ovaties' voor Netanyahu in het Amerikaanse Congres als de 'longest blowjob a Jewish man has ever received'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten