In de vorige aflevering heb ik aan de hand van voorbeelden en uitspraken duidelijk proberen te maken dat als joodse zionisten, die de belangen van Israel voorop stellen, tegelijkertijd een buitenproportionele invloed uitoefenen op de politiek van het land waarin zij leven, dit op den duur onvermijdelijk weerstand zal oproepen bij de zogeheten autochtone bevolking. Een voorbeeld geeft de Amerikaan Philip Giraldi, ‘a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a columnist and television commentator who is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.’ Op 3 oktober 2017 schreef hij:
Two weeks ago, I wrote for Unz.com an article entitled ‘America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars.’ It sought to make several points concerning the consequences of Jewish political power vis-à-vis some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. It noted that some individual American Jews and organizations with close ties to Israel, whom I named and identified, are greatly disproportionately represented in the government, media, foundations, think tanks and lobbying that is part and parcel of the deliberations that lead to formulation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Inevitably, those policies are skewed (overhellen. svh) to represent Israeli interests and do serious damage to genuine American equities in the region. This tilt should not necessarily surprise anyone who has been paying attention and was noted by Nathan Glazer, among others, as long ago as 1976.
The end result of Israel centric policymaking in Washington is to produce negotiators like Dennis Ross, who consistently supported Israeli positions in peace talks, so much so that he was referred to as ‘Israel’s lawyer.’ It also can result in wars, which is of particular concern given the current level of hostility being generated by these same individuals and organizations relating to Iran. This group of Israel advocates is as responsible as any other body in the United States for the deaths of thousands of Americans and literally millions of mostly Muslim foreigners in unnecessary wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. It has also turned the U.S. into an active accomplice in the brutal suppression of the Palestinians. That they have never expressed any remorse or regret and the fact that the deaths and suffering don’t seem to matter to them are clear indictments of the sheer inhumanity of the positions they embrace.
The claims that America’s Middle Eastern wars have been fought for Israel are not an anti-Semitic delusion. Some observers, including former high government official Philip Zelikow, believe that Iraq was attacked by the U.S. in 2003 to protect Israel. On April 3rd, just as the war was starting, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz headlined ‘The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.’ It then went on to describe how ‘In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in [Washington]: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another.’
And the deference to a Jewish proprietary interest in Middle Eastern policy produces U.S. Ambassadors to Israel who are more comfortable explaining Israeli positions than in supporting American interests. David Friedman, the current Ambassador, spoke last week defending illegal Israeli settlements, which are contrary to official U.S. policy, arguing that they represented only 2% of the West Bank. He did not mention that the land controlled by Israel, to include a security zone, actually represents 60% of the total area.
My suggestion for countering the overrepresentation of a special interest in policy formulation was to avoid putting Jewish government officials in that position by, insofar as possible, not giving them assignments relating to policy in the Middle East. As I noted in my article, that was, in fact, the norm regarding Ambassadors and senior foreign service assignments to Israel prior to 1995, when Bill Clinton broke precedent by appointing Australian citizen Martin Indyk to the position. I think, on balance, it is eminently sensible to avoid putting people in jobs where they will likely have conflicts of interest.
Another solution that I suggested for American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and find themselves in a position that considers policy for that country and its neighbors would be to recuse themselves from the deliberations, just as a judge who finds himself personally involved in a judicial proceeding might withdraw. It would seem to me that, depending on the official’s actual relationship with Israel, it would be a clear conflict of interest to do otherwise.
The argument that such an individual could protect American interests while also having a high level of concern for a foreign nation with contrary interests is at best questionable. As George Washington observed in his farewell address,
‘a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification…’
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu receiving one of his standing ovations while addressing Congress.
Men hoeft geen psycholoog te zijn om te beseffen dat een dubbele loyaliteit het onmogelijk maakt dat iemand als pleitbezorger optreedt voor de normen en waarden en belangen van het land waarin hij/zij leeft. Dit wordt nog eens bewezen door de pro-Israel opstelling van de joods-Amerikaanse neoconservatieve kongsi die vitale posten bekleedt binnen de politiek, de bureaucratie en de mainstream-media in de VS, en die onmiddellijk in het geweer komt zodra de normen en waarden en belangen van de zelfbenoemde ‘Joodse staat’ ondergeschikt worden gemaakt aan die van de VS. Onieuw Giraldi:
My article proved to be quite popular, particularly after former CIA officer Valerie Plame tweeted her approval of it and was viciously and repeatedly attacked, resulting in a string of abject apologies on her part. As a reasonably well-known public figure, Plame attracted a torrent of negative press, in which I, as the author of the piece being tweeted, was also identified and excoriated (gehekeld. svh). In every corner of the mainstream media I was called ‘a well-known anti-Semite,’ ‘a long time anti-Israel fanatic,’ and, ironically, ‘a somewhat obscure character.’
The widespread criticism actually proved to be excellent in terms of generating real interest in my article. Many people apparently wanted to read it even though some of the attacks against me and Plame deliberately did not provide a link to it to discourage such activity. As of this writing, it has been opened and viewed 130,000 times and commented on 1,250 times. Most of the comments were favorable. Some of my older pieces, including The Dancing Israelis and Why I Still Dislike Israel have also found a new and significant readership as a result of the furor.
One of the implications of my original article was that Jewish advocacy groups in the United States are disproportionately powerful, capable of using easy access to the media and to compliant politicians to shape policies that are driven by tribal considerations and not necessarily by the interests of most of the American people. Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, in their groundbreaking book ‘The Israel Lobby,’ observed how the billions of dollars given to Israel annually ‘cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds… [and] is due largely to the activities of the Israel lobby — a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who openly work to push U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.’
Those same powerful interests are systematically protected from criticism or reprisal by constantly renewed claims of historic and seemingly perpetual victimhood. But within the Jewish community and media, that same Jewish power is frequently exalted (bejubeld. svh). It manifests itself in boasting about the many Jews who have obtained high office or who have achieved notoriety in the professions and in business. In a recent speech, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz put it this way, ‘People say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, we’ve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Don’t do that! We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country.’ He has also discussed punishing critics of Israel, ‘Anyone that does [that] has to be treated with economic consequences. We have to hit them in the pocketbook. Don’t ever, ever be embarrassed about using Jewish power. Jewish power, whether it be intellectual, academic, economic, political — in the interest of justice is the right thing to do.’
My article, in fact, began with an explanation of that one aspect of Jewish power, its ability to promote Israeli interests freely and even openly while simultaneously silencing critics. I described how any individual or ‘any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.’
With that in mind, I should have expected that there would be a move made to ‘silence’ me. It came three days after my article appeared. The Editor of The American Conservative (TAC) magazine and website, where I have been a regular and highly rated contributor for nearly 15 years, called me and abruptly announced that even though my article had appeared on another site, it had been deemed unacceptable and TAC would have to sever its relationship with me. I called him a coward and he replied that he was not.
I do not know exactly who on the TAC board decided to go after me. Several board members who are good friends apparently were not even informed about what was going on when firing me was under consideration. I do not know whether someone coming from outside the board applied pressure in any way, but there is certainly a long history of friends of Israel being able to remove individuals who have offended against the established narrative, recently exemplified by the hounding of now-ex-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who had the temerity to state that ‘the Jewish lobby intimidates lots of people’ in Washington. As Gilad Atzmon has observed one of the most notable features of Jewish power is the ability to stifle any discussion of Jewish power by gentiles.
But the defenestration (verbanning. svh) by TAC, which I will survive, also contains a certain irony. The magazine was co-founded in 2002 by Pat Buchanan (Amerikaans politicus, publicist, en televisiepersoonlijkheid, was presidentsadviseur van Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford en Ronald Reagan. svh) and the article by him that effectively launched the publication in the following year was something called ‘Whose War?’ Buchanan’s initial paragraphs tell the tale:
‘The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: ‘Can you assure American viewers… that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?’ Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments (uitstel. svh) from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot (joods. svh) kicked off the campaign. When these ‘Buchananites toss around neoconservative — and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen — it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’ Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a ‘key tenet (leerstelling. svh) of neoconservatism.’ He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush ‘sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.’ (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)’
Pat is right on the money. He was pretty much describing the same group that I have written about and raising the same concern, in other words that the process had led to an unnecessary war and will lead to more unless it is stopped by exposing and marginalizing those behind it. Pat was, like me, called an anti-Semite and even worse for his candor (oprechtheid. svh). And guess what? The group that started the war that has since been deemed the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history is still around and they are singing the same old song.
And TAC has not always been so sensitive to certain apparently unacceptable viewpoints, even in my case. I write frequently about Israel because I believe it and its supporters to be a malign influence on the United States and a threat to national security. In June 2008, I wrote a piece called ‘The Spy Who Loves Us’ about Israeli espionage against the U.S. It was featured on the cover of the magazine and it included a comment about the tribal instincts of some American Jews: ‘In 1996, ten years after the agreement that concluded the [Jonathan] Pollard [Israeli spying] affair, the Pentagon’s Defense Investigative Service warned defense contractors that Israel had “espionage intentions and capabilities” here and was aggressively trying to steal military and intelligence secrets. It also cited a security threat posed by individuals who have “strong ethnic ties” to Israel, stating that “Placing Israeli nationals in key industries is a technique utilized with great success.”’
Three days later, another shoe dropped. I was supposed to speak at a panel discussion critical of Saudi Arabia on October 2nd. The organizer, the Frontiers of Freedom foundation, emailed me to say my services would no longer be required because ‘the conference will not be a success if we get sidetracked into debating, discussing, or defending the substance of your writings on Israel.’
Last Saturday morning, Facebook blocked access to my article for a time because it ‘contained a banned word.’ I can safely assume that such blockages will continue and that invitations to speak at anti-war or foreign policy events will be in short supply from now on as fearful organizers avoid any possible confrontation with Israel’s many friends.
Would I do something different if I were to write my article again today? Yes. I would have made clearer that I was not writing about all or most American Jews, many of whom are active in the peace movement and, like my good friend Jeff Blankfort and Glenn Greenwald, even figure among the leading critics of Israel. My target was the individuals and Jewish ‘establishment’ groups I specifically named, that I consider to be the activists for war. And I refer to them as ‘Jews’ rather than neoconservatives or Zionists as some of them don’t identify by those political labels while to blame developments on Zios or neocons is a bit of an evasion in any event. Writing ‘neoconservatives’ suggests some kind of fringe or marginal group, but we are actually talking about nearly all major Jewish organizations and many community leaders.
Many, possibly even most, Jewish organizations in the United States openly state that they represent the interests of the state of Israel. The crowd stoking fears of Iran is largely Jewish and is, without exception, responsive to the frequently expressed desires of the self-defined Jewish state to have the United States initiate hostilities. This often means supporting the false claim that Tehran poses a serious threat against the U.S. as a pretext for armed conflict. Shouldn’t that ‘Jewish’ reality be on the table for consideration when one is discussing the issue of war versus peace in America?
When all is said and done the punishment that has been meted out to me and Valerie Plame proves my point. The friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation and through fear. If we suffer through a catastrophic war with Iran fought to placate Benjamin Netanyahu many people might begin to ask ‘Why?’ But identifying the real cause would involve criticism of what some American Jews have been doing, which is not only fraught with consequences, but is something that also will possibly become illegal thanks to Congressional attempts to criminalize such activity. We Americans will stand by mutely as we begin to wonder what has happened to our country. And some who are more perceptive will even begin to ask why a tiny client state has been allowed to manipulate and bring ruin on the world’s only super power. Unfortunately, at that point, it will be too late to do anything about it.
De oud CIA-functionaris Philip Giraldi is lang niet meer de enige Amerikaanse intellectueel die waarschuwt voor de agressieve macht van de joods-zionistische lobby in de VS. Zo onthulde in maart 2007 de vier sterren generaal b.d., Wesley Clark, in 1999 NAVO-opperbevelhebber tijdens de Oorlog tegen Joegoslavië:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.’ I said, ‘Well, you’re too busy.’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He said, ‘We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know.' He said, ‘I guess they don’t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He said, ‘There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’ He said, ‘I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.’ And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.’
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it classified?’ He said, ‘Yes, sir.' I said, ‘Well, don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, ‘You remember that?’ He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!’
Naar aanleiding van Clark’s onthulling dat de ‘Current Wars Were Planned, Seven Countries In Five Years,’ berichtte de website FederalJack.com, ‘a non partisan organization of concerned citizens world wide’:
In this stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a 'policy coup' at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Deze in het geheim voorbereide en uitgewerkte ‘policy coup’ sloot naadloos aan bij het Joods-Israelische ‘Yinon Plan’ uit februari 1982, zoals blijkt uit de formulering in ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’ Oded Yinon, een voormalig functionaris van het Israëlische ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken zette in dit plan ondermeer uiteen dat:
Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula, and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power those states serves as a primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along the coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran (ten zuidoosten van Damascus. svh) and in Northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.
In de inleiding van zijn Engelse vertaling van ‘Yinnon’s Plan’ merkte de Joods-Israelische hoogleraar Israel Shahak op:
The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.
Als overlevende van het concentratiekamp Bergen Belsen wist Shahak waarover hij sprak. Bekend is tevens dat:
In 2017, Ted Becker, former Walter Meyer Professor of Law at New York University and Brian Polkinghorn, distinguished professor of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Salisbury University, argued that Yinon's plan was adopted and refined in a 1996 policy document entitled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,’ written by a research group at the Israeli-affiliated Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Washington. The group was directed by Richard Perle, who, some years later, became one of the key figures in the formulation of the Iraq War strategy adopted during the administration of George W. Bush in 2003.
Both Becker and Polkinhorn admit that avowed enemies of Israel in the Middle East take the sequence of events — Israel's occupation of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, its encirclement of Gaza, the invasion of Lebanon, its bombing of Iraq, airstrikes in Syria and its attempts at containing Iran's nuclear capacities — when read in the light of the Yinon Plan and the ‘Clean Break’ analysis, to be proof that Israel is engaged in a modern version of ‘The Great Game,’ with the backing of Zionist currents in the American neoconservative and Christian fundamentalist movements. They also conclude that Likud Party appears to have implemented both plans.
In zijn boek The War On Terror. The Plot To Rule The Middle East (2017) benadrukt de Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Christopher Bollyn:
This is the real Zionist operational plan that the U.S. and its allies have been applying across the Middle East since 9/11. We are not fighting terror. We are re-drawing the map of the Middle East to suit Israel’s strategic plan to dominate the entire region,
met als één van de gevolgen dat Nederland niet alleen deelnam aan de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, maar tevens terroristen in Syrië hielp, beide oorlogsmisdaden volgens het internationaal recht. Typerend voor de buitensporige invloed van de joodse lobby in de VS was de oprichting van het invloedrijke PNAC, geesteskind van vooral prominente joods-Amerikaanse neoconservatieven met een onvoorwaardelijke loyaliteit aan Israel. In de regering George W. Bush zaten prominente joodse neoconservatieven als Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams en Richard Perle. Dat zij fanatieke voorstanders waren van de desastreuze inval in Irak toont aan hoe belangrijk het ‘Yinon Plan’ voor hen was. Hetzelfde geldt voor het PNAC. Wikipedia bericht hierover:
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan
beiden joodse Amerikanen. Kristol’s vader wordt gezien als de ‘godfather of neoconservatism.’ Belangrijk te weten is dat:
The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.
Volgende keer meer hierover.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten