Thursday, March 29, 2007
Even the Bush administration, perhaps chastened by the Iraq fiasco, the GOP’s mid-term election “thumping,” or world polls showing Israel, Iran, the U.S. and North Korea as neck and neck in the running for “most negative influence in the world,” seems to have lost much of the revolutionary zeal behind its push for Middle Eastern “democracy.” And despite all it has done for them, it’s hearing from various Judeofascist factions about its lack of enthusiasm.
For example, none other than Vice President Cheney, who for years has sheltered Israeli-loyalists in the White House as they have painstakingly gone about propagating “evidence” that Israel’s enemies are also the primary threat to America, received a less-than-enthusiastic reception at the recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) conference, according to The Jewish Daily Forward:
“The vice president’s speech, which focused on the war in Iraq, received a lukewarm welcome from the Aipac delegates. The crowd gave Cheney only one standing ovation and only partial applause when he made the connection between the need to stay in Iraq and the ability of the United States to deal effectively with Iran’s nuclear threat. In sharp contrast, when Cheney dedicated his speech last year to the dangers posed by Iran and Palestinian terrorism, he drew 48 rounds of applause, including eight standing ovations.”
Apparently the Aipacers were expecting Cheney to announce that the U.S. would happily blunder into yet another strategic disaster on behalf of Israeli security by bombing Iran at the Israel lobby’s beck and call.
As if that narcissistic mindset wasn’t bad enough, the Forward (which according to Alexa falls into the categories of “Jewish” and “socialist,” but who’s editorial board is closer to Jewish-nationalist-socialist) later that week took Cheney to task via an angry editorial for being insufficiently deferential to Zionist sensitivities about accusations of warmongering.
Cheney had the bad taste to remind the Aipacers that America still has Israeli-related business in Iraq that, if left unfinished, poses a threat to the Jewish state. “It is simply not consistent,” Cheney said, “for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same time, acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel’s best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened.”
The Forward correctly interpreted this statement as an implicit linking of the Iraq war with Israeli security.
From the Forward editorial:
“And so Cheney came to Aipac, not to deliver the expected message of solidarity and good cheer, but to administer a spanking. Friends owe it to friends, he said. You must support us in Iraq, he said, or else.”
“No less alarming, Cheney was telling the Jewish community that the war in Iraq had been launched and fought in considerable measure for their benefit and Israel’s. That’s precisely the message that Israel’s worst enemies have been peddling for the past four years as America’s blood and treasure have been poured wastefully down the sinkhole of a misconceived and unwinnable war. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. And now he seems to be casting Iran in the same light: as the Jews’ war.”
The problem is that it wasn’t a lie then, and it isn’t a lie now. Who would know better if the Iraq war is being fought largely at the behest of Zionism: The Vice President, who’s Jewish nationalist underlings helped manufactured the false intelligence used to justify the invasion, or the Forward editorial board (hardly an objective source to begin with)?
To rebut the Forward’s lie that the Iraq war had nothing to do with Israeli security, one need only review a few short paragraphs from the study “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” originally published in the London Review of Books by distinguished academics John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt:
‘On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hard-line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein."140 By this point, according to Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached "unprecedented dimensions," and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs.141 As one retired Israeli general later put it, "Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non- conventional capabilities."142
‘Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when President Bush decided to seek U.N. Security Council authorization for war in September, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, because these developments seemed to reduce the likelihood of war. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."143
‘At the same time, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that "the greatest risk now lies in inaction."144 His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Case for Toppling Saddam."145 Netanyahu declared, "Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do," adding that "I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime." Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003: "The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq."146’
So why would the Forward mislead its own readers about the role played by Israel in the push behind the Iraq war? Because the truth is not conducive to the ongoing Jewish nationalist agenda of conscripting as many Americans as possible into the cause of Zionist expansionism under the guise of defending Western civilization and America from “terrorism” and “Islamic extremism.”
The supposedly shrewd, rough and tumble political operative Dick Cheney is belatedly learning a hard lesson about the true nature of his chosen allies in the “war on terror”: Judeofascists never say “Thank you for your efforts on Zionism’s behalf” or “We’re satisfied you’ve done enough.” With them, its always “What have you done for us lately?”
This epic ingratitude and ceaseless grasping was driven home by the Forward’s editorial harangue, which continued:
“Let’s be clear. Iran is a genuine threat, in a way that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq never was. It threatens not just Israel but all of America’s allies in the region — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even the Palestinian Authority. It is the top issue on Aipac’s agenda, yet Aipac has worked hard to present it, correctly, as a global problem, not just a Jewish or Israeli one. Cheney, in his desperation, appears willing to undo that hard work and put the Jewish community at the center of the debate. That’s wrong. Friends don’t let friends drive each other over a cliff.”
Dick Cheney’s insistence on securing Iraq before moving onto Iran is getting in the way of the Israel lobby’s “hard work” alright -- the hard work of deflecting attention away from the fact that Zionism was a major force behind the Iraq invasion, and of framing Iran “as a global problem, not just a Jewish or Israeli one” as a precursor to a U.S. bombing campaign on behalf of Israel. By the way, if Iran were truly a threat, why did Aipac need to work so hard to sell it “a global problem”? Maybe because of the CIA’s assessment that Iran is a good 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb, and today probably even longer given that the Russians have withdrawn from assisting Iran’s nuclear program.
“Cheney, in his desperation” -- is spilling the beans.
Clearly, the Bush administration is no longer up to the task of enabling Zionist expansionism. Perhaps it time to bring in…the Democrats?
Neocon William Kristol, the editor of the “conservative” Weekly Standard, hinted at just such a Judeofascist strategy as far back as 2004
“If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” he told the New York Times. "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over [Pat] Buchanan....If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."
And no doubt the Democrats will welcome back the Zionists (and all their “New York money people,” as General Wesley Clark correctly labeled them) with open arms. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled as much when she killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have required congressional approval before launching a new war on Iran. She did this at the behest of -- you guessed it -- Aipac.
And so the treacherous Jewish nationalist strategizing again kicks into high gear: Americans are increasingly opposed to the GOP as a result of the Iraq invasion? Let’s morph into Iraq war opponents, snuggle back up to the Democrats who have ridden the anti-war wave to power (we know they will accept us because of our money, and the fact that Democrats, like the Republicans, have no moral or ethical principles other than greed and the quest for power) and then use our insider status and our agents like Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Tom Lantos to push for war with Iran. Aren’t we clever?
Yes, the Judeofascists are clever -- too clever by half. Or as one sage has put it: Often clever, but rarely wise.
It may take a population some time to figure out their game, but playing both sides against the middle sooner or later ends up enraging both sides, and the middle to boot.
The “new anti-Semitism” that is getting ever more play in the media is merely a byproduct of Judeofascism’s ceaseless scheming and the growing realization by more in the U.S. that both the Republicans and the Democrats are more interested in representing Israel, its lobby, and money-worshipping war profiteers than the American people.
Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Much of the Christison’s article challenges the intellectual acrobatics carried out by some on the left to maintain the fiction that US Mideast policy is dictated by U.S. imperial interests alone and that the Israel lobby holds little to no sway over its formulation. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the Israel lobby’s power (and evidence of its propensity to use that power to push U.S. Mideast interventionism on behalf of Israel) many of those liberals who should be the far-right lobby’s natural opponents are in such deep denial about its nature that they can’t begin to examine the subject objectively. This denial is largely the result of Judeofascism’s psychological control over the minds of many Jewish-American liberals, who are often Israel’s chief apologists on the left and thus end up running interference for its powerful lobby in the U.S. as well.
Opposition to Judeofascsism from the left and from liberals is an important subject because so much of the right has already been co-opted by the Judeofascist movement. “Christian” Zionists, large segments of big business and big oil, the military-industrial complex, and a large portion of the GOP (and more than a few Democrats) are already basically in the Judeofascist camp.
These groups’ tacit agreement with Israel and its lobby is as follows: You spearhead the fight to take America into World War III against Islam under the guise of the “war on terror” and “defending our ally Israel,” and we’ll push (and pay, through campaign contributions) for congressional acquiescence. Together, we’ll all get disgustingly rich in the processes. (Never mind that it will be at the expense of American taxpayers and the lives of countless US soldiers and innocent Muslims, who are expendable to the moneymaking ambitions of the Judeofascists and other ruthless factions of the U.S. elite).
The Christison’s list the arguments of well-known and influential left-leaning writers and academics Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Stephen Zunes as epitomizing opposition from the left to the notion that the Israeli lobby tail is wagging the U.S. government dog. None of these writers are uncritical of Israel, but they are more inclined to blame the U.S. government for the actions of the Israelis than the Israelis themselves. On top of that, they cloud the fact that the Israeli government and much of the country’s private industry is deeply intertwined with the U.S. “political-corporate-military complex.”
“These critics do not dispute the existence of a lobby, but they minimize its importance, claiming that rather than leading the U.S. into policies and foreign adventures that stand against true U.S. national interests, as [Israel lobby critics] Mearsheimer and Walt assert, the U.S. is actually the controlling power in the relationship with Israel and carries out a consistent policy, using Israel as its agent where possible,” the Christison’s write.
“The tragedy of the present situation is that it has become impossible to separate Israeli from alleged U.S. interests -- that is, not what should be real U.S. national interests, but the selfish and self-defined ‘national interests’ of the political-corporate-military complex that dominates the Bush administration, Congress, and both major political parties. The specific groups that now dominate the U.S. government are the globalized arms, energy, and financial industries, and the entire military establishments, of the U.S. and of Israel -- groups that have quite literally hijacked the government and stripped it of most vestiges of democracy.”
By denying the reality of the Israel lobby’s indispensability to the neo-fascist power structure and pointing the blame for America’s growing corporate-government fascism in other directions, liberal defenders of Israel are dragging red-hearings across the American people’s pursuit of the truth.
But why would the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Zunes want to minimize the Israel lobby’s role in formulating the U.S.’s belligerent and hegemonic Mideast policy? Is it because they are all Jewish, and thus (given their arguments) perhaps Zionists shills? Or is there some other component at play?... (click here for full article)