- In 1956, as Eisenhower was campaigning for his second
term in the White House, his Secretary of State appeared before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the Arab/Israeli conflict.
- Kieth Kyle, the author of 'Suez', records that John Foster
Dulles was 'given a sharp reminder of the domestic political dimensions
of his problem' and was 'subjected to several hours of questioning. Much
of it, from such pro-Zionist Democrats as Wayne Morse of Oregon and Hubert
Humphery of Minnesota, was of a hostile and sardonic nature.'
-
- Dulles responded to the Senators with a remark that still
rings true today. "Our difficulty . derives very largely from the
fact that the Arabs believe that the United States, when it confronts problems
which relate to Israel, is in the last analysis dominated by domestic political
considerations". According to Kyle's well documented narrative, Dulles
expressed the hope that 'in the pending political campaign the discussion
will be on such a level as to dissipate the idea'.
-
- These Senate hearings took place on February 24, 1956.
Dulles was so irritated with the Zionist lobby that a few days later, on
March 2, he took the extraordinary step of taking up the issue with Abba
Eban, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Kyle narrates that in
a 'bitter dressing down' of the Ambassador, the Secretary of State complained
of 'the political campaign being waged by the Israelis against the administration,
the paid advertisements, the mass meetings, the resolutions, the demands
of Zionist organizations, the veiled threats of domestic political reprisals'.
-
- Back in 1956, an American President could actually confront
the Israeli Lobby and still win a second term in office. Today, the new
political math in Washington allows Netenyahu, an Ex-Prime Minister of
Israel, to publicly instruct Bush on how to properly apply the 'Bush doctrine'.
And just to make sure the President learns his lessons well, Netenyahu
can round up 98 Senators to his 'Amen corner'.
- Over the course of the last five decades, the Israeli
Lobby has grown in power to the extent that it now amounts to a third major
party with a political program that rivals the agendas of both the Republicans
and the Democrats. Like the other two contenders for political power, the
party of the Israel Firsters has enhanced its stature by shifting alliances
and wooing new constituents.
- AIPAC, the umbrella group of 'official' pro-Israeli pressure
groups, is but a small component of this major third force in the American
political process. What the Israel Firsters lack in terms of an actual
demographic voting constituency, they make up for by having a major stake
in influential media monopolies.
-
- Let us begin with the obvious links between the mass
media titans and what is essentially an ethnic lobby. Mortimier Zuckerman,
the President of Major American Jewish Organizations, publishes US World
and News Report. William Safire of the New York Times publicly acknowledges
doing public relations work for Ariel Sharon. Thomas Friedman has spent
two decades sanitizing the criminal war record of both Begin and Sharon.
Ted Koppel boasts of his personal friendship with Netenyahu. At CNN, Walter
Isaccson appears to be coordinating coverage with the IDF. Charles Krauthammer
of the Washington Post likes to pose to the right of Netenyahu. Conrad
Black, the Canadian media tycoon, publishes the Jerusalem Post, which reads
like a semi-official publication of the IDF.
- During the Clinton years, the keys at the State Department
were handed over to operatives straight from the Israeli Lobby. Martin
Indyk, former head of AIPAC was made ambassador to Israel. Dennis Ross,
the 'mediator', also had ideological roots in the lobby. Eagleburger, Holbrooke
and Albright are all dedicated Israel Firsters.
-
- With the change in administration, a new batch of pro-Israeli
activists moved into key positions. Ideologically, they pose as 'neo-conservatives';
a movement that even the New York Times reports is mostly Jewish. In fact,
the proper definition of neo-conservative is an Israel Firster who wanted
to be politically viable after the Reagan 'revolution'. To a large extent,
the difference between 'neo' and the 'oldo' conservatives is the country
they aspire to serve. The 'oldos' are America Fisters, while the 'neos'
worship the 'old country', a mystical Yiddish supremacist apartheid state
built on the ruins of Palestine on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean.
-
- In the last two decades, the Israeli Lobby has expanded
its constituency to include a major new base among right wing Evangelicals
who believe that Israel is always right. According to this very new and
very American branch of Protestant Christianity, the bible says Israelis
can kill and maim Palestinians, steal their land and place them under a
constant stage of siege. Among the followers of this 'new religion' is
one Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, who has publicly advocated
the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. This new 'constituency
for repression' believes that Israel has biblical sanction to administer
collective punishment and torture, destroy personal and public property
and generally make life miserable for the native people of the Holy Land.
-
- It makes little difference to these 'Zionist Christians'
that the community they seek to 'cleanse' includes the oldest Christian
community in the world. And it matters even less to the Israel Firsters
that their doctrines also predict the mass conversion of Jews and the end
of times.
- Today, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean,
ten million people are locked in a bitter struggle over land and destiny.
Nearly half of the population between the river and the sea are native
Palestinians. Their desperate cry for liberty is not only ignored by America,
but tens of billions in United States tax revenues are spent to assist
their tormentors.
- We have an American policy in the Middle East that serves
the constituency of a third party that no American has ever voted for.
It is an ethnic constituency that includes lunatic elements with visions
of an apocalyptic end to our one common planet.
-
- In the aftermath of the criminal assaults on America,
we are long due for an investigation of the real cause of all our troubles
with radicalized elements in the Middle East. Why is our Congress investigating
the CIA, the FBI and the INS, when the real focus should be on the State
Department and a catastrophic foreign policy that amounted to the appeasement
of a belligerent foreign state run by war criminals? Why do we have an
Israeli Lobby so powerful that it acts like a major political party and
constantly tampers with our foreign policy to align it with the dictates
of the Likudniks in Tel Aviv? What vital American national interest is
served by the continued repression of the Palestinian people?
-
- The deadly assaults against our shores on 911 could certainly
have been avoided. But the notion that any American government would have
sanctioned such an assault or been lax in attempting to stop it is a bit
off the wall. Yet, the fact remains that both the Clinton and Bush administrations
were arrogant enough to take foreign policy risks to appease the constituency
of the Israeli Lobby, the phantom third party that has come to dominate
public discourse on foreign policy. It was common knowledge that there
would be a price to pay for the Gulf War, the Saudi military bases, the
murderous economic blockade of Iraq and the humiliating occupation of the
West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan. If there was an intelligence
failure, it was a failure to properly assess the potential cost of our
errant foreign policies.
-
- Congress is now interrogating the intelligence community.
I would rather that the intelligence community started interrogating Congress.
Perhaps the INS should be called upon to sort out our governors and find
out which ones deserve ID cards to properly identify them as members of
the third party. But since Congress is the designated investigator, perhaps
they should call for the State department to come clean with the American
people.
-
- How did so many members of the Israeli Lobby end up in
such prominent positions at Foggy Bottom during the Clinton years? How
many have found new homes in the Bush administration? Did they serve American
interests or align themselves with Sharon's agenda? What measures can be
taken to protect the State Department from the fundamentalist theology
of the third party? Do certain ethnic publishers have an inordinate say
in tailoring our policies in the Middle East and beyond? If Safire works
for Sharon, should he still get a fair hearing with Colin Powell? I am
certain that John Foster Dulles would have given a very candid response
to all questions regarding the third party.
-
- We are at a critical point in the history of the Republic
and the world. It is essential that men of honor insist that proper scrutiny
be paid to the third party. No rational discourse of the 911 disaster is
possible without taking account of the ruthless nature of the operatives
of the Israeli Lobby. Do not expect the New York Times, CNN or the Washington
Post to instigate such a probe.
- They are very much part of the problem. It will be left
to the brave voices of the alternative press to lead the charge and uncover
some very basic truths about 911. The good news is that none of this is
rocket science and the public record will eventually be set straight. Congress
can investigate now or be investigated later.
-
- Mr. Amr is the Editor of NileMedia.com Copyright ©
2002 Palestine Chronicle
-
- http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20020606201558677
|
