- Some weeks ago I happened to watch Oliver Stone's great
production Born the Fourth of July for the second time. In the movie, Ron
Kovic (played by the handsome as always Tom Cruise) signs up for the army.
He wants to go to Vietnam to fight Communism. "Better dead then
red"
is his motto. He leaves for Vietnam as a well-trained, young, brave
American
standing up for democracy fully prepared to die in order to fight the
Communist
threat wherever it arises. When he comes back from Vietnam, he is paralyzed
from the waist and down. But he's not meet by his fellow citizens as a
hero. Instead he is met by demonstrators in his own age setting American
flags on fire. He doesn't understand why. Expressing his hatred for the
demonstrators when at the Bronx Veteran Hospital, he soon comes to realize
the black nurses have quite another view of the war. As a male nurse
explains
to him, "Vietnam is the White man's war, the rich man's war."
Later, as many other Americans in Vietnam, Kovic came to realize that war
was not about democracy at all. Young Americans like himself were sent
there to oppress a people fighting for their own freedom.
-
- Some decades later, the world's biggest war-machine is
now under way with genocide once again, this time in Iraq. The mass
slaughtering
is implemented by young boys who aren't really sure why they're there,
but it's ordered by the White House on behalf of a ruthless, powerful
elite.
It was no surprise that Iraq didn't possess any weapons of mass
destruction.
After all the U.S. is not stupid enough to attack a state that actually
so does - it could be dangerous! But although we for sure know that this
war indeed was not a "preemptive war" or about
"liberating"
Iraq, the "war for oil"-theory - adopted by the greater majority
in the anti-war movement - loses ground by the day. One ought to at least
question if oil was the main reason for going to war. Oil tastes good,
but the Americans want cheap oil, not expensive. The occupation of Iraq
cost the American tax payers more then 5.8 Billion dollars a month. [1]
Thus, it would have been cheaper to support dictators in the region instead
of overthrowing them - with the result of almost no oil at all. But this
is not a White man's war. Nor is it the oil companies' war. No, this is
a Zionist war.
-
- In his outstanding essay The Shadow of Zog, Israeli
author
Israel Shamir writes about what was probably the real reason for invading
Iraq:
-
- "As the head of the Occupation Administration, Jay
Garner's task is to create a new Iraq, friendly to Israel. The Jerusalem
Post, a hard-line Zionist daily published by Conrad Black, friend of
Pinochet
and Sharon, carried an interview with one of his wannabe Quislings, Ahmad
Chalabi's right hand man, Musawi.
-
- 'Musawi talks enthusiastically of his hopes for the
closest
possible ties with Israel. There will be no place for Palestinians in the
new Iraq, for the large Palestinian community is regarded by INC leaders
(and presumably by their Zionist instructors) as a loathsome fifth column.
Instead, an 'arc of peace'; would run from Turkey, through Iraq and Jordan
to Israel, creating a new fulcrum in the Middle East.'
-
- The Occupation Regime in Iraq was installed by the US
army in the interests of Zionists, and it may be rightly called ZOG,
Zionist
Occupation Government if anything."[2]
-
- The war on Iraq - just like the U.S.-threats against
Iran - can be traced to Israel's interests in the region. Israel and its
powerful lobby has for long been after the U.S. to deal with the Iraqi
regime. The destabilization of the region is more favorable to Israel than
it is to the U.S. After discussing "what is possibly the
unacknowledged
real reason and motive behind the policy" of going to war on Iraq,
historian Paul W. Schroeder, in a footnote, wrote that if this is
accurate
-
- "it would represent something to my knowledge unique
in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy,
getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the
first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would
do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."[3]
-
- The Jews constitute no more then between 2% and 2.5%
of the American population, a fact which seems hard to believe for most
Americans. According to a pull, published in October 2002, the average
non-Jewish American believed that no less then 18% of the population were
Jews.
-
- Every fourth American asked answered that between 10%
and 19% of the Americans were Jewish, while almost every fifth guessed
that the Jews constitute between 20% and 29%. Some 12% thought the number
was between 30 and 49%! "Pretty wild?" Lenni Brenner comments,
and continues:
-
- "But why should gentile Americans know better? Their
guesses are based on what they see. Turn on the TV, go to the movies, pick
up a newspaper, follow an election, and in every case Jewish involvement
is far above 2.5%. (...) Twelve percent of our Jews think they are 2% of
Americans, 13% think Jews are 3%, and 11% say they don't know, which is
also a 'proper' answer. But 7 % of America's Jews think they are 1% of
Americans. Five percent of the Jews thought Jews are 4%. Ten percent of
the Jews said they are 5%. Eighteen percent believed Jews are 6-10%. Six
percent estimated our Jews to be 11-15%, and 18% of America's Jews
projected
themselves as over 15% of the population, a whopping margin of error of
over 600%."[4]
-
- However, being a Jew does not make one a Zionist
(although,
unfortunately, almost all organized Jews are Zionists). In fact, the
majority
of the (non-organized) American Jews opposed the Iraqi War. But the way
too powerful Israel lobby did support it. Its strong support for the war
was definitely a major factor that shouldn't be overseen. Still today
Zionist
Jews stands for a big share of the contributions to the two big parties
in America. As the Swedish daily Aftonbladet pointed out,
-
- "The Jews pump enormous amounts of money into
American
politics, 30 times more then the Arab Americans. They have power. They
rule by the motto 'money talks'."[5]
-
- As a matter of fact, close to half the American
billionaires
are Jews (This phenomenon is however not limited to the United States.
Six of the seven Russian Oligarchs are Jews![6]). In his foreword to late
Professor Israel Shahak's great book Jewish history, Jewish religion, the
American dissident and author, Gore Vidal reveals a story which has
affected
the Middle East in a crucial way during the last sixty years:
-
- "Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip
and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry
S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run
for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars
in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's
why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack
nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took
this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption
of American politics. (...)
-
- I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy
region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned
the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely
patron.
-
- Unlikely, because no other minority in American history
has ever hijacked so much money from the American taxpayers in order to
invest in a 'homeland'. It is as if the American taxpayer had been obliged
to support the Pope in his reconquest of the Papal States simply because
one third of our people are Roman Catholic. Had this been attempted, there
would have been a great uproar and Congress would have said no. But a
religious
minority of less than two per cent has bought or intimidated seventy
senators
(the necessary two thirds to overcome an unlikely presidential veto) while
enjoying support of the media."
-
- Shahak himself translated an article which appeared in
hebrew in Kivunim, the journal of The World Zionist Organization, in
February
1982, and has become known as the Kivunim-plan. The article, written by
a Oded Yinon, had the title A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
and its idea for the Middle East was "based on the division of the
whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab
states," as Shahak summarized it. Although he considered it way too
optimistic, or in fact "pure fantasy," Shahak added that
-
- "The idea that all the Arab states should be broken
down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli
strategic
thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz
(and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about
the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq:
"The
dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation
of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of
the plan is very old."[7]
-
- As happens, in the New York Times in November 2003, an
article appeared by former president of the Council on Foreign Relations
and a former editor of the Times, Leslie H. Gelb, with the headline The
three-state solution. The idea presented was that the U.S. should consider
dividing Iraq into three different states with "Kurds in the north,
Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south." Gelb writes that
"This
three-state solution has been unthinkable in Washington for decades...
But times have changed."[8] Thus, the plan conceived by Zionists is
everything but dead.
-
- While almost the whole world denounces Israel's brutal
treatment of the Palestinian people, the Zionists demonstrate their control
over Washington. Not only do they finance a great deal of the presidential
campaigns, they also have mainstream media in their control. "For
the media is the nerve system of a modern state," writes
Shamir.
-
- "Modern democracy in practice in a very complicated
society can be compared to a sophisticated computer. Its machinery can
function successfully on one condition: there is a free flow of information
across the system. While every input is instinctively checked and sieved
on one criterion, whether it is good for Jews, it is not odd that the
machine
produces such freak output as "revenge on Babylon for its destruction
of Jerusalem in BC 586". Indeed, in long-gone 1948 the first ruler
of Israel, David Ben Gurion, promised: "We shall mete historic
vengeance
to Assyria, Aram and Egypt". Now it comes to pass, as Iraq, Syria
and Egypt are targeted by Zog."[9]
-
- Three decades after the death of Ben Gurion, the Guardian
reports that "troops from the US-led force in Iraq have caused
widespread
damage and severe contamination to the remains of the ancient city of
Babylon."[10]
It took some time, but the prophecy has come true. But the late Ben Gurion
did not just have dreams of meting revenge. He had dreams of creating a
Greater Israel, too. In a speech in Knesset, on the third day of the Suez
War, as then Prime Minister he recognized that the real purpose of fighting
the war was "the restoration of the Kingdom of David and Salomon"
to its biblical borders.[11] His successor Ariel Sharon has the same dream,
and is fully prepared to fulfil it when given the opportunity. When the
time is right, the mass slaughter and expulsion of the remaining
Palestinians
in the region will take place, no doubt.
-
- Jeff Blankfort refers to Washington as the "the
Zionists' Most Important Occupied Territory". He is right. Zionist
Jews are more powerful then ever before. With the devoted support from
Zionist Christians, Israel's interests are secured. The Zionist grip over
American foreign policy on the Middle East has become impossible to deny.
It is not in the interest of America to always do what's best for Israel.
The U.S. is not ruled by the Americans, but by an elite and lobbies that
finances (and threatens) politicians into obedience. Fighting wars in
countries
most Americans can't find on maps are of course not in the interest of
the people. Despite greedy capitalists, there is one major factor that
has to be taken into consideration when finding the motives for war. Far
too many underestimate the strong importance Zionism plays in American
foreign (and, to a lesser extent, domestic) affairs.
-
- The U.S. is a "lobbyocracy" - a state ruled
by powerful lobbies. Politicians are dependent of financial support from
them to even stand a chance in electoral races. So is the case with the
contemporary regime in Washington. President Bush and colleague war
criminals
in the White house have stocks in the war industry and are financed by
it. They personally gain from the war. However, the American foreign policy
on the Middle East and the unreserved U.S. support to Israel cannot be
explained simply by this fact. Control over the Iraqi oil supplies alone
are not reason enough for sending 150 000 American Soldiers to Iraq, at
a so high cost. It is important to acknowledge that there is devoted
Zionists
in leading positions fully prepared to do whatever necessary as long as
it's good for Israel. I'm speaking of the neoconservatives, shortly refered
to as the neocons. Actually, Israel was the main issue for the neocons
to leave the Democratic Party, where they once were to be found. Back in
1993, Professor of Political Science, Benyamin Ginsburg wrote:
-
- "One major factor that drew them inexorably to the
right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during
the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed
to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World
causes. In the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to
American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and
militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values
(and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would
guarantee Israel's security."[12]
-
- The neocons' commitment to Israel, the great influence
of the Jewish lobby and the captivation of the Christian Communities by
Zionism, is indeed the explanation for the constant U.S. support to Israel.
It might seem foreign to some, but today it would be wrong referring to
Israel as the client state of U.S. Nowadays it's more correct to say it's
the other way around if anything. This was well put by Israeli born
musician
Gilad Atzmon, when interwieved:
-
- "I think that originally Israel was there to support
western colonialism (Balfour Declaration, etc.). It didn't stop there.
American administrations realised in the late '70s and '80s that the only
real danger to western globalization is Arab opposition and Islamic
resistance.
Israel was there to maintain a continuous conflict in the region. The
Americans
got involved in the peace process, not in order to push for peace, but
rather to maintain the conflict forever. So, in a sense, at least
historically,
you are right. Israel was there to serve American interests, but things
have changed. In the last ten years we face a shift in the balance of
power.
The new bond between Zionists, Republican, and right-wing Christian groups
introduced a completely new phase in the American-Israeli relationship.
I think that American people would do themselves a great favour if they
start to scrutinise the acts of their government. Americans should ask
themselves whether it is American interests that are looked after or rather
Israeli ones. The war in Iraq is a good place to start such an intellectual
exercise."[13]
-
- In the case of the war on Iraq, the interests of greedy
politicians selling themselves to the highest bidder (or keeping their
mouth shut if they disagree), and the interests of the devoted Zionists
as the neocons are, goes hand in hand. Peace will not come to the Middle
East until the Americans have liberated themselves from the Zionist's grip
over Washington and some peoples´ conviction of always doing what's
best for Israel over what's best for America. Conservative Pat Buchanan
well summarized what the neocons´ ideology is all about:
-
- "What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript
American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of
the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to
impose it."[14]
-
- Truer words have never been written. In the end the
Americans,
just like Kovic, will have to ask themselves the one crucial question:
What is it all good for us?
-
- Kristoffer Larsson
- kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu
-
-
- [1] Iraq Monthly War Cost Rises To $5.8 Billion,
- Set To Go Higher;
- http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002494.html
-
- [2] Shadow of Zog;
- http://www.israelshamir.net/english/shadowofzog.html
-
- [3] Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War;
- http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html
-
- [4] The Demographics of American Jews;
- http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner10242003.html
-
- [5] Freden dör på stadens gator;
- http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0010/15/israel.html
-
- [6] The Oligarchs, by Uri Avnery;
- http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032004.html
-
- [7] A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eightees,
translated
by Israel Shahak with a foreword;
- http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/
- IPSC/articles/article0005345.html
-
- [8] The three-state solution, by Leslie H. Gelb,
- New York Times, November 25 2003;
- http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/supfacts/id365.html
-
- [9] Shadow of Zog;
- http://www.israelshamir.net/english/shadowofzog.html
-
- [10] Destroying Babylon;
- http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/
- archives/dispatches/000171.php
-
- [11] Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel
- Shahak (p. 8 in the Swedish edition)
-
- [12] Quoted in "The Shadow of Zog".
-
- [13] The Gilad Atzmon Interview;
- http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1674134.php
-
- [14] Whose war?;
- http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
|
