|
by James Petras
 Chances for a change in the direction of US Middle East policy are extremely unlikely. The reason is the growing power of the Jewish Lobby in Congress, the massive Zionist propaganda campaign in all the mass media, Olmert’s ‘nose leading’ of Bush, and a host of related activities. The end result is that Congress will not withdraw or reduce US troops and war funding for the Iraq War. Bush, with the support of McCain and Clinton, Liebermann, Reid and Hoyer, will push for more troops in pursuit of an all-out blood bath in Baghdad. The Baker Iraq Study Group under siege from the Zioncons and Zionlibs will be unable to deal with Israeli violence against Palestinians or enter into a dialogue with Syria and Iran on any but the most narrow and unpromising terms.
Baker’s Iraq Study Group and the Lobby’s Preventive War
Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister, firmly imposed the party-line for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) and related pro-Israel groups during his November 13 visit to Washington in which he stated his categorical support for Bush’s Iraq War policy and confrontational strategy with Iran. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz (November 14, 2006):
“Olmert said Israel and other countries in the area should be thankful to the United States and Bush. He said the Iraq war had a dramatic positive effect on security and stability in the Middle East as well as strategic importance from Israel’s perspective (my emphasis) and of moderate Arab states. Olmert said he was satisfied with the position Bush took on Iran which went further (my emphasis) than in their previous meeting in May. “Iran’s role in the conversation was quite clear, very serious and very significant and I left the meeting with an outstanding feeling,” said Olmert.”
Nothing expresses the power of the Jewish Lobby over US politics as the cowardly silence of the leading Democrats before this gross intervention by a foreign ruler into the internal politics of the US: Democratic Congressional leader Pelosi swallowed the frog in silence. The only congressional critics complained about Olmert’s ‘partisanship’ – taking sides with Bush, tacitly accepting that Olmert was impinging on US sovereignty, a widely accepted principal by the fifty odd Jewish Senators and Congress-people, and their numerous Gentile pro-Zionist camp followers.
Clearly Olmert was pre-empting any new more flexible proposal,
which might emanate from Baker’s Iraq Study Group. In this regard
Olmert successfully led President Bush ‘by the nose’ – as former Prime
Minister Sharon had once so colorfully boasted. Following the meeting
with Olmert, Bush echoed his master’s voice calling for the world to
unite in isolating Iran until it “gives
up its nuclear ambitions…If they continue to move forward with the
program, there has to be consequences. And a good place to start is
working together to isolate the country…Iran’s nuclear ambitions are
not in the world’s interest. If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would be
terribly destabilizing.”
Olmert succeeded in committing
Bush to a position incompatible with Baker’s proposals for meeting with
Iran: a strategy of isolation, sanctions and military threats is
clearly incompatible with any opening or meaningful dialogue let alone
Iran-Syria co-operation in stabilizing Iraq. Yet as Olmert explicitly
states, it is in line with Israel’s ‘strategic interest’ of extending
its power and domination in the Middle East by weakening or destroying
its adversaries. Moreover Olmert, embarrassed Jewish Zionists by
publicly praising the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, when 85% of
the Democratic voters and 60% of the US electorate are fed up with the
deaths (2890 plus) and maiming (25,000 plus) of US soldiers. For the
‘Israel First’ Democratic Congressmen and women (the vast majority) who
knew all along Israel’s pro-war position, their faint outcry was over
the fact that Olmert was so public, overt and aggressively pro-war,
just after the same Zionlibs won the election by ‘criticizing’ the war
(namely over the ‘management’ of the occupation).
The fact that Olmert intervened in US politics so openly and Bush
followed so docilely should be no surprise to observers of US-Israeli
relations. Moreover, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to
express ‘surprise’ or chagrin, as they know from direct experience that
the Israeli state intervenes on a daily basis through its proxy lobby
on every policy having to do with the Middle East. AIPAC even boasts of
writing the legislation and of securing massive Congressional
majorities and of its close ‘co-ordination’ (read subordination) with
the Israeli regime in synchronizing its political operations. What
makes the Democrats angry is that Olmert exposed their servility to
Israel. While they stomp and belch over Bush’s pro-war policy, they
dared not even convene a press conference to criticize Olmert, for fear
of alienating the pro-Israel millionaires who provide 65% of the funds
for the Democratic Party.
Olmert’s pro-war position on Iraq, Iran and Syria were preceded by an
unprecedented propaganda campaign in all the major media by all the
principle Zioncon/Zionlib ideologues: articles, opinion pieces and
editorials flooded the pages the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, Washington Post, New York Times, New Yorker, and Christian Science Monitor.
The usual crowd of unconditional Israel apologists dubbed “Middle East
experts” pushed Tel Aviv’s line of continual bloodletting in Iraq and
military aggression in Iran. Michael Rubin, Charles Krauthamer,
Clawson, Eisenstadt, Ledeen, Wolfenson (“American Jews should work hard
for Israel and maximize gains for it”), Wurmser, Chertoff (“the US is
threatened by international law”), Abraham Foxman (“Iran is worse than
Nazi Germany”) and an unprecedented one hour long uncontested tirade
against Iran (“Iran is Germany, and it’s 1938, except that this Nazi
regime is in Iran..”) by Benjamin Netanyahu on Glenn Beck’s prime time
CNN program preceded and followed Olmert’s political intervention in
Washington. The Wall Street Journal editorialized a full-scale
attack on the Baker group, even before they had issued any report,
backing Israel’s position on war with Iran, their support for
continuing war in Iraq and the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
(40,000 Palestinians have fled Gaza in the last 5 months in the face of
400 killed and thousands maimed by Israeli missiles and shelling). US
United Nations Ambassador “Blowhard” John Bolton let out a maniacal
screed against the United Nations General Assembly and all its agencies
for voting to condemn Israel’s deliberate, cold blooded massacre of an
extended family of 19 mostly women and children in their beds in the
Gaza village of Beit Hanoun. Bush expressed ‘pride’ in the US’s 31st
veto to stop UN resolutions condemning Israel’s savaging of
Palestinians.
If Bolton represents the furthest right of an
already highly skewed conservative spectrum (the ‘loony right’), he is
not without support, especially among the most respectable and
representative organizations of the Jewish Lobby. “The Jewish community remains supportive and would want to see (Bolton) stay”, said Malcolm Hoenlein, Vice-Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He has been an effective advocate and he is appreciated by the diplomatic corp.” (The Forward
(Jewish Weekly) November 17, 2006). It should be remembered that most
major Jewish groups publicly endorsed Bolton when his appointment
became a political battle in Washington in early 2005. There is no
doubt that Bolton is an “effective advocate” for Israeli Middle East interests
over and above the lives of Americans, Iraqis, Lebanese and
Palestinians. Hoelein however confuses the appreciation of the Israeli
diplomatic corps for the rest of the world’s diplomats who are amused
or appalled by Bolton’s frothing rants against Europe, Asia, Africa,
Latin America, the UN, International Lawyers or anyone that disagrees
with him or dares to criticize Israel.
Israel’s stranglehold
on the White House’s Middle East policy was explicitly revealed by
Israel’s outgoing US Ambassador Danny Ayalon in an interview: “US
President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against Iran in
order to halt its nuclear program, I have been privileged to know him
well, he will not hesitate to go all the way if there is no choice.” (Maariv
Israeli Daily Newspaper November 14, 2006). This is a case where
“knowing”, in the Biblical sense conveys intimate relations directed
toward Bush’s compliance with the desires of his dominant partner.
Israel’s intimate “knowledge” of the White House extends to setting the
political framework for US policy toward Teheran’s nuclear energy
program. According to Ambassador Ayalon’s time table:
“First
the President will try to exhaust the diplomatic process, I estimate
there is a 50 percent chance that the diplomatic effort will succeed.
If not he will advance another step and consider imposing isolation and
a blockade on Iran, like the US imposed on Cuba in the past. If this
too does not succeed, he will not hesitate to employ force. If
sanctions succeed, all the better. Otherwise, he will act by all means
possible, including military action. (The Iraq War) is not the model.
This (attack on Iran) is more a case employing air power combined with
limited ground force…He (Bush) told me personally, in one of these
difficult moments, that if you continue and persevere in your path, the
people will ultimately follow you.” (Maariv November 14, 2006).
Ayalon’s interview reveals several important aspects of the future
course of White House policy toward Iran. First and foremost, the
Israelis have inside knowledge and access to the While House, and they
have successfully imposed their confrontational policies on the
Presidency. In addition they have encouraged the President “to continue
and persevere” in his war policies, even when the majority of the US
electorate, the people and nations of the world and even some of his
advisers are against ‘his path’. The Israelis have pandered to Bush’s
fundamentalist Christian belief that ‘the people will ultimately
follow’ him in his Messianic delusions, even when all the evidence is
to the contrary. Bush’s belief is not distant from the Israeli belief
that if you defy the world community of nations and public opinion long
enough they will eventually come around to acknowledging the
righteousness of the ‘Chosen People’. Israel has, of course, the luxury
of projecting their venal arrogance knowing full well they have the
backing of US vetoes in the United Nations and the military of a
support of a superpower. Bush lacks a superior power (unless we include
the mighty Jewish Lobby) to counteract his political isolation. Bush
has the dubious distinction of being the
President-most-servile-to-a-foreign-power in US history (exceeding his
predecessor, ex-President Clinton, Zionist Emeritus), a point
emphasized by ex-President Jimmy Carter in his latest book. No previous
President has ever confided his war plans to a foreign emissary even
before meeting with his top advisory commission, thus precluding the
possibility of domestic influential leaders, like the members of the
Baker group, from any substantial role shaping policy. Moreover Bush’s
servility to the Israel/ Jewish Lobby extends to blocking his European
allies from formulating an alternative Iran policy to Israel’s military
‘pre-emptive strike’ proposal. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz:
“Bush
told his French counterpart (President Jacques Chirac) that the
possibility that Israel would carry out a strike against Iran’s nuclear
installations should not be ruled out. Bush also said that if such an
attack were to take place he would understand it”, (Haaretz, November 20, 2006).
The single minded stranglehold of the Jewish Lobby expressed in White
House support for an Israeli sneak attack on Iran, is such that Bush
not only ignores the advice of Secretary of State Rice, but dismisses
the fateful consequences: a massive Iranian military response against
US occupation forces in Iraq resulting in thousands of deaths, massive
oil and political dislocations in the entire Middle East,
destabilization of the Gulf States and rising oil prices. The
unprecedented Zionist control over the White House was summed up by
Zioncon executive director of the Jewish Institute for (Israeli)
National Security Affairs (JINSA), Thomas Neumann: “The administration today was stronger on Israel than any administration in my lifetime”, (JTA, November 14, 2006).
While proponents of a ‘turn’ in US policy in the Middle East hailed the
resignation of Rumsfeld and the appointment of Robert Gates to
Secretary of Defense – a member of the Baker Iraq Study Group – as
auguring a more ‘realist’, less bellicose policy, Zionist leaders were
confident that their dominant influence over Bush would keep Gates in
line with Israeli policy. Mara Rudman, a Zionlib former member of
Clinton’s National Security Council speaking at the Zioncon “Israel
Policy Forum” in Washington accurately put the Gates appointment into
its proper perspective: “It’s not really where he (Gates) goes, its where the president goes”. And as evidence indicates, the President ‘goes’ where the Israelis and their US transmission belts tell him.
Thomas Neumann, the JINSA’s propaganda master dismissed the possibility
that Gates would front for the Baker Iraq Study Group: “Gates was
appointed more because he has a record of doing what he’s told (by
Bush). There’s nothing good or bad about Gates, they (the White House)
wanted someone who doesn’t make waves”, (Jewish Telegraph Agency, November 11, 2006).
Along with White House support, Israel has successfully mobilized its
political apparatus (the Jewish Lobby) in the US to direct political
campaign funding toward the election of unconditional supporters of
Israel. Democratic campaign finance directors, Israeli-US Congressman
Rahm Emmanuel and ‘Israel Firster’ Senator Charles Schumer were backed
by a multi-million dollar Wall Street slush fund (as reported by Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal).
They ensured that over 30 Jewish Congressmen and women and 13 Senators
were elected, including all of the Jewish incumbents, a number of
senatorial and Congressional leaders married to Zionists as well as
Lobby-certified 100% Israel supporters like Congressional Speaker of
the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid (praised
by the Jewish Lobby for his life long unconditional support for Israel
– JTA November 20, 2006). In the first test of Congressional
Zionpower, Nancy Pelosi was defeated by a large majority in her effort
to nominate the Iraq War Critic Congressman John Murtha as Majority
Leader in the House, in favor of Steny Hoyer, a Congressman much more
sympathetic to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s pro-war views.
The Jewish lobby has erected a ‘firewall’ to any US rapprochement with
Iran, and in particular any initiative in that direction from the Baker
Iraq Study Group. This is especially necessary because of the dire
crisis of the US in Iraq and public perception of a new bloodier and
costlier war against Iran. Moreover the Lobby is desperate to counter
the positive confidence building measures adopted by Israel’s Middle
East adversaries, namely Syria and Iran with regard to overtures to
Iraq. The Israeli counter-measures were not long in coming.
Peace Initiatives from Syria
In
November of this year (2006) British Prime Minister Blair, subsequent
to a visit to the Middle East, issued a policy statement calling for a
dialogue and negotiations for an overall peace settlement in the Middle
East including all interested parties, especially Syria and Iran. The
Israeli regime immediately rejected the proposal. ‘The Lobby’ echoed
their patrons’ policy and subsequently the White House and Congress
followed suit. Syria proceeded to establish diplomatic relations and
intelligence and economic cooperation with the US-backed Iraqi regime,
demonstrating a major gesture toward ‘stabilizing’ the Mesopotamian
region. The Israeli regime branded the policy a means of influencing
Iraqi ‘terrorists’. Predictably, the Jewish Lobby, its scribes and
media outlets downplayed its significance or put a negative spin to the
Syrian initiative – demanding “Syria follow words by action”, namely
stopping the flow of militants into Iraq. Syria responded by pointing
to its far more extensive frontier patrol posts than those of the US or
Iraqi government. The Israeli regime and its Lobby, the White House and
Congressional clients’ rejection of Syrian (and Iranian) peace
initiatives is as much directed at neutralizing these overtures as it
is in pre-empting similar initiatives emanating from the Baker Iraq
Study Group. The Lobby’s vehement dismissal of Syria’s role as a
stabilizing force sets the stage for linking it with Baker and
undercutting his recommendations when they finally become public. A
similar Lobby propaganda effort is directed at Iran and indirectly at
Baker’s proposals for negotiating with them.
The White
House, Brussels and Tel Aviv’s efforts to isolate Syria, undermine its
conciliatory steps and block any overture from the Baker group is
centered on the unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus assassinated
two ‘anti-Syrian’ Lebanese leaders, Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel. In
the case of Hariri, the main witness against Syria later recanted and
perjured himself and the principal Turkish investigator later resigned
after having pursued only one line of investigation – to demonstrate
the complicity of Syria – discounting the equally plausible hypothesis
of Israeli involvement. The major beneficiaries of the Hariri
assassination were the US and Israel, even as the European Union lent
its weight to the accusation against Syria. The historical lessons of
the anti-Syrian Hariri campaign were not lost on the promoters of the
current political manipulators of the Gemayel assassination. The US and
its Israeli ally succeeded in forcing Syria to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon, apparently making Southern Lebanon and, in particular,
Hezbollah vulnerable to Israeli military attack. Shortly thereafter,
Israel used a routine border incident as a pretext to invade and
attempt to destroy Hezbollah and decimate its social base among the
millions of residents in Beirut and Southern Lebanon. Rather than
strengthen Israel’s position in Lebanon and increase the power of its
longstanding Phalangist clients, the invasion strengthened Hezbollah
raising its support to over 60% of the Lebanese population (Guardian of London
November 15, 2006). The campaign to pin the Gemayel death on Syria and
Hezbollah is designed to promote Israeli power aggrandizement in
Lebanon by provoking internal civil conflict, orchestrating and
mobilizing a mass smear campaign against Hezbollah to pre-empt the
latter’s effort to secure a more equitable representation of its
electoral support in the Lebanese Cabinet. Israeli strategists hope to
bring about a ‘pincer’ operation in which Hezbollah will be attacked by the Phalangists in the North and by Israel from the South.
Hezbollah under siege would thus weaken its Syrian ally as a possible
interlocutor for the Baker Group and encourage Israel’s militarists to
recover from their fall from grace following their ruinous Lebanon
adventure. By tarring Syria with dual assassinations, the White House
and Israel will strengthen its major Zionist organizations’ campaign to
undermine Baker’s proposal to open a dialogue with Syria (Daily Alert
November 22, 2006). More specifically it will neutralize the positive
fall-out in Washington of Syria’s establishment of relations with the
US client-regime in Iraq. For this reason the rabidly pro-Israel Wall Street Journal screeched: “Another Murder in Beirut for Jim Baker to Contemplate” (November 22, 2006).
The fact is that Israel and its Zionist representatives in the US are
the main beneficiaries of the dual assassinations. There is both hard
and circumstantial data pointing to Israeli complicity in the killings.
There are several cases of notorious Phalangists being murdered just
prior to their scheduled testimony in Brussels before a case brought by
Palestinian survivors against top Israelis involved in the notorious
massacres in Lebanon, especially at the Palestinian camps of Sabra and
Shatila in September 1982. On January 24, 2002, Elie Hobeika, a
Phalangist warlord directly involved in the massacre, was blown up in
his Beirut neighborhood along with 3 bodyguards just two days after
agreeing to testify against the Israelis on behalf of the Palestinian
survivors. Hobeika, who was the Phalangist chief liaison with the IDF
during their occupation of Beirut, claimed to have worked with the
Israeli Mossad in orchestrating the massacre. A mysterious group,
‘Lebanese for a Free and Independent Lebanon’ claimed responsibility
from Cyprus. Just weeks earlier, another witness for the Belgian case
and close Hobeika associate, Jean Ghanem had been killed in an auto
accident. A few months later, a third close Hobeika associate and
potential witness in the Belgian case, Michael Nassar, was assassinated
with his wife in Brazil.
In these assassinations and unexpected deaths, most experts and
Lebanese politicians, including Phalangists, pointed to Mossad
operations. In other words, the fact that Phalangists were Israeli’s
clients did not preclude selective assassinations when it was in
Israeli State interest: They treated the Phalangists, their former
allies, like used condoms. Pierre Gemayel, the grandson of the founder
of the Lebanese fascist Phalange Party, was a marginal figure in the
Lebanese political equation; in death he becomes a pivotal figure in
Israel’s Middle East power grab.
In June 2006 Lebanese military authorities announced the arrest of
Hussein al-Khatib, a Lebanese former Israeli prisoner, who confessed to
have worked in Lebanon as part of a Mossad-led assassination team
killing Lebanese and Palestinian leaders using car bombs. Throughout
Lebanese history, Mossad operatives have been imputed with political
assassinations of Palestinian and Lebanese adversaries, car bombings
and commando operations in Beirut as well as throughout the country. As
early as the foundation of Israel, its leaders, including Ben Gurion,
advocated promoting civil war in order to establish a Christian
Maronite government in Lebanon allied to Israel.
In summary, Israel has a motive for killing Hariri and Gemayel, has a
history of killing ‘clients’ to further their state interests and
certainly has exercised the practice of executing Lebanese political
figures. Given the high stakes involved in a possible re-direction in
US policy toward engaging Syria, as proposed by the Baker Iraq Study
Group, and given Damascus efforts to facilitate such a dialogue by
giving legitimacy to the US bloody client in Baghdad, the Israeli ploy
of political murder and Zionist media blitz condemning Syria makes
political sense from the point of view of Israel’s quest for Middle
East dominance.
The Iranian Peace Overtures
A key interlocutor for a general Middle East settlement in which the US
retains its strategic Arab allies in the Middle East passes through
dialogue, negotiations and power sharing with Teheran.Contrary to the
demonic propaganda spewed by the Israeli regime and the Jewish Lobby in
the US, Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that far from fomenting
‘terrorism’ it has co-operated with the US on a whole series of
important measures compatible with US imperial policies in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
In the run-up to the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it
is a publicly known and officially acknowledged fact the Iran supported
the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, provided intelligence to the US,
advised and supported Shia co-operation in the formation of a US client
regime, recognized and established formal relations with the puppet
regime despite its collaboration with the killers of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Iran has been a major bulwark against Al Queda, arresting and in some
cases offering to extradite them to the West, thus showing a decided
partisanship to some aspects of the US ‘War on Terrorism’. Equally
important, Iran has played a major stabilizing role in Western
Afghanistan, especially in Herat, severely limiting Taliban influence.
Iran works closely with Italian and ISAF reconstruction teams in
rebuilding the region. The Financial Times (November 18, 2006 p.11) reports: “The
main factor holding the west of Afghanistan together is the positive
influence of neighboring Iran which is ‘pumping a lot of money into the
reconstruction of the west’, says a senior US administration official
in Washington”.
The army of ‘Israel-First’
publicists in the US and Europe continue to lump Iran with Al Queda,
Taliban, Iraqi terrorists despite all the evidence to the contrary. The
‘Big Lie’ campaign is directed toward isolating Iran and securing
United Nations sanctions as a prelude to a US-Israeli sneak attack on
Iranian cities, infrastructure, military and scientific research
installations and nuclear research facilities. To proceed toward the
destruction of Iran and the consolidation of Israeli dominance in the
Middle East, the immediate target is to pre-empt the Baker Group from
proposing a dialogue with Iran or at a minimum of setting parameters,
which will virtually undercut the possibility.
The most vicious and effective Israel-centered propaganda campaign
against Iran focuses on its nuclear research programs. The Zionist-led
campaign against Iran has not provided any basis to contradict the IAEA
inspection team’s findings that no evidence for a nuclear weapons
program exists. Iran’s forthright offers to the US and the EU for
detailed inspection tours by all inspectors has been dismissed outright
by the White House as a ‘propaganda ploy’, a ‘ploy’ which Israel has
refused to offer with regard to its own illegal nuclear and
chemical-biological arms facilities. No expert or political leader in
the world, now or in the recent past, has ever argued that Iran is
violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israeli-US opposition
toward uranium enrichment is applied singularly to Iran. Otherwise all
one hundred nations with nuclear energy programs should be threatened
with pre-emptive war.
Palestinian Peaceful Overtures
Despite sustained bloody attacks from the Israeli military machine (the
misnamed Israeli ‘Defense’ Forces) the Palestinian Hamas government had
made two peace proposals. Between January 2005 and June 24, 2006, the
Hamas government refrained from responding to Israeli military attacks
on Gaza and the West Bank (despite numerous assassinations, house
demolitions and illegal arrests of activists) in hopes of inducing Tel
Aviv to begin peace negotiations. The Israeli State, backed by the US,
categorically rejected peace and imposed a total blockade on the Gaza
Strip. It was only when the IDF shelled a Palestinian beach filled with
families, murdering 18 picnicking children and their parents that Hamas
responded with sporadic shell firing and the capture of an Israeli tank
soldier engaged in shelling into the Gaza neighborhoods.
The subsequent Israeli massacre of 400 Palestinians (over 200 of whom
are non-combatant civilians, mainly women and children) between July
and November 24, 2006 failed to dampen Palestinian resistance.
Palestinian and international proposals to end the blood bath have been
consistently rejected by the Israeli regime. On November 24, 2006 the BBC News reported: “ Israel
has dismissed an offer by Palestinian militant groups to stop firing
rockets into Israel if Israel ends attacks on Palestinians. An Israeli
government spokeswoman, Miri Eisen, said…the offer of an end to firing
rockets from Gaza showed the lack of real commitment to peace (sic!).”
By that twisted logic, Israel’s continued artillery barrages of
Palestinian towns demonstrated a ‘real’ commitment to peace! The BBC points to what most experts acknowledge is Israel’s long-term bellicose posture: “Israel has in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian militants, saying it refuses to do deals of any kind (my emphasis) with what it describes as terrorist organizations ”, (November 24, 2006).
The Olmert regime rejected outright a new peace initiative proposed by
Italy, France and Spain, which would have allowed United Nations peace
forces to safeguard the frontier between Gaza and Israel (Reuters/Haaretz
November 21, 2006). In the face of Israel’s systematic daily killing of
Palestinians and ethnic cleansing of over 8,000 Palestinians each month
(40,000 since June), the United Nations General Assembly voted to
condemn Israel 150 to 7 for its mass murder in Beit Hanoun and call for
an investigation. The Israeli Ambassador walked out. The Israeli regime
rejected the UN resolution and continued in its slaughter, killing a
dozen Palestinians in the immediate aftermath, as a sign of its
contempt for the United Nation.
Israel’s disdain for
world public opinion has the unequivocal support of the Presidents of
the Major American Jewish Organizations and their counterparts in
Canada, England, France, Argentina and elsewhere throughout the world.
But it is in the United States where the Jewish Lobby’s power really
counts: it is the US, which exercised its 31st veto protecting Israel
from a censorious UN Security Council resolution. It was the White
House’s dismissal of the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposal for an
all inclusive Middle East conference, including Syria, Palestine, Iraq,
the Jewish State and Iran, which allowed Israel to ignore the entire
European Union, the Middle East, and for that matter the rest of the
world. The Financial Times (November 18-19, 2006 p.6) reported: “Tony
Blair’s call this week for a ‘whole Middle East strategy’ sent a
message that the road to peace in Iraq passes through Jerusalem and
Beirut. In his foreign policy speech to the City of London, the UK
Prime Minister recognized the region’s crises were interlinked and
required a comprehensive approach.”
It should be clearer than ever that the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine, rather than being a catalyst for Israeli extremism, is a reflection
of the pervasiveness of racist attitudes which characterize Zionist
extremism and that threatens everyone in the Middle East, Europe and
the United States. Zionist unwillingness to compromise, the belief that
the future is theirs alone, the denial of the legitimacy of the other’s
narrative, and the determination to pursue one’s ideology even at the
expense of one’s own people, are characteristics that have made
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. These
characteristics are at the heart of the extremist Zionist assault on
Western nations and people who propose constraints on Israeli
militarism. In 2003 the West failed to act in time to protect its own
interest in the Middle East from a Zionist-backed war. It is paying a
price but the Iraqis and Palestinians are paying infinitely more. This
time around with the same White House/Israeli forces pushing for a new
pre-emptive war against Iran, we must do better. If not, a higher price
will again be paid because the Iranians and world opinion are
infinitely stronger.
The Israeli rejection of
Palestinian, European and United Nations proposals for peace
negotiations is directed as much at the Baker Iraq Study Group, which
also sees that the road to peace in Baghdad passes through Jerusalem.
The full court press by the Israeli and Jewish Lobby on the Bush
Administration and the US Congress to back Israel’s opposition to peace
negotiations is designed to undermine any recommendations by the Baker
Group and its numerous backers in sectors of the US military, finance,
petroleum, Congress and mass media calling for pressure on Israel,
inclusion of Iran and reduction of US troops in Iraq. Led by
arch-Zionist Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute some
in the Jewish Lobby dismiss the Baker Iraq Study Group as ‘the realists
and anti-Semites’. Kagen and Kristol explicitly mock them as
‘defeatist’ and traitors. (Novartis November 4, 2006)
The Baker Camp
There is no doubt that Baker’s Iraq Study Group’s proposals to the
White House and Congress take place in a generally favorable setting.
Domestically, anti-war sentiment in the run-up to the Congressional
election in 2006 is at an all-time high; the 40% of the electorate that
voted repudiated numerous Republican candidates identified with Bush’s
policies (and even others who were not). Top advisers to the Bush
regime have publicly supported opening a discussion with Iran – a major
recommendation of the Baker Group. David Satterfield, a senior adviser
to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, told the Senate Armed Services
Committee, “We are prepared to discuss Iranian activities in Iraq. The timing of such a dialogue is one we still have under review.” (Financial Times
November 16, 2006 p.1) Satterfield’s comments followed the
Congressional testimony of General John Abizaid (the top US general to
Iraq) who categorically rejected sending more troops to Iraq.
Interviews with top military officials, retired and active, have called
for a phased withdrawal. Equally important, in an unprecedented turn of
events, the weekly publications of the three military sectors (Army,
Navy and Marine Corps) editorialized in favor of the firing of
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld just two days before the mid-term
elections – and succeeded in precipitating his ouster.
A feature article in Newsweek
(November 20, 2006, pp. 40-43) favorably referred to the Baker Group as
the “Rescue Squad.” Other sectors of the media followed suit. The Financial Times (Nov. 14, 2006) editorialized:
“The
last five years have seen Israel extend and consolidate its hold on the
West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem despite western rhetoric. That, every
bit as much as the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, is what constantly
threatens to set the region alight.
The
bipartisan Iraq Survey Group, led by James Baker, a former Secretary of
State, and Lee Hamilton, an influential former congressman, is likely
to focus on these issues and the need to re-launch the peace process.
That, in turn, will require engagement with Iran and Syria, and should
lead to the reconsideration of the Arab peace plan of 2002 – full Arab
recognition of Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from all
occupied Arab land. Ignoring the roots of Middle East volatility, as
the accelerating cycle of conflict in the region should remind us, is a
dangerous abdication of responsibility.
By including former leading Republican and Democratic Congress people
(Hamilton and Simpson) and cabinet members, Baker secured at least the
support of some sectors of the two parties and Congress. By ensuring
that one of the Iraq Study Group, Robert Gates, was named to replace
Rumsfeld in the crucial position of Secretary of Defense, Baker
potentially has some direct leverage in the Executive branch. With the
exception of Edwin Meese, a leader in the far-right Heritage
Foundation, Clifford May of the Zioncon Foundation for the Defense of
Democracy and Michael Rubin (who has since resigned)- all members of
the Israel First crowd - Baker has limited the influence of the
Zioncons who designed Middle East war policy in the Bush Administration.
Equally important, Baker has the backing of the major petroleum and gas
companies of Houston-Dallas, who have been sidelined from Middle East
policymaking during the Zioncon-militarist ascendancy in the White
House. They are eager for an “even-handed” Middle East policy to serve
their economic ties with Middle East oil producers and to facilitate
commercial negotiations with Iran and the Gulf States. Major US
investment houses, including those whose CEOs are prominent donors to
the pro-Israel lobbies, are eager for a peace settlement, which
includes Iran, in order to move into the new multi-billion dollar
Islamic investments funds, which have emerged among the Arab Gulf
States.
On the domestic front, it would seem
that Baker and his Group are in a strong position to reorient US Middle
East policy, by engaging Syria and Iran, Sunnis and Shia, and even
Israel and Palestine in a “Grand Settlement”. Most US big business
interests favor an approach which would limit Israeli-Zioncon influence
over the use and abuse of US military power in the Middle East,
facilitate US multi-national corporations’ (MNC) and banks’ (MNB)
dealings with conservative Arab/Iranian rulers, widen and secure US
access to oil, and expand US influence in the oil and gas rich former
Soviet Republics in South and Central Asia.
Conditions and
circumstances on the international front are even more favorable to the
Baker Group. Iran has accepted a place at the negotiating table with
the US, to discuss stabilizing Iraq. This is central to any settlement
as Iran has ties and influence with sectors of the Shia leadership in
Iraq.
Of course the quid pro quo for
any agreement between the US and Iran would involve the US agreeing to
end its confrontational policies and military threats directed at
Teheran. As we will discuss shortly this is a point of intense
contention within Washington, meeting intense resistance from the
entire ‘Israel First’ power structure (Lobby-Congress-Mass
Media-Democratic Party Donors). To facilitate the opening of a dialogue
with the US, Iran offered the United Nations access to all its major
nuclear installations in order to neutralize the hysterical warmongers
among the formidable army of ‘Israel First’ ideologues. According to
the BBC (November 23, 2006):
“Iran
will give inspectors access to records and equipment from two of its
nuclear sites, the head of the UN’s atomic agency, the IAEA has said.
Mohamed El Baradei said he hoped Iran’s move would begin a series of
measures that would clear suspicions over its nuclear program …
According to Mr. El Baradei, Iran has agreed to let … the IAEA
inspectors take environmental samples from the equipment at a former
military site at Lavizan. Iran has also said it will give the UN access
to records from a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.”
These reports by the IAEA provide the Baker Group with ample
justification for opening a dialogue with Iran and assuring the US
public and members of Congress– at least those not under the thumb of
the Lobby – that they are not “appeasing” a nuclear menace. Contrary to
the claims of the Israeli warlords and their Lobby propagandists that
Iran is an “existential nuclear threat to the survival of Israel”,
a report by the IAEA issued on November 14, 2006 sent to the governor
of the nuclear watchdog, confirmed that Iran is now principally using
two ‘cascades’ of 164 centrifuges apiece to enrich uranium. (Financial Times Nov. 15, 2006, p. 8) This means that Iran “still falls well short of the 3,000 or so centrifuges that would be needed to enrich uranium on an industrial scale” (FT
Nov. 15, 2006, p.8). Baker, if he so wished, could neutralize the
entire Israel chorus by pointing out that Iran has grossly insufficient
weapon-grade enriched uranium for bomb making. He could point out that,
in any case, enriching uranium is in total compliance with the
Non-Proliferation Nuclear Treaty and that the IAEA has extended access
to oversee Iran’s nuclear projects.
Moreover, Baker could point
to the on-going tacit working agreements between the US and Iran in
opposing the Taliban, reconstructing Afghanistan and in pursuing Al
Queda everywhere. In addition, Iran has intelligence-sharing agreements
with the US puppet regime in Iraq. Even more important, Baker could
point out that Iran supported the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein and
has recognized the US puppet regime.
Syrian diplomatic moves, especially the restoration of relations with
the US client regime in Iraq, certainly provides a positive setting for
Baker to propose opening a dialogue with Damascus. Simultaneously, Iran
met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. At a time when the US client
regime in Iraq is losing control and the US military is increasingly
incapable of sustaining it, the Iranian desire to stabilize it is a
signal to Washington that it is willing to cooperate on a joint policy
on Iraq. Syria’s clear overture to the US was evident in its statement
restoring ties: “ Syria
accepted the Iraqi and UN formula about the presence of US troops in
Iraq. Instead of demanding their immediate departure, Syria agreed that
they should withdraw gradually when not needed.” (BBC November 25, 2006)
Baker has the backing of the White House’s major European ally, British
Prime Minister Blair, who supports the idea of including Syria and Iran
in a deal to stabilize Iraq. Blair argued for a ‘general plan’, which
would include an international agreement to resolve the Palestine -
Israel conflict. Given the mood of compromise, that leaves only Israel
pitted against the entire European continent and Middle East in
refusing to negotiate with Iran, Hamas and Syria.
With regard to the Palestinian conflict, Hamas has implicitly endorsed
a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, for all intents and
purposes recognizing Israel. Hamas’ offer forcefully puts the lie to
Israel’s claims that Hamas is a terrorist organization, which refuses
to negotiate a two state solution or recognize Israel. Clearly, the
ball is in Baker’s corner. The question is whether he will seek to
explore this window of opportunity presented by Hamas to substantially
reduce tensions and conflicts in the Middle East. Most experts and
Middle Eastern leaders (of the non-Zioncon variety) have repeatedly
stressed the road to peace in Baghdad passes through Jerusalem.
Most important of all, the Bush strategy of “staying the course” in
Iraq has been (with the sole exception of Israel Prime Minister Olmert
– the war’s only beneficiary) universally rejected -- by his own
generals, “coalition” partners, the American people and the majority of
the US combat soldiers in Iraq. The White House disaster in Iraq has
even led some Zioncon propagandists and architects of the war to
abandon and opportunistically attack Bush. In other words, Baker’s
proposals will be directed to an isolated President with a totally
discredited policy, whose only clutch of supporters are economically
and diplomatically insignificant but who possesses a powerful, wealthy
and well-placed configuration of disciplined ‘influentials’ in the US
known as the ‘Jewish Lobby’.
With formidable domestic allies and an extremely favorable
international environment, one would think that Baker’s proposals for
moving forward in a new direction in the Middle East would be a
‘cakewalk.’
Unfortunately, that will not be the case at all. What most of the
critics, commentators, self-styled investigative reporters, politicians
and media pundits favorable to Baker forget to mention is the great
elephant in the parlor - the Israeli/Jewish Lobby and its extended
reach in Congress, the Democratic Party, the media and other vehicles
for shaping US Middle East policy.
The Jewish Lobby: Confronts the Baker Group
The American Jewish Lobby, at the behest and orders of the Israeli
state, has been leading a large-scale, intensive and partially
successful campaign to demonize Iran and Syria, successfully pushing
the US to pressure the United Nations in favor of economic sanctions.
Through their blustering political clone US Ambassador to the UN, John
Bolton, they pulled Washington closer to launching a military attack on
Iran. An examination of AIPAC’s agenda puts a new war against Iran on
behalf of Israel at the top of its list of priorities. For the last 3
years, the publications, conferences and press releases of the
Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organization (PMAJO) urge their
members to go all out to fund and back candidates (mostly Democrats)
who support Israel’s ‘military solution’ to Iran’s nuclear enrichment
program.
Never a day goes by when the PMAJO publication– the Daily Alert
- does not reproduce articles endorsing Israel’s war crimes and
civilian killings and fabricating tissue thin ‘explanations’ justifying
each and every brutality. Whether it involves murdering a family of 10
at a beach outing in June 2006 or an extended family of 19 in their
beds in Beit Hanoun or dropping one million anti-civilian cluster
bomblets in Lebanon two days before the ceasefire, or the cold-blooded
murder of American activist, Rachel Corrie, the Daily Alert is ready to cover-up for the Israeli State.
An army of ‘Israel First, Last and Always’ ideologues (‘Resident
Scholars’ of some Washington institute or ‘Middle East Experts’ from a
prestigious university) are churning out articles every day calling for
the US to spill more of its soldiers blood for ‘Greater Israel’ by
going to war with Iran. The brazen arrogance of these intellectual
trollops defies the imagination. Here our country is still immersed in
a losing war, which their cohorts in the Pentagon designed and
executed, and which the ‘Lobby’ celebrated, and they argue, push and
shove for us to engage in a bigger, bloodier and costlier war with
Iran. Despite their disastrous policies, the ‘American’ Zionists have
purchased a formidable bloc of Congress-people and Senators who are
unconditional supporters of Israel and its political definition of
Middle East policy.
The newly elected Democrats, Congressional leaders and Committee
Chair-people dared not challenge the Israel Prime Minister Olmert when
he endorsed Bush, his catastrophic war in Iraq, his policy of “staying
the course” and his proposal to “put the military option on the table”
with regard to Iran.
The Israeli-American head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff has
sworn enmity to the entire corpus of international law, the European
Parliament and the United Nations, in large part because they argue
against the White House and Israeli illegal pre-emptive military
attacks on Middle Eastern adversaries (Reuters
November 17, 2006). The Democrats, in tune with the Lobby, sidelined
anti-war Congressman John Murtha from becoming House Majority leader in
favor of Steny Hoyer, a pliable Congressman from Maryland obedient to
‘Lobby advice’. Senator Harry Reid, the new leader of the Senate
Democrats, has already been given a certificate of good conduct by the
Nevada State Jewish Lobby. He can be counted on to limit the scope of
any ‘dialogue’ with Iran or Syria. The same is true with Nancy Pelosi,
Majority Speaker of the House, who has sworn unswerving allegiance to
the State of Israel at every AIPAC convention she has ever attended.
Pelosi selected Reva Price as a key adviser on foreign policy, the
Middle East and ‘Jewish interests’, with particular attention to
affluent Lobby contributors to the Democratic Party. As Mathew Berger
(friend of the Lobby) writes in the Congressional Quarterly (November 24, 2006):
Democratic
lawmakers are sporting their pro-Israel credentials…the Jewish donors
who come to Washington for intimate meeting just like this one, are
eating it up word for word. In the back stands Reva Price…the policy
matchmaker between the Jewish community and Democratic lawmakers – and
her role as an adviser to Rep. Nancy Pelosi…Now with Pelosi set to
become the next Speaker of the House, Price has the chance to bring the
Jewish Community’s hot topics to the ear of true power…”.
Reva Price was the leader of the ultra-Zionist Jewish Council for
Public Affairs prior to becoming Pelosi’s key adviser on hot topics in
the Middle East of special interest to the ‘Lobby’. As Berger points
out, in the run-up to the election Price “worked
hard to counter that perception that some Democratic lawmakers
(including a few who are now likely to chair committees) want to
pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians…for this
election…Jewish lawmakers made clear that the Democratic caucus would
support Israel, and those members who were not supportive would not
have influence on foreign affairs”. Pelosi demonstrated her
obedience to the Price-Lobby line by viciously attacking Israel critic,
former President Jimmy Carter, stating, “Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party or for Israel”. Amy Friedkin, a former president of AIPAC and a friend of Pelosi for over 25 years, wrote: “I’ve heard her say numerous times that the single greatest achievement of the 20th
century was the founding of the modern state of Israel. She has been a
great friend of the US-Israel relationship during her entire time in
Congress and is deeply committed to strengthening that relationship” (Jewishjournal.com November 30, 2006).
Numerous articles and opinion pieces have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and The New York Times written
by ‘Israel First’ writers, which attack any attempt by Baker to change
US’s confrontational policy towards Iran, not to mention a proposal
calling for an international conference to resolve the Palestine-Israel
conflict.
The Jewish Lobby has formidable allies not only in
Congress and the majority Democratic Party but powerful representatives
in the executive branch, including key operators like Vice President
Cheney, National Security Coordinator of the Middle East Elliot Abrams,
Presidential Spokesperson Joshua Bolton and Vice Presidential Adviser
David Wurmser and a pack of other long-serving ‘Israel Firsters’. The
Zionist-influenced Congress could dredge up Gates’ previous involvement
in Iran-Contra scandal to if he decided to ally with Baker, just as
they sabotaged Murtha by digging up a 30-year old caper to undercut his
quest for House Majority Leader.
Conclusion
The Baker Group, despite the advantageous international situation and
broad domestic support, faces the enormous power and opposition of the
Jewish Lobby, in its quest to break new ground in US Middle East
Policy. Each and every proposal will pass the scrutiny of an army of
‘Israel First’ Lobbyists, their compliant Congress members and staff,
and have to withstand the hostility of members of the Executive,
including George W. Bush, aligned with the Jewish state. One of the
first major battlefields will revolve around the question whether the
US should engage in a dialogue and seek the cooperation with a willing
Iran and Syria in stabilizing the situation in Iraq or whether the US
should pursue a confrontational approach including sanctions and the
military option. The first line of attack by the pro-Israel power
configuration is to reject outright any openings to the two Middle East
countries. The usual froth, damnation and demonization, fabrication and
mistranslation of quotes will be trotted out to preclude any meetings
with the Iranian president. If Baker’s proposal makes any headway, the
Jewish power bloc in Congress and the Executive can be expected to
impose a political straightjacket, which precludes any effective and
meaningful exchange. This means that they will propose the White House
follow a ‘two track’ approach: vigorously continue to pursue economic
sanctions and military threats on one track while, on the other,
approaching Iran to intervene and stabilize the US client regime in
Iraq. The Zionists and their followers know that a two-track approach
is a non-starter. Iran is not about to lend its political leverage to
stabilize Iraq in order to free up US military power to blow up Iranian
cities as well as its nuclear facilities, ports, refineries and other
vital infrastructure. Not even Baker’s much vaunted diplomatic skills
will convince Iran to make one-sided strategic concessions to the White
House in exchange for nothing – not even an elementary security or
non-aggression agreement.
Great Britain’s Defense Minister Des Browne announced a sharp reduction of troops at least by half in Iraq for 2007 (Al Jazeera
November 26, 2006). Baker will be under even greater pressure to
propose a timetable for the reduction of US troops – a position
however, which apparently has divided his group. (NY Times November 27, 2006)
A proposal to gradually reduce US troops in Iraq and reposition them to
military bases is not likely to meet stiff opposition from the Jewish
state or its representatives in the US – unless the White Office offers
stiff resistance. For Israel and its Lobby, the US invasion and
occupation has already accomplished its primary mission of destroying
the Iraqi state: fragmenting Iraqi society into warring
ethno-religious-tribal divisions and eliminating a strong secular
republic opposed to the Jewish state’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
For Israel and its US Lobby, it is now time to move on to eliminating
other adversaries to Israeli Middle East dominance – namely Iran and
Syria. That is why the Lobby is spending more resources and exerting
greater pressure on the White House and the Congress to escalate the
confrontation with those two countries. And that is why the Lobby has
already launched a full-scale propaganda campaign to block any openings
to Iran, which might lead to some sort of security accommodation.
Will Baker be able to ‘con’ the Iranian and Syrian leaders into
believing that their political support of the US in Iraq will be
rewarded later? That aiding the US in Iraq will create ‘confidence’ of
their good will in Washington and enhance Iran’s image as a
“responsible” Middle East power? Baker may argue that their
co-operation strengthens the ‘good guy realists’ in Washington, weakens
the ‘bad guy Zioncons’ and leads to an end of the confrontational
military blackmail. No doubt there are Iranian politicians and
diplomats among the competing forces who are eager to cooperate with
the US at almost
any price, but even they cannot publicly embrace the restrictive terms,
which the Lobby-White House will propose. A dialog is impossible if the
White House and Israel continue to threaten a pre-emptive attack. It is
highly unlikely that Baker’s Group will dare confront the powerful
Jewish lobby by raising the issue of restricting Israel’s militarist
posture or even diplomatically asking the Jewish State to refrain from
setting ‘deadlines’ for an air assault against Iran.
Despite
the otherwise universal consensus (Israel and the Jewish Lobby
excluded) that the Palestine-Israel conflict is at the center of Middle
East discord and the public and private acknowledgement that Israeli
land grabbing and ethnic cleansing is the major factor in the conflict,
despite the fact that James Baker publicly acknowledged as much when he
served as Secretary of State in Bush Sr.’s government, it is highly
unlikely that the Baker group will advance a proposal convoking an
international conference to deal with the Palestinian issue. He knows
in advance that it will provoke a firewall of opposition in a
Lobby-controlled Congress and denunciations of ‘anti-Semitism’ from the
fanatic Zionist Middle East ‘experts’, pundits and Ivy League
‘academics in uniform’.
Baker’s Iraq Study Group proposes an alternative way of defending and
enhancing the US Empire. More specifically the Group seeks to
‘stabilize’ Iraq in order to open the Middle East for US financial
investors and petroleum companies. This strategy is severely
constrained by a formidable bloc led by the Jewish Lobby with far
reaching influence in the mass media, the Congress and Senate and their
committee chairpersons especially in the Democratic Party.
While neither the Baker Group nor the ‘Israel Firsters’ represent a
pro-democracy alternative to empire building, it is important to note
one significant difference. The Jewish Lobby is acting directly and
consistently for a foreign colonial power, which is beyond the reach of
American voters, the constraints of the US Constitution, international
law. Equally important, Israel and its US Lobby is largely unmoved by
the death and injury of US soldiers in Iraq and the squandering of the
US taxpayers’ money. This is reinforced by the fact that less than 2/10
of 1 percent (0.2%) of the US soldiers in Iraq are Jewish
(predominantly immigrants from Eastern Europe) and probably very few of
those are on the front lines. Far more young American Jews volunteer to
serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. The hard data on the composition
of the combat soldiers shows that they are overwhelmingly lower class,
rural or urban poor, Christians and without relatives in the Lobby or
among brokers on Wall Street. Hence there are no personal links between
the Lobby and the war in Iraq and no pressure from within the Lobby for
a reconsideration of its Middle East war campaigns. Middle East wars
are a poor person’s fight and a wealthy Lobby’s war.
The Baker Group, in contrast, has a very heterogeneous group of
supporters – including a few anti-war democrats, military officials
offended by Zionist-Pentagon manipulation, sectors of the media,
several petrol and financial moguls, and sectors of the electorate.
While the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution and
corrupted the electoral system, we still have space and voice to
articulate our opposition to the White House and the Jewish Lobby, as
opposed to our incapacity to influence the Israeli state. In so far as
the Baker proposals advance toward a rapprochement with Iran and Syria
it weakens the capacity of Israel and its Lobby to plunge us into
another Middle East war, at least temporarily. Insofar as the Baker
proposals move toward a timetable for withdrawing US troops, it opens
space for accelerating and deepening the troop reduction. The almost
total absence of the Left and “progressives” from this impending power
struggle, given its world-historic significance and consequence, is in
large part attributable to the influence which Jewish progressives
exercise on the anti-war movement. Their refusal to recognize the
Jewish Lobby as the prime obstacle and major opponent of a new US Mid
East policy cripples any effective public protest.
A prime example is the writing of investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh, who is a constant reference for the progressives. In his latest
article (New Yorker
11/27/06) Hersh excludes any mention of the Jewish Lobby and its
powerful role as the only major national organization in support of a
war with Iran. In his earlier texts on the Iraq war planning and
execution, he pointedly omitted identifying the long-standing and deep
ties of top Pentagon policymakers (Wolfowitz, Feith, Rubin, Perle,
Shumsky, et. al.) with the Israeli state. By systematically omitting
mention of the Zionist power configuration in pushing US policy toward
a war with Iran, he undermines any effort by his readers in the peace
movement to act against the principal architects of a pre-emptive war
on Iran. Even worse, in his article, Hersh repeats Israeli (and Lobby)
fabricated propaganda about Iran’s imminent nuclear bomb threat
together with his reportage on a CIA detailed study discounting those
very claims. In a word, Hersh gives legitimacy and credibility to
Israeli-Lobby war propaganda, while sowing doubts about serious studies
by the UN-sponsored International Atomic Energy Agency, which refutes
Israeli claims. What is laughable about Hersh’s ‘investigative’
reporting is his breathless references to ‘anonymous high placed
sources’ who provide ‘highly confidential’ information, which has already been public knowledge for weeks and sometimes months
and reported on web-sites, in public documents and even by news
services. Whatever ‘inside dope’ that Hersh cites which has not been
public is based on anonymous sources which can never be double checked
or verified and whose analysis incidentally coincides with Hersh’s
peculiar penchant for blaming the Gentiles (WASPS) and exonerating the
brethren.
Because of the refusal of the peace movement to
take a stand and confront the Zionist Lobby, it is condemned to playing
a passive ‘spectator role’ in the ‘Baker versus-Lobby’ battle for
control over US Middle East policy. No doubt some leftists will adopt a
‘pox in both your houses’ posture; while others will welcome some of
Baker initiatives for an open dialogue while refusing to recognize that
those proposals will go nowhere unless the Zionist power configuration
in Congress and the White House is defeated. Hopefully as the
‘heavyweights’ at the top joust and clamor, space will open for a real
debate from below, which will supersede their debate on the ‘best way
to manage the war and the empire’ and propose the immediate withdrawal
of troops as part of ‘a grand settlement’ among democratic people. Real
peace in the Middle East can only come about with the closing of
foreign military bases, the ending of Israel’s colonial occupation and
public control or nationalization of energy resources and the
separation of church/synagogue/mosque and state.
In the end the Baker Iraq Study Group will recommend a long-term,
large-scale US military presence in Iraq, in the Gulf States and in
adjoining Arab states. The ‘redeployment’ strategy, which Baker
proposes, means keeping seventy to eighty thousand US armed advisers,
trainers and special operation forces ‘embedded’ with the Iraqi puppet
army for the foreseeable future. The open-ended nature of the Baker
proposals, without specific time, date and place for withdrawal and/or
deployment, allows the White House a ‘free hand’ over the next two
years to ‘stay the course’, continue the war and occupation, escalate
the number of troops, deceive the public, incur more deaths of US
troops and perpetuate the slaughter of the Iraqi people. With those
proposals, Baker’s call for a broader dialogue involving Iran and Syria
is dead in the water. Iran conditions negotiations on a timetable for
US withdrawal and a less bellicose policy to itself. Syria under severe
pressure from the White House is unlikely to embrace an agenda based on
an extended US military presence, especially one that increases US
firepower in neighboring countries and ignores Israel’s control over
the Golan Heights and its bloody overt and covert operations in Lebanon
to destroy Hezbollah. In the end, the Baker Iraq Study Group has raised
false expectations about new directions by its unwillingness or
impotence in the face of Bush’s pre-emptive cries to ‘carry on’ with
‘war as usual’. Baker’s one ‘contribution’ to the Bush regime, Robert
Gates as Secretary of Defense, has given every indication of following
Rumsfeld’s policies, a blue-blooded ‘Yes Man’, as the leading lights of
the Jewish Lobby predicted.
Note: James Petras’ latest book: The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press 2006) can be obtained at amazon.com
Recommend this article... |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
