A summary or précis of Walid Khalidi ‘s article “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine” in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies  has been posted on the DESIP website at:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm 

Professor Khalidi’s article, about twice as long as the précis, addresses some of the myths regarding the transformation of the former Palestine into the State of Israel. 

Here are a few selections from the summary. 

Since the issue [of who should inherit Palestine was divine right], questions of who fired the first shot, and who did or did not accept partition are mere diversions and irrelevancies.

 

The genius of the Zionist narrative is its ability to depict the Palestinians’

resistance to this plan to dispossess them as Palestinian aggression, and the

Zionist drive to impose this revolutionary status quo on the Palestinians by force

of arms as Jewish self-defense. 

Aggression and offensive action were built into the very concept of the UN

partition resolution. The area of the proposed Jewish state was 15 million dunams

(1 dunam = 1,000 sq meters) while Jewish land ownership in 1948 totaled 1.7

million dunams. The UN was effectively saying to the Yishuv: go seize those

additional 13.3 million dunams that you don’t own from those who do.

 

The outcome of the [1948] regular war was already sealed in favor of Israel by the time it

began. The “existential threat” supposedly posed by the Arab armies, like the

ostensible equity and moral viability of the UN partition resolution, is a myth.

 Ben Gurion was without doubt the most capable political leader operating in the

Middle East in the 40s and 50s. He had his priorities right. Unlike the leaders of

the Irgun and Stern gang who fought the British, Ben Gurion understood that the

real enemy was the Palestinians and Arabs. (Although one could argue that it

came down to a question of shared responsibility: Stern and Irgun would fight the

British-–with discreet help from Ben Gurion–-and so Ben Gurion could devote the

bulk of his energies to uprooting the natives.)

 

Perhaps the mother of all ironies is that Ben-Gurion spent 1916 researching the

history of Palestine in—of all places—the New York Public Library. One of the

conclusions of his research was that the Palestinian peasantry were the real

descendents of the ancient Hebrews. 

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Walid Khalidi: Reconquering Palestine

A summary or précis of Walid Khalidi ‘s article “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine” in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies  has been posted on the DESIP website at:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Professor Khalidi’s article, about twice as long as the précis, addresses some of the myths regarding the transformation of the former Palestine into the State of Israel. 

Here are a few selections from the summary. 

Since the issue [of who should inherit Palestine was divine right], questions of who fired the first shot, and who did or did not accept partition are mere diversions and irrelevancies.

 

The genius of the Zionist narrative is its ability to depict the Palestinians’

resistance to this plan to dispossess them as Palestinian aggression, and the

Zionist drive to impose this revolutionary status quo on the Palestinians by force

of arms as Jewish self-defense.

 

Aggression and offensive action were built into the very concept of the UN

partition resolution. The area of the proposed Jewish state was 15 million dunams

(1 dunam = 1,000 sq meters) while Jewish land ownership in 1948 totaled 1.7

million dunams. The UN was effectively saying to the Yishuv: go seize those

additional 13.3 million dunams that you don’t own from those who do.

 

The outcome of the [1948] regular war was already sealed in favor of Israel by the time it

began. The “existential threat” supposedly posed by the Arab armies, like the

ostensible equity and moral viability of the UN partition resolution, is a myth.

 

Ben Gurion was without doubt the most capable political leader operating in the

Middle East in the 40s and 50s. He had his priorities right. Unlike the leaders of

the Irgun and Stern gang who fought the British, Ben Gurion understood that the

real enemy was the Palestinians and Arabs. (Although one could argue that it

came down to a question of shared responsibility: Stern and Irgun would fight the

British-–with discreet help from Ben Gurion–-and so Ben Gurion could devote the

bulk of his energies to uprooting the natives.)

 

Perhaps the mother of all ironies is that Ben-Gurion spent 1916 researching the

history of Palestine in—of all places—the New York Public Library. One of the

conclusions of his research was that the Palestinian peasantry were the real

descendents of the ancient Hebrews. 

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Letters to Editors re Gaza Flotilla

The New York Daily News

June 8, 2010

 

To the Editor:

Thanks for your editorial, "The nature of the beasts," regarding the Gaza flotilla.

I'm wondering if you will print a correction  since Israel has effectively admitted that the "Shut up and go back to Auschwitz," statement was created in an Israeli government laboratory where it doctored the tape [see the testimony below]  in an attempt to discredit those who were protesting the Gaza blockade. Israel is evidently shameless -- and much worse. I trust there is more integrity in the offices of one of NYC's great newspapers.

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

 

 

From Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, 6.7.2010

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/7/israel_rejects_call_for_international_probe

AMY GOODMAN: You reported on this as soon as the IDF released its doctored audio. This is the initial clip the IDF released last week.

 

ISRAELI SHIP: [inaudible] This is the Israeli navy. You are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Shut up. Go back to Auschwitz.

 

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We have permission from the Gaza Port Authority to enter.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We’re helping Arabs going against the US. Don’t forget 9/11, guys.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Max Blumenthal, can you explain what you found fishy about this clip? Also, the IDF’s retraction and your thoughts on that? Also, you managed to get an earlier apology from the IDF last week regarding a press release they sent out two days after the assault claiming that approximately forty flotilla passengers, quote, "are mercenaries belonging to the Al Qaeda terror organization." When you questioned the Israeli military press office, you didn’t get the evidence you asked for, but press release was modified. The original headline was changed from "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found to be Al Qaeda Mercenaries" to read, quote, "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found Without Identification Papers." Explain what’s happened in these cases, the doctored audio and the press release.

 

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, as soon as I arrived here in Israel, it became pretty clear to me that the IDF’s press operation was being run by someone with the journalistic integrity of James O’Keefe. First I found this press release where the IDF claimed that forty people onboard the Mavi Marmara were al-Qaeda mercenaries, and their evidence was that they had night-vision goggles and possibly gas masks, which clearly proves they’re linked to bin Laden. So I called the IDF along with my journalistic colleague Lia Tarachansky, who called them in Hebrew. I called them in English. We both got the same response: there is no evidence. This claim came from Netanyahu’s inner circle. And they immediately changed the press release to say forty passengers "found without identification" onboard the Mavi Marmara, basically retracting the al-Qaeda claim.

 

The second lie we were able to basically prove was that the IDF had doctored the footage you played, which sounds sort of like a prank call by a mentally deficient pre-adolescent. And clearly what the IDF and what the Israeli government is trying to do is present the confrontation with the flotilla in the context of the Holocaust to further incite nationalistic sentiment among the Israeli public. And it succeeded. But they have admitted that they doctored the footage and have now released, after releasing a previous audio clip, which showed—which presented entirely different audio from the same exchange, a new audio clip presenting different audio, which they claim is the full exchange. But now they’ve claimed that a lot of this audio did not come from the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship. So their story isn’t holding up.

 

And what this demonstrates is that nothing that the IDF says can be trusted, not one single word.

***

Susan L. Rosenbluth

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief

The Jewish Voice and Opinion

Englewood, NJ 07631

 

June 18, 2010

Dear Susan L. Rosenbluth:

Thank you for your article “The ‘Armada of Hate’ Had Only One Goal: Force Israel to End Its Legal Blockade So Gaza Can Get Weapons,” June 2010, Vol 23 No 8. 

I found your article confusing because you seem to indicate that it’s appropriate for Israel to impose a blockade on Gaza because the territory is controlled by Hamas. But at the same time you cite statistics to seem to indicate that there is no humanitarian crisis raised by the blockade because a sufficient amount of trucks with supplies arrive in Gaza each day. 

However, according to Oxfam, the number of trucks of relief items allowed in to Gaza was just 22 percent of what it was before the blockade was tightened in 2007. 

According to a recent report of the Gisha organization for freedom, Israel today [before Israel’s 6.18.10 announcement] allows 97 items to be brought into Gaza, compared to 4,000 before the siege. The same report noted that a large Israeli supermarket holds 10,000-15,000 items. 

In addition, the Red Cross said more than 100 essential medicines and many basic medical supplies are no longer available in Gaza due to the blockade. A new report by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says the blockade has led to economic collapse in Gaza: 95 percent of Gaza’s factories have closed, 98 percent of residents suffer from blackouts, and 93 percent of Gaza’s water is polluted. 

Also, I understand that there is extensive damage to Gaza’s sewage system. According to Oxfam, damage to the sewage system results in 28 Olympic swimming pools of raw sewage pumped into the sea of Gaza every day, leading to what experts fear is blanket nitrate poisoning of the population. 

It’s difficult to understand how the justice of Israeli control over Gaza is reflected in such conditions. 

As far as whether the blockade is legal according to international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross declared, "The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law."

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

 

Nir Rosen (Guardian, UK): The State defines terrorism: It's what the Other does, not what we do

An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?

See below for selections from Nir Rosen's timely article on who is a terrorist.

But first:

It’s a lesson in human nature and a reminder of human history to see how night is turned into day and how the massacre of a captive people is justified in the West. (The world that Bush and Cheney have succeeded in bringing closer and closer to the level of their beloved Taliban over the last 8 years.)

In a personal note, my family narrowly escaped Hitler’s inferno and my brush with extinction perhaps contributed to the difficulty I had understanding how an educated people could engage in such a degree of self deception when their government embarked on massive crimes against the Other.

Over time I learned that tribal loyalty trumps everything, especially reality. Nevertheless, I might have hoped never to see a whole people treated like … I was going to say the way Hitler and his most vicious and barbaric colleagues in all of history treated their enemies, but even Hitler preferred to do so out of sight of the world’s notice. Well, one concession the Israelis have made to our sensibilities is that they have attempted to keep the media out of Gaza. Ok, score one for the Israelis.

The power of Zionism, the ideology of a purely Jewish state has risen, with the malicious assistance of Bush and Cheney, to unparallelled brutality and remorselessness. As one analyst has described it: “Organized Jewry is a quasi-sovereign power in this country, a menace to all of us.” The current assault on Gaza and the shameless response of its wall to wall supporters suggest that we may be seeing the monster of Zionism come out of its slouch in the darkness, emboldened now to confront us unabashedly with dripping jaw, seeking to destroy everything, including itself.

Meanwhile here are a few illuminating paragraphs from Nir Rosen’s latest article for the Guardian.

from Nir Rosen: “ Gaza: the logic of colonial power”

The Guardian. uk.co. 29 December 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print

Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorizing them was the purpose….

Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors.

Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can….

…Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid in his face. "The terrorist was arrested by security forces," the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?
***

Read more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print

Gaza Fishbowl (like killing fish in a bowl): Bush's Agenda of Destruction

On the third day of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, Juan Cole, writing in his Informed Comment blog (12.29.08) can’t understand Israel’s “end game here.” He doesn’t see any tactical or strategic value to the terror Israel is unleashing.

by destroying what was left of the Gaza middle class, surely they a throwing people into the arms of Hamas….Of course, there are only 1.5 million Gazans, and they increasingly are being forced to live in Haiti-like conditions, so in the short term the Israelis can do whatever they want to them. But I can't see this ending well for the Israelis in the long term.

Perhaps if U.S. involvement in the current massacre were considered, the answer to Prof Cole’s question would become clearer. In the 33 day 2006 Israeli War on Lebanon, many saw the hand of the U.S. in the planning of the war and its refusal to call for a quick end to the bombardment aimed largely at civilians. Indeed there were credible reports then that the U.S. was pressuring Israel to extend the war to Syria. But such a plan was too crazy and self destructive even for the Israelis.

In the current crisis, the perpetrators seem to have handled the public relations aspect more shrewdly, and U.S. involvement is rarely mentioned. Or perhaps it’s simply a matter of time before it will be generally understood that it’s Elliot Abrams, Bush and Cheney who are driving the current horror.

And once again, since Israeli isn’t benefiting, the question is who is?

Obviously it’s not for oil.

Is it for Empire? Imperialism? The military industrial complex? Crony capitalism? The die hards will say so, but such theories don’t seem to fit the current circumstances.

The Lobby? Well they’re unvarying in their support of whatever Israel does, but it’s not clear that it's to satisfy them that F-16s are bombing children and laying waste to the infrastructure of Gaza such as it was, making it as hard as possible for civil life to continue.

By chance, the last phrase is our best answer.

Making civil life impossible. A history of the last eight years. Has all the devastation been the result of mistakes? miscalculations?

It's been noted that the current offensive will make things even more difficult for the incoming administration. Should we see the ongoing horror as another post election parting gift from the Bush team? First Mumbai, now Gaza. Is there time to squeeze in more state terror before Jan 20, or is the killing and destruction in Gaza going to have to serve us till then?

Dual Loyalty on the Upper West Side + Justin Raimondo on Obama on bended knee to the Lobby

NYC Upper West Side Jews having trouble with Obama?
Anecdotally from my Upper West Side health club. One Jewish supporter of Obama told me that several of his acquaintances were having trouble with Obama. He guessed it was racism. I suggested it might be Israel.

Another -- this one I guessed was a Zionist -- told me about an upcoming forum about Obama at a local synagogue next week. He said there was concern that an Obama presidency might be hurting them in their pocketbooks. When I challenged him, he allowed how there might be other issues of concern.

Here's Justin Raimondo on Obama's response to a Zionist interrogation. What pleasantly surprised me was how much freedom of action he managed to cut out for himself. But it's because of his intelligence and independence that they'll vote against their pocketbooks and for McCain.

It's called dual loyalty, and yes, Bill, it's alive and well on the Upper West Side, not to mention other parts of the city.

Ronald


Justin Raimondo:
Obama vs. The Lobby
No matter how much he grovels, it's never enough
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12834

Eric Alterman: Why (Many?) Jews fear Obama

In the last paragraph of his very good Nation column on why some Jews fear an Obama presidency, Eric Alterman nails it: he cites Obama's brave honesty in front of a Jewish audience in Cleveland. Such a glimpse into the man suggests why we should vote for him and why so many will oppose him.
***

In the last paragraph of his column entitled: (Some) Jews Against Obama, Eric Alterman writes:

What is it that these neocons and their media mouthpieces really fear about an Obama presidency? Perhaps it is honesty about the issue. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama explained, "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Then came his kicker: "One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States." No wonder he scares them so...

Read the entire column:

http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/2008/03/eric-alterman-why-mainline-jews-fear.html

Arnon Soffer, Israeli advisor: Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill

Canadian blogger Xymphora -- indefatigable researcher and web browser -- found this. --RB

Insanity and sanity
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

Xymphora writes:

If you ever start feeling sorry for the Israelis, read this article on Arnon Soffer, a geostrategist from the University of Haifa and head of research for the IDF’s National Defense College:

“Ruthie Blum: In our previous interview, you made many assertions about what could and should be expected to happen following the disengagement from Gaza. You claim now that everything has played out the way you said it would.

Soffer: Yes. I said, ‘The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill.’

That statement caused a huge stir at the time, and it’s amazing to see how many dozens of angry, ignorant responses I continue to receive from leftists in Israel and anti-Semites abroad, who took my words out of context. I didn’t recommend that we kill Palestinians. I said we’ll have to kill them.

I was right about mounting demographic pressures. I am also entitled to defend myself and my country. So today, I would update the headline you gave my last interview and call this one: ‘It’s the demography and anti-Semitism, stupid.’”


Note how Soffer instinctively uses the slur to defend himself against a completely justified criticism for advocating mass killing of Palestinians. Note how his other line of defense, also predictable (the Zionists are like robots!), is self-defense. This isn’t some marginal nut: he’s a key advisor to the Israeli government:

“We are living in a 100-year period of terrorism, and we have another 100 years of terrorism ahead of us. We will forever be forced to live by the sword. We are not wanted in the Middle East, which is why we will have to continue to fight.

The purpose of disengagement was not to put an end to terrorism or Kassam fire. Its purpose was to stop being responsible for a million and a half Arabs who continue to multiply in conditions of poverty and madness. I am thrilled that we are out of there. The Kassams do not constitute a strategic threat, and the Palestinians will get the blow they deserve - though we do have to be cautious, because the situation is complex.”

And, shades of ‘no dogs or niggers’:

“Our government has woken up. The only ones making noise are leftists and so-called human rights lawyers who only care about the well-being of cats, dogs and Palestinians, but never about Jews.”

He continues with a completely clear statement on the purpose of the apartheid wall:

“Thanks to this completely crazy security fence [here he points to another map, and runs his finger along the jagged line delineating it], we have succeeded in reducing the suicide bombings to zero. This by itself is a huge accomplishment. But [former prime minister Ariel] Sharon’s real achievement, which the public doesn’t appreciate, is having included Modi’in, Betar Illit and Ma’aleh Adumim in Israel. In other words, 180,000 Jews remain within greater Jerusalem with American support.

Today there are 270,000 settlers in the territories, and their numbers are increasing, through natural growth and due to Bnei Akiva members moving there. Through Sharon’s cleverness, Jerusalem remains in Israel and 210,000 settlers are within the fence. Only 60,000 remain outside. In other words, 86% of the settlers are at home. This is an unbelievable victory.”

Revelations about a conspiracy involving the American State Department:


“So, now you’re asking me - and rightly so - whether we have to evacuate the rest of the territories. Since our last interview, I have changed my mind about the Jordan Valley. I said then that we were probably going to have to relinquish it. I had been persuaded that there was no longer an eastern-front threat, now that Iraq had become friendly, that Syria was rusty and that our strategic peace with Jordan was sound. But then, suddenly, in November 2005, there was a suicide attack in Amman, which showed that there are al-Qaida cells there.

I also said that we would have to hold on to the Philadelphi Corridor in order to prevent an Egyptian-Gazan connection. Now, if we put our hands to our hearts, we have to admit that the IDF failed to secure Philadelphi - a 200-meter wide and 10-kilometer long area, on one side of which is a terrible country like Egypt, and on the other side of which is Iran. According to reliable sources, Iran was already in Gaza 10 months before disengagement. Why am I bringing this up in connection with the Jordan Valley? [President of the Council on Foreign Relations] Richard Haass, who was director of policy planning for the US State Department at the time, told me personally: ‘We’ll allow Israel to establish a ‘Philadelphi Corridor’ in the Jordan Valley, to guarantee the neutralization and demilitarization of Judea and Samaria.’”

Destroy, destroy and destroy:

“It’s because the IDF failed that we made that deal. That’s why today I think we have to retain control of both the Philadelphi Corridor and the Jordan Valley.


And if we return to Philadelphi, it will no longer be a mere 200 meters. It will have to be widened at the expense of the refugee camps in Rafah, which we will have to destroy, destroy and destroy.”

Israeli thinking on Iran (note that the suggestion would also destroy the world economy):


“I want to tell you: Two missiles on the Iranian islands of Karaj and Siri, and Iran’s entire oil revenue drops from $60 billion to zero. Iran is so weak and vulnerable that it’s unbelievable.”


Soffer sounds like a madman, but he represents mainstream Israeli strategic thinking. Ran HaCohen visits the ‘peace plan’ of the Israeli right, which is essentially the complete ethnic cleansing of the Occupied Territories together with the formalization of the apartheid process to cover Arabs in Israel proper (so that they may be ethnically cleansed in due course). As he points out, the craziest ideas of the Israeli right are the ideas of the IDF, and since Israel is a military dictatorship, soon become mainstream Israeli thinking.

Finally, the American Establishment, in a fight to the death with Jew-control in Washington, finally describes a reasonable settlement to the Palestinian problem, following their recent epiphany that such a settlement is necessary for real American interests. Too bad they didn’t come up with this twenty years ago.

Carol A. Valentine: (2002, 2004) Israelis create Palestinian Suicide Bombers

Tooth Fairies And Suicide Bombers
or

"Hi, my name is Abdula. I'll be your suicide bomber this evening ..."
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, May, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.

May 9, 2002 — People, let's use our noggins. The suicide bombers are not what they seem to be.

For many months now, I have been reading stories in the Washington Post and the Washington Times about alleged "suicide bombers". Within a short time after the attack, not only is the suicide bomber identified by name, but we have nice colored photos, almost portrait quality shots, of the dead culprits.

For example, on April 27, 2002, the Washington Post ran an article in the Style section, "Female Suicide Bombers: the New Factor in Mideast's Deadly Equation." Shown at the top of the article are four color photos of the faces of four Palestinian (?) women, face to the camera, posed for the photographer.

How thoughtful of the suicide bombers to have those photos taken. How thoughtful of the suicide bombers to leave the photos behind to be conveniently found by the Zionist-owned press. And what a public service the Zionist-owned press is doing the whole world by publishing these photos.
SUICIDE BOMBER MIRACLES

Typically, stories about suicide bombers tell us that the bomber went to a public place such as a bus stop, market, restaurant, pool hall, etc., and blew himself/herself up along with one, two, or many Israelis.

Funny, they rarely hit military targets. I wonder why?

The general story line is that the bomber had explosives attached to his/her person. The story goes on to describe the carnage in grisly detail — dismembered bodies, etc. But, remarkably, the suicide bomber himself/herself is not blown to smithereens. The bomber's body is left in sufficiently good shape to be identified immediately, and of course the Israeli authorities do just that.

But even more remarkable: The Israelis come up with these nice portraits of the culprits. And what is most remarkable of all? Everything is coordinated, bombers ID'd, photos gathered, stories written — and published all over the world by the Zionist press — within a few hours or days after the event.
SUICIDE BOMBING NOT TOO SMART

Why would a Palestinian bent on vengeance commit suicide? Far better to go to the bus stop, market, restaurant, pool hall, etc., with a shopping bag or backpack full of explosives, casually discard the package in some inconspicuous place, and leave. BOOM! Lots of Israelis die, and the bomber walks away to bomb another location next week. But no, we are asked to believe that the suicide bombers blow THEMSELVES up, too.

"Why would the bombers do that?" we ask. "Because they are fanatics, that's why," is the response.

Well, if you are a Palestinian fanatic you would surely would want to kill as many Israelis as possible. You would want to extend your life as long as possible to do that job. Committing suicide unnecessarily would be a very dumb thing to do.
WHY NO IRA SUICIDE BOMBERS?

In all the years of IRA activity in Northern Ireland and Britain, the IRA never used suicide bombers, did they? Wonder why the "Palestinians" have to?
IT'S THE QUR'AN!
THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE MUSLIMS!

There's another variation to these inane suicide bomber stories.

"The suicide bombers are not just fanatics, they are MUSLIM fanatics. Allah will reward them for their deeds. They want to go to heaven to be rewarded."

Yet I have NEVER seen one cite from the Qur'an that justifies suicide, under any conditions. Quite the reverse. I have seen cites from the Qur'an which clearly prohibit suicide.

Now doubtless there are passages in the Qur'an saying eternal bliss will be endowed upon those brave souls who lose their lives while fighting God's war. Big deal. We have chaplains in the US military who, give or take, give our soldiers the same kind of message. That's their job.

If the Israelis want us to believe that the suicide bombers are fanatic Muslims, they need to come up with Qur'anic scriptures to prove their point. They don't. They can't. The Israelis are lying. What else is new?
SUICIDE BOMBERS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS

The Palestinian suicide bombers have been compared to the Japanese Kamikazee pilots who purposely flew their bomb-laden planes into American war ships at sea during world War II.

The Japanese knew they were in danger of losing the war, and they wanted to reverse the trend. So they arrived at a strategy which would inflict maximum American damage for minimum Japanese damage. The Kamikazee strategy was very successful. For each Japanese killed, 10 Americans were killed and many ships were sunk or badly damaged. Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Kamikazee strategy was not successful enough. The US had the A-bomb.

The Kamikazee pilots' purpose was not to commit suicide. Their deaths were the necessary by product of a heroic attempt to defeat a military enemy, an enemy who threatened the life of the Emperor, their God. Of course the Kamikazee pilots thought they'd go to Heaven, too, but that seems to be a common denominator for all who fight in the Good War.
THE HAMAS JOKE

And what of the Hamas, claiming responsibility for these suicide bombings? The reports that the Hamas takes responsibility comes from the Israelis, and we know they never lie.

There is almost no chance the Hamas is a real Palestinian operation. It almost certainly is an undercover Israeli mockingbird operation.

Note of Semptember 28, 2004: For an example of false Islmaic terrorist operations, consider a recent case in France. A Jewish community center was set ablaze, and "the attackers daubed swastikas in red ink on two refrigerators and badly spelled anti-Semitic slogans such as, 'Without Jews we would be happy,' and 'The world would be pure if there no more Jews,' according to police and a rabbi at the synagogue." (According to AFP)

True to form, an Islamic terrorist group claimed credit for the fire. "The statement posted on the Internet in the name of the Jamaat Ansaw Al-Jihad al Islamiya (Group of the Holy Islamic War Supporters) said the attack was 'in response to racist acts by Jews in France against Islam and the Muslims' and 'as a simple response to the racist and savage acts by Jews in Muslim countries like Palestine.'" The governments of France and Israel condemned the act. Convincing, isn't it? ISLAMIC GROUP CLAIMS PARIS ARSON August 23, 2004 By: ICEJ News http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2004/08/23/854240257 HOMELESS JEWISH MAN ARRESTED FOR PARIS ARSON ATTACK August 31, 2004 By: ICEJ News http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2004/08/31/53238481 Jewish man arrested in Paris arson Craig S. Smith NYT Tuesday, August 31, 2004 http://www.iht.com/articles/536543.html

One week later, French police learned that the fire and vandalism were the work of a "homeless, mentally unstable" Jewish man who had attended the center.

OK, these things happen. And when nerves are tense, people make mistakes. But who invented the Arabic terrorist group and wrote the web page that claimed responsibility? Probably not the "homeless, mentally unstable" Jewish man.

Before me on my desk are two color photos of — can you believe — students who attend "suicide bomber" schools. The schools are run by either the Hamas, or Hamas "sympathizers."

One dramatic front page color photo appeared in the Washington Times of December 10, 2001 with this caption:

Ready to Die: At an anti-Israeli demonstration commemorating Hamas's 14th anniversary yesterday, suicide bombers with fake dynamite strapped to their chests paraded near the southern Lebanese city of Sidon.

The photo is attributed to Associated Press, and shows at least 10 people, whose faces and bodies are entirely covered by white sheeting, facing the camera.

Another dramatic front page color photo appeared in the Washington Times on March 4, 2002. The caption reads:

"Hamas activists, dressed as 'suicide bombers' with fake explosives strapped to their waists, rallied yesterday in the West Bank."

There are at least 11 white-garbed clowns in this photo, which is again attributed to Associated Press.

* Like these.
* Two
* Three
* Four
* Five
* Six
* Seven
* Eight
* Nine
* Ten

Juxtaposed beneath the photo of the suicide bomber students is a photo of four young Israelis, two of them boys dressed in black with black hats and side curls. The boys wear mournful expressions on their faces. The caption reads: "Blast site: Ultra-Orthodox Jews watched volunteers clean the Jerusalem site Sunday where a suicide bomber killed nine persons."

"Gee, how sweet and nice those young boys look. Fancy having to put up with suicide bombers ..." that's what we are supposed to think.

Israel has declared on many occasions that assassination is its official policy. How many times have we heard of Palestinian leaders summarily shot dead on the spot by Israeli hit men? That being the case, how realistic is it that the Israelis would permit these young "suicide bombers" to train openly, and march down the street openly? How likely do you think it is that Israel would permit REAL suicide bomber schools to exist?

And how do you think that Associated Press found out about the demonstrations and showed up to take photos? Next we'll be told the suicide bomber schools have public relations departments and send out press releases.

How dumb do they think we are, that we'd believe all this? Well, you can speak for yourself. But I ain't THAT dumb.
THE PUBLIC RELATIONS WAR

I believe Israel runs a suicide bomber campaign. The suicide bomber campaign serves at least four purposes.

* Sharon the Madman needs an insane foe. An insane foe makes Sharon and those behind him look good, or at least not so bad.

* In May, 2001, world public opinion was moved to sympathy for the Palestinian cause. We were enchanted at "The Return of the Knight."
http://www.ukar.org/shamir09.shtml

The heroism of this young Palestinian boy swept the world's imagination. Obviously, the Israelis were losing the PR war. Shortly thereafter, a new rash of suicide bombers broke out and continues to this day. The suicide bomber campaign was in part an attempt to reverse a growing Israeli PR disaster.

* By September 11, 2001, Muslim fanatics committing suicide had to be firmly planted in the public mind as a common-place event. That paradigm made the fantastic stories of the "suicide pilots" — those Muslims accused of crashing the United and American passenger jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9-11 — easier to swallow.

* Depicting the Palestinians are irrational fanatics justifies their extermination. Proof?

This from the mouth of Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post. On February 5, 2002, Cohen wrote a column "Why the Turn to Suicide?"

NEW YORK — On my first visit to Israel, the government supplied me with a guide — a former army officer and combat veteran renowned for his hawkish views. We disagreed about almost everything, including the nature of the "enemy." I found his views simplistic and repulsive. Recently, though, I have begun to wonder if he wasn't right ...

Cohen then moves on to talk about suicide bombers.

It [Palestine] is now behaving as the Japanese did toward the end of World War II when, in desperation, they sent pilots crashing into U.S. ships. These kamikaze attacks were both effective and terrifying, but they were also a clear sign that Japan had gone nuts.

The kamikaze attacks were an important element in the dehumanizing of Japan. They encouraged, maybe the right word is "permitted," the use of the atomic bomb. After all, the enemy was not rational. It was barbaric. It would never surrender. It would fight to the last square inch. Better to incinerate them all.

In a similar manner, suicide bombings have transformed the image of Palestinians. Now, in the view of many, they are similar to the people my guide once so excoriated and insulted — so different, so primitive, so cruel and indifferent to human life that they celebrate the suicide of a loved one and the simultaneous murder of innocent people.


There you have it. The PR payoff of the suicide bomber campaign is to convince world public opinion that any barbaric act against the Palestinians is justified. Nuke them, burn them alive, decapitate every last man, woman, and child. Do whatever you wish.
"BUT I SAW THE FAMILY
BEING INTERVIEWED ON TV"

If I were the director of an Israeli dirty trick intelligence organization, I could think of a number of ways to pull off "suicide" bombings.

* Send an agent to a public place, have him inconspicuously drop off his package and leave. BOOM! Meanwhile, simply abduct and murder some unfortunate Palestinian and blame it on him or her.
* Create a false ID for the Israeli agent, have him establish that persona in real time, send him into a public place, have him inconspicuously drop off his package and leave. BOOM! Then disappear the agent.
* With effective Israeli control of hospitals, mental hospitals, and prisons, Israeli intelligence people have a plentiful supply of the walking wounded at their fingertips — Palestinians who are human ruins, shellshocked, brain-damaged and drugged to the gills. How easy it would be to send one of these unknowing unfortunates out on an errand. "Here, strap this money belt around your middle to make sure you don't lose the money." Tell the poor sap to meet someone in a pool hall, and detonate the "money belt." BOOM!

I'll allow you to come up with other possible scenarios. It's not hard to do.

And as for the interviews with the bereaved family members — we don't know the people being interviewed from Adam. They could have come straight from Central Casting. Or they could be genuinely bereaved family members of real victims — people who have been watching too much Tee Vee and believe the "suicide bomber" media campaign.

Expect more "suicide" bombings, but believe them less. Thank you.

[The article was revised on September 28, 2004. Notes added as indicated.]


See also:

Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
by Carol A. Valentine, October 6, 2001
There were no "suicide" pilots on those September 11 jets. The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and remote control technology, not hijackers.
Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets? Part 1: Inside Job
by Carol A. Valentine, February 12, 2002
NORAD, charged with keeping American skies safe, didn't show up on September 11, leaving the remote controlled jets to do their work. Coincidentally, NORAD is one of the world's experts on remote controlled aircraft. NORAD had the means, and provided the opportunity, for making 9-11 happen. Discussion of radar anomalies.
Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets? Part 2: The Dumb Blondes
by Carol A. Valentine, February 25, 2002
NORAD claims it sent defensive jets aloft on 9-11, but America's top generals give contradictory accounts before the Senate. They act like dumb blondes — they can scarcely remember which plane hit which target. NORAD blames the FAA for the catastrophe, but the Senate doesn't bother calling the FAA. More radar anomalies.
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
by William M. Arkin, in a guest appearance, February 1, 1999
But what about the cell phone calls to relatives from passengers on the doomed planes? The Special Operations Command gives us the answer to that question — but it's not the same answer you heard on network news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
Flight Of The Bumble Planes
by Snake Plissken, as told to Carol A. Valentine, March 10, 2002
Snake Plissken tells us how remote controlled planes and radar trickery were used to pull off Operation 9-11. "Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done." By George, I think he's got it!
Pentagon RESCUE? Parts I through IV: Open, Bloody Questions . . .
by Carol A. Valentine, June 23, 2002
On 9-11, the most important mission was to extinguish the fire and rescue the victims. So why did they spray water on an aviation fuel fire? Instead of lifting the debris off the victims, why did they use a wrecking ball to collapse the ruins on top of them? Your journey begins here . . .
Pentagon RESCUE? Part V: The Seven Minute Fire
by Carol A. Valentine, August 18, 2002
After the publication of "Pentagon RESCUE? Part IV: Open, Bloody Questions," the Ministry of Truth publicized a little-known article claiming foam was used on 9-11, and that the "bulk" of the fire was extinguished in seven minutes! Then what did we all watch on TV, burning for days after?
Taliban Home Video
by Carol A. Valentine, October 15, 2001
If the US and its pals could fake such a video — and they're easy to fake, either with morphing or stand-in impersonators — why wouldn't they? And they did.
9/11 Terror: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
by J. McMichael, October 23, 2001
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people.
Press Uses Actors in War On Islam
by Carol a. Valentine, November 11, 2001
The Washington Times has faked two photos in its coverage of the War On Islam. One actor was used twice: first cast as an enemy of America, then nine days later, as a friend of America.
Tooth Fairies and Suicide Bombers
by Carol A. Valentine, May 9, 2002
Why would vengeful Palestinians blow themselves up? Why not just leave the package, walk away, and strike again next week? Funny how the Israelis identify the bombers immediately, and distribute nice color portrait shots of the culprits immediately. Funny, the IRA didn't use suicide bombers. Other funny things.
Merry Christmas, and OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!
by Carol A. Valentine, May 15, 2002
What does the establishment of a world-wide Jewish theocracy have to do with the events of 9-11? Everything. If the Jews who rule America have their way, freedom of religion will soon be a thing of the past, and rabbinical courts will rule the world.
911 Lawsuit Is A Booby Trap
by Carol A. Valentine, March 3, 2004
Mrs. Ellen Mariani, a 911 widow, has filed a RICO suit against George W. Bush et al. to discover the truth about 911. But her lawyer, Philip J. Berg, has written a complaint that protects the real culprits. It is littered with gross errors and malpractice. Berg is a suicide bus driver taking Ellen Mariani's quest for truth on a one-way trip to oblivion.

See other 9-11 articles by Carol A. Valentine at http://www.public-action.com

All original works copyright 1996-2004 Carol A. Valentine
On loan to Public Action, Inc.
PO Box 15430 Wedgwood Station, Seattle, WA 98115
http://www.public-action.com
SkyWriter@public-action.com

Tony Karon: Abrams and Dahlan Drive Palestinian Fighting

This article clearly fingers Mohammed Dahlan, nominally under Abbas's control but supported by Eliot Abrams and Bush-Cheney as the key Palestinian leader responsible for the current Palestinian infighting, despite Condi Rice's and the Saudis' attempt to put an end to hostilities.

My only quibble is with one word in Karon's final paragraph. He refers to the petulance of Bush's policy when malice would have been closer to the truth. Why would Karon soft pedal the destruction that Bush is working so hard and so effectively to induce there?
--- Ronald

Palestinian Pinochet Making His Move?


by Tony Karon


Global Research, May 17, 2007
Rootless Cosmopolitan - 2007-05-16


http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KAR20070516&articleId=5670

There’s something a little misleading in the media reports that routinely describe the fighting in Gaza as pitting Hamas against Fatah forces or security personnel “loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.” That characterization suggests somehow that this catastrophic civil war that has killed more than 25 Palestinians since Sunday is a showdown between Abbas and the Hamas leadership — which simply isn’t true, although such a showdown would certainly conform to the desires of those running the White House Middle East policy.

The Fatah gunmen who are reported to have initiated the breakdown of the Palestinian unity government and provoked the latest fighting may profess fealty to President Abbas, but it’s not from him that they get their orders. The leader to whom they answer is Mohammed Dahlan, the Gaza warlord who has long been Washington’s anointed favorite to play the role of a Palestinian Pinochet. And while Dahlan is formally subordinate to Abbas, whom he supposedly serves as National Security Adviser, nobody believes that Dahlan answers to Abbas — in fact, it was suggested at the time that Abbas appointed Dahlan only under pressure from Washington, which was irked by the Palestinian Authority president’s decision to join a unity government with Hamas.

If Dahlan takes orders from anyone at all, it’s certainly not from Abbas. Abbas has long recognized the democratic legitimacy and popularity of Hamas, and embraced the reality that no peace process is possible unless the Islamists are given the place in the Palestinian power structure that their popular support necessitates. He has always favored negotiation and cooperation with Hamas — much to the exasperation of the Bush Administration, and also of the Fatah warlords whose power of patronage was threatened by the Hamas election victory — and could see the logic of the unity government proposed by the Saudis even when Washington couldn’t. Indeed, as the indispensable Robert Malley and Hussein Agha note, nothing has hurt Abbas’s political standing as much as the misguided efforts of Washington to boost his standing in the hope of undermining the elected Hamas government.

Needless to say, only an Administration as deluded about its ability to reorder Arab political realities in line with its own fantasies — and also, frankly, as utterly contemptuous of Arab life and of Arab democracy, empty sloganizing notwithstanding — as the current one has proved to be could imagine that
the Palestinians could be starved, battered and manipulated into choosing a Washington-approved political leadership. Yet, that’s exactly what the U.S. has attempted to do ever since Hamas won the last Palestinian election, imposing a financial and economic chokehold on an already distressed population, pouring money and arms into the forces under Dahlan’s control, and eventually adapting itself to funnel monies only through Abbas, as if casting in him in the role of a kind of Quisling-provider would somehow burnish his appeal among Palestinian voters. (As I said, their contempt for Arab intelligence knows no bounds. )

But while the hapless Abbas is little more than a reluctant passenger in Washington’s strategy — and will, I still believe, repair to his former exile lodgings in Qatar in the not too distant future — Mohammed Dahlan is its point man, the warlord who commands the troops and who has been spoiling for a fight with Hamas since they had the temerity to trounce his organization at the polls on home turf.

Dahlan’s ambitions clearly coincided with plans drawn up by White House Middle East policy chief, Elliot Abrams — a veteran of the Reagan Administration’s Central American dirty wars — to arm and train Fatah loyalists to prepare them to topple the Hamas government. If Mahmoud Abbas has been reluctant to embrace the confrontational policy promoted by the White House, Dahlan has no such qualms. And given that Abbas has no political base of his own, he is dependent entirely on Washington and Dahlan.

Seeing the disastrous implications of the U.S. policy, the Saudis appeared to have put the kibosh on Abrams’ coup plan by drawing Abbas into a unity government with Hamas. And as Mark Perry at Conflict Forum detailed in an excellent analysis Dahlan was just about the only thing that the U.S. had going for it in terms of resisting the move towards a unity government. Although his fretting and sulking in Mecca couldn’t prevent the deal, the U.S. appears to have helped him fight back afterwards by ensuring that he was appointed national security adviser, a move calculated to provoke Hamas, whose leaders tend to view Dahlan as little more than a torturer and a de facto enforcer for Israel.

But Dahlan appears to have made his move when it came to integrating the Palestinian Authority security forces (currently dominated by Fatah) by drawing in Hamas fighters and subjecting the forces to the control of a politically neutral interior minister. Dahlan simply refused, and set off the current confrontations by ordering his men out onto the street last weekend without any authorization from the government of which he is supposedly a part.

The new provocation appears consistent with a revised U.S. plan, reported on by Mark Perry and Paul Woodward, that emphasized the urgency of toppling the unity government. They suggest the plan emanates from Abrams, who they say is operating at cross purposes with Condi Rice’s efforts to appease the Arab moderate regimes by reviving some form of peace process. They note, for example, that Jewish American sources have told the Forward and Haaretz that Abrams recently briefed Jewish Republicans and made clear to them that Rice’s efforts were merely a symbolic exercise aimed at showing Arab allies that the U.S. was “doing something,” but that President Bush would ensure that nothing would come of them, in the sense that Israel would not be required to make any concessions.

Whatever the precise breakdown within the Bush Administration, it’s plain that Dahlan, like Pinochet a quarter century, would not move onto a path of confrontation with an elected government unless he believed he had the sanction of powerful forces abroad to do so. If does move to turn the current street battle into a frontal assault on the unity government, chances are it will be because he got a green light from somewhere — and certainly not from Mahmoud Abbas.

But the confrontation under way has assumed a momentum of its own, and it may now be beyond the capability of the Palestinian leadership as a whole to contain it. If that proves true, the petulance that has substituted for policy in the Bush Administration’s response to the 2006 Palestinian election will have succeeded in turning Gaza into Mogadishu. But it may be too much to expect the Administration capable of anything different — after all, they’re still busy turning Mogadishu into Mogadishu all over again.


Global Research Articles by Tony Karon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Exchange on Palestine and the Lobby: Blankfort, Dunbar-Ortiz and Kaminer

I am forwarding the following exchange with historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz regarding Matan Kaminer's article in Political Affairs, not because she asked me to do so, but because I think that an open debate on the issue of "The Lobby" is important and the failure to have this debate or even talk about the subject has been a major contributing factor to the sad state of American politics today and to building a movement that would seriously challenge the status quo. My message follows her for easier reading.-JB

-----Original Message-----
>From: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
>Sent: Apr 11, 2007 10:16 AM
>To: Jeffrey Blankfort
>Cc: matan.kaminer@gmail.com
>Subject: Re: On the Lobby: Matan Kaminer responds and my response to him
>
>
>Jeffrey, thanks for sending out Matan's piece and the
>correspondence. I very much agree with Matan's analysis, and, as
>usual, have questions of yours.
>
>you write:
>
>"Moreover, I have yet to see any argument of substance that
>demonstrates what strategic benefits the US gains from Israel's
>occupation and continuing theft of Palestinian land . .. This is not
>to say that in the absence of Israel that the US would be any less
>imperialistic, but it's activities in the Middle East would have been
>markedly different. It would, I am sure, not have launched or have
>been able to launch the current war against Iraq without the public
>and hidden orchestration of a score of mostly Jewish neocons and the
>support of the lobby (of which the neocons are a key part !) that
>even as Madeline Albright recently admitted, is the greatest foreign
>policy disaster in US history and which was opposed from the start by
>the old line US establishment represented by the senior George Bush,
>by his former Sec of State, James Baker and their National Security
>Advisor Brent Scowcroft, none of whom were considered friendly to
>either Israel or American Jewry, and all of whom have far greater
>connections to the oil industry than anyone in the current
>administration, including Dick Cheney. And those divisions in the US
>ruling class over America's unconditional support for Israel run
>quite deep, a reality of which the ideologically encapsulated
>American left is totally ignorant and apparently wishes to remain so."
>
>Actually, Jeffrey, I don't think you have an understanding of how US
>imperialism works in the post-colonial era. You might read Samir
>Amin's, Empire of Chaos to gain a better understanding. Israel is
>useful as a Western enclave (or at least its ruling class's
>maintenance of that stance) precisely to keep the region unsettled
>and chaotic. Iraq has been "mismanaged" as all the US imperialists
>are now saying, but none of them opposed it initially. Sometimes it
>seems that you want to see the empire managed more rationally, rather
>than dismantled.
>
>You write: "...long before the Christian Zionists appeared on the
>scene..."
>
>Jeffrey, I'm sorry, but you also don't know anything about Protestant
>fundamentalism, within which I grew up. US Protestant
>fundamentalists are inherently Christian Zionists. They are
>biblical literalists, and the Book of Revelation (which I had to
>memorize when I was 12 years old) says that the Jews must return to
>Israel, and when they do, Christ will return and take all believers
>to heaven (the Rapture), of course, leaving the Jews to burn in
>hell. I recall very well the celebration in my rural Southern
>Baptist church when the state of Israel was founded in 1948. I was
>10 years old. Believe, our nearly illiterate preacher was not in
>touch with the Israeli lobby.
>
>I hope you will send my comments to your list.
>
>Roxanne
>
>

Dear Roxanne,

I have not read "Empire of Chaos", but I am familiar with the position that you say it takes. I see it as yet another one that attempts to employ Marxist analysis to deny or address the historical facts that refute it. A reason must be found, it seems from this perspective, to explain the unconditional US support for Israel and if one doesn't work, let's try another. What must be avoided at all costs is to "blame the Jews," in this case, the organized Jewish community establishment in the US that makes up the heart of the pro-Israel lobby. If the "chaos" theory is what is in play in the Middle East, why not in other parts of the globe? In Latin America, the US failure in Iraq has rendered it incapable of dealing with the increasing march towards the left led by Venezuela. What is it capable of doing regarding North Korea?

You also write, in response to my statements that Bush Sr. Baker, and Scowcroft opposed the war, that "none of them opposed it initially." This is simply not true and their opposition was not secret nor were their reasons. (When Dubya was asked by NBC's Tim Russert why he was disagreeing with Bush Sr. about the war, Junior replied, "I answer to a higher father.") They preferred a weakened, but stable regime under Saddam to the "quagmire" they predicted that would be produced by a US occupation, and although it was not spelled out, the predictable coming to power of the Shia which would then link up with Iran. Yes, they were much more capable managers of US imperialism while having been openly critical of Israel, but this does not mean that I support them or am content with a more efficient form of US world hegemony.

If we are looking for the origins of the current Iraq war, we have to take their opposition into account and explain why, while at the same time examining what forces in US society were orchestrating the false intelligence and fomenting the war propaganda and the finger, whether it fits into Marxist theory being beside the point, points to the right wing of the Jewish establishment, the neocons and its influential think tanks, i.e., the Washington Inst. for Near East Policy (created by AIPAC), the American Enterprise Inst., and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, none of whose roles ever seem to be discussed, let alone mentioned, in what passes for "left" critiques of the war in Iraq which we are told is simply about "oil" and the US desire to control Iraq's vast oil reserves. Anyone knowledgeable about how the oil system works knows how oversimplified that explanation is. Of course, oil, is the key factor in the region, but, if there is one thing that oil producers require, its huge profits from the war notwithstanding, is stability in the region where the oil is being produced because pipelines and drilling platforms are very vulnerable to attack. Needless to say, there is no evidence that the oil companies supported the war and had they been allowed to, they would have happily made a deal with Saddam and we would have had no war at this point in time. To point that out does not put me in bed with the oil companies or Saddam. It's just the way it would have been had not Israel and it's US lobby been around to exert its power on the scene.

As for the power of the Christian Zionists and when it emerged as a political force, it has been eagerly seized upon by, if not welcomed, by those who dismiss or downplay the power of the Jewish Zionists. They succeed in distorting its power as well as its history as a political force. While there is a long record of Christian support for Zionism I have yet to find any evidence that it played a significant role in building US support for Israel on Capitol Hill until Begin was elected Prime Minister and invited Jerry Falwell to visit Israel, which then led to a visit by Pat Robertson and the rest is history. Even today, they are nowhere near as powerful in Washington as those in the "Left" like to think they are and their presence and growth has not demonstrably changed the already dominant position of the Jewish lobby in Washington. That the Christian Zionists before WW2 were not significant politically nor until relatively recently was that they were not embraced or welcomed by the leading elements of American Jewry. As Israel's behavior has come under increasing attack by mainstream US churches, the lobby, becoming desperate, began to embrace the evangelicals, and particularly so, when, a few years ago. Falwell and Robertson were invited to hold prayer breakfasts at the Israeli embassy. What is rarely mentioned by those recalling the early days of Christian support for Zionism is that the dominant religious message prior to World War 2 was largely "anti-Jewish" led by Father Coughlin who railed against Jews on his national radio program and by the likes of Gerald L K Smith with his publication, "The Cross and the Flag."

As a friend who had worked as a staff member of a former Congressman wrote me this morning, one of the insidious aspects of the lobby's power is that pro-Israel Jewish members of Congress have been routinely assigned committee chairmanships that give them the power to oversee legislation in areas that have been politically critical for Israel, not just foreign aid, but South Africa, which under Howard Wolpe, was able to neutralize efforts to penalize Israel for selling arms to the South African apartheid regime, and Latin America, where the US was criticized for aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, and the death squad regimes of El Salvador and Guatemala, while ignoring the major role played by Israel in all three of those countries. (This myopia was also to be found among the various solidarity committees that were, at the time, Jewish dominated.)

What troubles me is that those who reject the position that the Israel Lobby, Jewish Lobby, Zionist Lobby, however one names it, is the dominant factor in shaping US Middle East policy, have never taken the time to actually do the research, to read the books that have been written on the subject. (In an email to a friend several years ago, rejecting a suggestion that he debate me on the issue of the lobby, Noam Chomsky wrote that it was my "obsession." As for him, he wrote, "I don't write about it, I don't talk about it") I suspect that underlying their position is the unexpressed feeling that to accept the truth about the negative role played by the organized Jewish establishment in America would be to somehow betray those Jews with whom you and others were so active over the years in struggling for civil rights, in the unions for the 8-hour day, and for progressive causes in general while ignoring the one glaring exception, the expulsion of the of Palestinians from their land and the right to return to it, which most of those very same Jews either vigorously defended, quietly accepted or ignored. This happens to be a sad piece of history of the Old Left and much of what was called the New Left in the 60s that I know all too well from direct experience with both. It is time to get past that and accept reality as it is, not how you would like it to be.

Best,

Jeff



>
>On Apr 11, 2007, at 12:34 AM, Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
>
>Dear Matan,
>
>Thanks for the prompt reply and the family update.
>
>One of the most critical failings in your analysis and of those who
>downplay the influence of the lobby, most notably Noam Chomsky, was
>expressed when you wrote:
>
>"The one undeniable empirical fact is that for three decades and more
>American government policy and the Israel lobby's demands have been
>very close. Not always identical - there have been crises - but
>certainly very close, in an almost unprecedented way. "
>
>Chomsky and others have postulated this as proof that the lobby only
>appears to be powerful because its interests are in line with
>Washington's imperial interests whereas the lobby's critics, among
>them myself, question whether support for Israel has, in fact, been
>in keeping with the US global interests and take the position
>advanced by Stephen Green in "Taking Sides," that Israel and its
>supporters in the US define the limits of action that a US president
>may take in issues relating to Israel and it is left to the president
>to set policy within those limits. Any honest examination of the
>history of US-Israel relations shows this to have been the case.
>
>What is not generally known since Chomsky and those who agree with
>him tend to ignore it, is that as Uri Avnery pointed out more than 20
>years ago, every US president beginning with Nixon have attempted to
>get Israel to withdraw from lands it occupied in 1967 and with the
>exception of Carter forcing a withdrawal from the Sinai, they have
>been forced to pull back when Israel called on its US lobby to rally
>Congress on its behalf. Neither Israel nor its US lobby have ever
>forgiven Carter for Camp David despite it having removed Egypt as a
>military threat since, as I am sure you aware, as Ben-Gurion pointed
>out (in Sharett's diary), Israel requires external enemies in order
>to maintain a sufficiently high state of vigilance, not to mention
>diaspora support. These presidents were not seeking an end to
>Israeli occupation to benefit the Palestinians or the Syrians, but to
>eliminate an ongoing source of friction with the Arab and Muslim
>world which brings no strategic benefits to the United States.
>
>Moreover, I have yet to see any argument of substance that
>demonstrates what strategic benefits the US gains from Israel's
>occupation and continuing theft of Palestinian land while it should
>be obvious that a truncated Palestinian state in the West Bank and
>Gaza would not only be of no threat to the US, it would most likely
>and quickly, out of economic necessity, fall right into the US orbit
>along with Jordan or face economic strangulation as it is
>experiencing today. Arafat certainly made it clear that he was ready
>to jump into the lap of any US president and Abbas and his pathetic
>spokesperson Erekat are even more eager to do so. It was the late
>general Matti Peled who pointed out that the explanation that Israel
>receives support from the US because it is a "strategic asset" was
>invented to justify the continuing support of Israel by the US after
>Begin's election thirty years ago and the recirculation in the US
>press of the accusations made by Einstein, Arendt, and other
>prominent Jews in 1948 that Begin was a fascist in the Nazi mold.
>
>This is not to say that in the absence of Israel that the US would be
>any less imperialistic, but it's activities in the Middle East would
>have been markedly different. It would, I am sure, not have launched
>or have been able to launch the current war against Iraq without the
>public and hidden orchestration of a score of mostly Jewish neocons
>and the support of the lobby (of which the neocons are a key part !)
>that even as Madeline Albright recently admitted, is the greatest
>foreign policy disaster in US history and which was opposed from the
>start by the old line US establishment represented by the senior
>George Bush, by his former Sec of State, James Baker and their
>National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, none of whom were
>considered friendly to either Israel or American Jewry, and all of
>whom have far greater connections to the oil industry than anyone in
>the current administration, including Dick Cheney. And those
>divisions in the US ruling class over America's unconditional support
>for Israel run quite deep, a reality of which the ideologically
>encapsulated American left is totally ignorant and apparently wishes
>to remain so. I am not one to quote Lenin, but he is alleged to have
>said, or written, "Be as real as reality." I have yet to meet a self-
>styled Leninist today who meets that standard nor a Trotskyist, for
>that matter.
>
>Now, I can well understand that given the censorship that is exists
>within the international left on the subject, that you would know
>very little about the lobby's history and its role in making Israel a
>country to which American politicians of both political parties
>routinely pledge their allegiance (more often than they do to the US)
>and why many of these same politicians who have no problem
>criticizing the president of the United States, or the head of state
>of any other country (but one), on the floor of Congress are
>literally afraid to criticize a prime minister of Israel, any prime
>minister, knowing that to do so would be a career threatening, if not
>career ending decision.
>
>Whether or not the lobby represents the majority of American Jews is
>irrelevant when one considers that that it is made up of the entire
>organized Jewish establishment which includes more than 60
>organizations, 150 community relations councils and federations,
>thousands of synagogues, and Washington's major think tanks. If there
>is a single thread that holds them all together it is their support
>of continued US political, military and economic assistance to Israel
>and their universal opposition to the Palestinian right of return. I
>am not aware of a single organization of any significance among
>American Jews that does not subscribe to these positions and I have
>studied the subject quite thoroughly for a number of years. As a
>group, moreover, Jews have long dominated the major donor list of the
>Democratic Party and by giving sums to key players in the Republican
>Party, assured their compliance with the lobby's wishes long before
>the Christian Zionists appeared on the scene. To pretend that their
>being Jewish is less significant than than the fact that they are
>also wealthy capitalists may be comforting but will fool no one,
>least of all the politicians who are on the receiving end of their
>largesse.
>
>To get an understanding of how the lobby works and how it shapes US
>Middle East policy, I recommend that you purchase over the internet
>the following books: Edward Tivnan's "The Lobby," Stephen Green's
>"Talking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel,"
>former Congressman Paul Findley's "They Dare to Speak Out," JJ
>Goldberg's (the editor of the Jewish weekly Forward) "Jewish Power"
>and most recently, Jim Petras's "The Power of Israel in the US."
>Also, you may be interested in three articles of mine:
>
>Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict:
>http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
>The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions: http://
>www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html
>A War for Israel: http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/
>WarForIsrael.html
>
>Yours,
>
>Jeff
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matan Kaminer
>Sent: Apr 10, 2007 5:58 AM
>To: Jeffrey Blankfort
>Cc: Reuven Kaminer , Eilat Maoz , gokce gunel
>Subject: Re: Politcal Affairs: Kaminer: The Colonial Drama of Israel
>& Palestine (and JB's response)
>
>Hi Jeff,
>Thanks for your reply. I am Reuven's grandson and Noam's son, by the
>way. I don't know how well I can respond to your criticism, as I am
>really not versed in the facts and figures of the "Israel lobby"
>debate. This is why the points I make briefly below will not be
>empirically based, but rather points of principle. Let me start by
>saying that if I came across as insinuating that any attempt to
>understand the question of the Israel lobby's power is anti-Semitic,
>then I apologize. Such smearing would indeed place me in the same
>ranks as Dershowitz and the others you mention, but it was certainly
>not my intention.
>That said, there are several ways of approaching the question. The
>one undeniable empirical fact is that for three decades and more
>American government policy and the Israel lobby's demands have been
>very close. Not always identical - there have been crises - but
>certainly very close, in an almost unprecedented way. So the question
>must be addressed.
>But there are a few pitfalls along the way. One is the conflation of
>the terms "Jewish", "Israeli" and "Zionist", which I think you are
>not being careful enough to avoid. The fact that many wealthy
>political donors are Jewish and may or may not belong to AIPAC does
>not mean that they represent the American Jewish community in any way
>(most American Jews are not wealthy); similarly, it does not mean
>that they represent the interest either of the state of Israel or of
>its citizens; neither does their Jewishness make their support of
>Zionism a question not worth trying to answer (not all wealthy Jews
>throughout history have been right-wing Zionists). In reality, the
>only generalization one can make about wealthy donors is that they
>are wealthy; this is where we should look for the connection, not in
>their Jewishness.
>It is true that the Zionists conflate Jew, Israeli and Zionist. They
>are hypocritical in the extreme when they then turn around and label
>others who fall into that trap as "anti-Semitic" . However, this does
>not mean that "it is okay" to do as they do. In fact, this is one of
>the main points where leftists need to fight against Zionist
>propaganda, and this is what I tried to contribute to in my article.
>The footnote in the article, where I mention that most of the
>American funding for Israel goes right back to America, was not meant
>to suggest that the profit the US arms industry makes from this
>funding is necessarily the main explanation for the aid. The point
>was that this money should not be seen as just an irrational gift,
>and I stand by that.
>I think that any real understanding of the support the US extends to
>Israel must take into consideration the US empire's own reasons for
>this support. I am not clear on whether you disagree with me on this.
>Do you think supporting Israel is bad for US imperialism? Do you feel
>that it doesn't make any difference, and that these are separate
>issues? Or do you disagree with the assumption I have made, up to now
>implicitly, that US foreign policy is, and always has been,
>imperialistic, and that progressive people all over the world should
>join the fight against it?
>
>Thanks again for your reply. Please feel free to send copies of our
>correspondence to anyone you like.
>
>In solidarity,
>Matan
>
>
>
>On 4/10/07, Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
>The following article I came across today in my email box and is
>quite interesting in that it represents a view of Israel's
>traditional Marxist Jewish "left." The author, I assume is the son of
>a Jewish American, Reuven Kaminer, a Marxist who emigrated to Israel
>decades ago and whom I met and interviewed there in 1983 when a son,
>Noam, was a member of Yesh G'vul, the refusenik Israeli reservists
>who refused to serve in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon,. The journal,
>Political Affairs, is a venerable publication which used to be close
>to the US Communist Party. I think the article is worth reading but
>did not want to send it without some critical comments.-JB
>
>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5096/1/252/
>
>Dear Matan,
>
>I have just read your interesting article in Political Affairs in
>which you asked for responses. There are a number of problems I have
>with it, but one in particular, is of immediate concern.. In dealing
>with one of the most serious issues that has enabled the current
>situation in Israel/Palestine to continue and worsen by the day,
>i.e., the role and influence of what in Israel is described as the
>American "Jewish Lobby," you end up with the same mistaken conclusion
>and make the spurious accusation or implication of "anti-semitism"
>that have blocked the arteries of the Palestine solidarity movement
>and contributed to its utter failure in the US and elsewhere.
>Frankly, they are only dissimilar in tone and length from the ravings
>of Alan Dershowitz and the ADL's Abe Foxman but carry the same message..
>
>You write:
>
>"On both sides of the Atlantic, demands to stop preferential
>treatment for Israel have treated this treatment as a kind of
>irrational gift, instead of as the self-interested maneuver it
>obviously is [5]. This stance comes within spitting distance of the
>various conspiracy theories surrounding the "Jewish lobby", and the
>road leading from these to blatant anti-Semitism is quite short."
>
>To say that Israel is supported because two-thirds of its military
>aid is used to subsidize the US arms industry, a pittance when
>compared, for example, with the outright sales of the industry to
>Saudi Arabia, does not begin to account for the total hold that the
>lobby has held over both houses for Congress and both political
>parties for at least the past four decades, over the White House with
>the exceptions of Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr., or the well documented
>Zionist and philo-zionist domination of the mainstream media.
>
>Only those who are ideologically blinded can fail to see that the
>lobby, that is the organized American Jewish establishment, has
>hijacked the America political system and has done so for Israel's
>benefit. (It is not the only culprit in the field, but the only one
>with total "bi-partisan" support) It is not a secret that all the
>presidential candidates are whoring after Jewish money and pledging
>their allegiance to Israel, something that they have, in fact, been
>doing for years, as have members of Congress, and that virtually ever
>big donor mentioned in the media is Jewish. Is this of no consequence
>or is even raising the issue and asking the question, "anti-semitic"
>in your eyes?
>
>Similarly, you do not explain why "in Europe the economic and
>political profit accrued by the European bourgeoisie through its
>support of Israel is not usually an issue." While I am aware that the
>EU is Israel's largest trading partner, it hardly a significant one
>from the EU's standpoint and it is not clear what you mean by
>"political profit" unless you are referring to the monetary and
>political support that Judeophallic European leaders receive from
>Jewish organizational lobbies in their respective countries, such as
>the neo-fascist Zarkosy in France, Merkel in Germany or Blair in the UK.
>
>What I have found disturbing, but after some years amusing and
>predictable, is that the only two sectors of US and Western society
>that view Israel as a "strategic asset" of the US and use this
>argument to explain the massive economic and critical support that
>the US has given Israel over the years is the organized world-wide
>Jewish establishment and what passes for "the left." It is not
>surprising that the former continues to show signs of ever
>increasing power, as we have most recently seen in the West's
>groveling response to Israel's most recent war on Lebanon while the
>latter, in the US, Europe, or for that matter, Israel, is barely able
>to draw a breath.
>It is something to think about.
>
>I have copied this message to my entire mailing list along with your
>original article. You are quite likely to get responses from some of
>them. In any case, I will be happy to pass whatever comments you wish
>to make on to them.
>
>Yours,
>
>Jeff Blankfort
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5096/1/252/?
>PrintableVersion=enabled
>
>The Colonial Drama of Israel and Palestine
>
>By Matan Kaminer
>Political Affairs
>
>4-09-07, 8:24 am
>
>
>Seen from this side of the Mediterranean, the Western (and especially
>European) view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict exhibits a strange
>trait. One often feels that one is playing a part in a play scripted
>by others, and that deviations from the allotted role may be frowned
>upon by the audience. Of course, the most obnoxious version of this
>theatrical piece is the one in which the Israeli is cast as a brave
>liberal David, up against the brutish Muslim Goliath. Seeing as I am
>writing for a left audience and not for The New York Times, this play
>does not concern me here. Often, though, one feels that the
>international left is also sitting down to watch a drama; this one
>might be titled Colonialism.
>
>Before I go on, let me clarify that I see the situation in Israel/
>Palestine as colonial, and that as a left activist in Israel I see
>anti-colonialism as a central theoretical and practical aspect of my
>activity. But a facile and a-historical importation of anti-
>imperialist stances from other times and places will be useless or
>worse in the struggle for a free Palestine and a socialist and
>democratic Middle East. Our colonialism is different; and although it
>is a family relation of the earlier European colonialisms and a close
>ally of the current, American-led neo-colonialism, it is distinct
>from these and must be fought in different ways.
>
>Outside the left, and perhaps even to some within it, it might
>nowadays be seen as objectionable to call Zionism a colonial movement
>or Israel a colonialist power. This would strike the father of
>political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, as strange. He was an avid
>colonialist who explicitly envisioned the Jewish homeland as a
>European colony under imperial protection. The revival of the Hebrew
>language, never championed by Herzl (the Jews in his utopia spoke
>German), has obscured this link by using ancient roots in new ways.
>However, the Hebrew name used for the first Zionist settlements,
>moshava, can only be translated as "colony"[1] .
>
>A colony in search of a metropole
>
>Colonialism is not only resident latently at the root of Israel's
>existence; it is in full bloom today. One workable definition of the
>term is "the control or governing influence of a nation over a
>dependent country, territory, or people"[2], and this definition
>obviously fits the situation. Of course, ours is in many ways an
>anomalous colonialism. Perhaps the most obvious anomaly is the lack
>of distance between colony and metropole. Israel (the "governing
>nation" or metropole) and Palestine (the "dependent country" or
>colony) are hard to distinguish, not only in terms of geography but
>also of demography: a fifth of Israeli citizens are in fact
>Palestinians, and a substantial portion of the remainder is descended
>from Jewish families that lived in the Arab Middle East for
>generations and spoke Arabic.
>
>In earlier drafts of this article, I hesitated between the headings
>"a colony without a metropole" and "a colony which is its own
>metropole". I finally settled on the rather vague phrasing which
>heads this section. But it is apt, because the Zionist leadership,
>from Herzl to Olmert, has always looked across the seas for a
>metropole. Since 1967 the military responsibilities of the metropole
>have been borne by the United States, with Europe sharing in economic
>responsibility (and benefits). But politically Israel remains
>independent, and not just in a nominal way. Labeling Israel as "the
>fifty-first state" or as "nothing but" an American colony is
>intellectually lazy and politically dangerous.
>
>Why politically dangerous? Because there is another important aspect
>in which Israeli colonialism remains bereft of a metropole: Israelis
>have nowhere to go. Many Israelis are descended from refugees
>(whether from Europe or the Middle East), and most are acutely aware
>of the fact that while the US and Europe may aid us in various ways,
>the majority of Israelis will never be accepted in these countries as
>full citizens the way the repatriated European settlers were. This is
>why no current in the Israeli left, however radical, has ever called
>for "repatriation" or any other kind of transfer of the Israeli
>Jewish population away from Israel.
>
>Colonialism within colonialism
>
>Of course, the ten thousand Israeli settlers evacuated from the Gaza
>Strip in 2005 did have somewhere to go: they were well taken care of
>by the Israeli government. Abroad as well as in Israel there is much
>confusion over the distinction between opposition to the occupation
>of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and opposition to the Zionist
>colonial project in general. I will not attempt any conclusive
>clearing-up of the confusion here, but I believe a careful double
>application of the category of colonialism can be conceptually and
>politically helpful.
>
>In 1967 Israel conquered the portions of British Mandatory Palestine
>previously occupied by Jordan and Egypt [3] and, for the first time,
>took on colonialist aspects in a form familiar to European eyes.
>Colonists, military rule, paternalism, resistance, and repression:
>all of these had existed in Israel/Palestine before, but in forms
>much less obviously resembling those of European colonialism. After
>the occupation, though, even the relations between the "general
>public", the settler right and the state began to bear comparison to
>those in colonialist France, oscillating from harmonious national
>unity to moments of crisis (as in the Algiers putsch and the Rabin
>assassination).
>
>However, as the settlers themselves like to remind Israelis, it is
>hard to pinpoint the essential difference between Tel Aviv and Ariel
>(the largest settlement in the West Bank). It seems that the
>eagerness of the Israeli left (and not only its Zionist sections) to
>denounce the colonialism in the Occupied Territories sometimes serves
>as a mechanism of denial: the Green Line (the 1948 border) is
>essentialized, and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West
>Bank and Gaza is seen as a panacea for all our troubles. The racist
>discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel and the
>theocratic dictatorship over personal life – both aspects of Israeli
>colonialism that were clearly born long before '67 – are put on a
>back burner, or expected to resolve themselves "after we make peace",
>and this is of course without mentioning the return of the
>Palestinian refugees.
>
>Of course, setting priorities is an ugly but necessary part of doing
>politics. I am not denying that stopping the ongoing siege of Gaza is
>a more urgent matter than legalizing marriage between two Israeli
>citizens of different religions [4]. But just as one does not have to
>accept that there is no alternative to capitalism in order to demand
>an increase in the minimum wage, there is no logical contradiction
>between calling for immediate and total withdrawal from the Occupied
>Territories and a critique of Israeli colonialism that does not
>ignore its powerful operations on both sides of the Green Line.
>However, talk of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
>conflict – as opposed to support for talks with the Palestinian
>leadership and a negotiated settlement – does not go hand in hand
>with such an analysis.
>
>The International Angle
>
>The above brings me to the tenuous conclusion that Israeli society
>lives on both sides of the colonial coin. We are colonizers and
>colonized at the same time. This is not surprising or particularly
>anomalous. Colonial society is often stratified, and there can be a
>near-continuum between the top and the bottom of the colonial
>hierarchy. Those near the top, like the Aztec princes under the
>Spanish viceroy, are still colonized; their position is comparable to
>that of the Israeli elite.
>
>Near the top, then, but not quite there. Who is, then? To answer this
>question we need to go beyond nations to classes. The apex of the
>colonial pyramid is most certainly outside of the Middle East, in the
>Olympic heights where the G8, the IMF and NATO live; the reins are
>held in the clutch of the globalized bourgeoisie. This power resides
>not simply in Europe or the United States (or in Japan for that
>matter), but in the hands of those who rule these countries.
>
>We come again to the drama in which we Israelis must play our part
>opposite Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese and many others. Who are we
>performing for, and why are they enjoying it? Why do the Western mind
>and the Western left dedicate so much time and energy to watching
>this play, analyzing it and attempting to influence it?
>
>Could we find an analogy between the way Israelis watch the wrestling
>match of the settlers against the Palestinians and the way Westerners
>watch Israelis and Arabs go at it? Does viewing this anachronistic
>microcosm provide catharsis? Is European society projecting its
>feelings of guilt for its failure to stand up to imperialism in its
>sinister homegrown variety onto the only blatant colonialists still
>around after the death of South African apartheid?
>
>Developing an anti-colonialist politics
>
>How could a subtler anti-colonialism inform the politics of radical
>Israeli and international activists? I purposely exclude Palestinian
>activists from the question, as this article is written as a
>communication between Israeli and European. Colonialism may have
>taken on a bizarre, atavistic shape in Israel, but it is no less a
>part of the world system than the current French involvement in
>Africa. This means first of all that Europeans must take
>responsibility for the intimate collaboration of their own
>governments with neo-colonialism in the Middle East and with its
>faithful ally, the Israeli state. North American activists, perhaps
>out of a greater alienation from their own elite, have become more
>demanding in the Bush era. But in Europe the economic and political
>profit accrued by the European bourgeoisie through its support of
>Israel is not usually an issue. There is no reason why this should
>not change.
>
>On both sides of the Atlantic, demands to stop preferential treatment
>for Israel have treated this treatment as a kind of irrational gift,
>instead of as the self-interested maneuver it obviously is [5]. This
>stance comes within spitting distance of the various conspiracy
>theories surrounding the "Jewish lobby", and the road leading from
>these to blatant anti-Semitism is quite short.
>
>For Israelis, anti-colonialist politics means taking the long view.
>It means looking beyond various state "solutions" within the
>framework of neo-liberal capitalism towards the articulation of joint
>struggles with Palestinians and other Arabs against reaction, whether
>neo-liberal or fundamentalist. It means turning away from seeing the
>"international community" as a fair arbitrator and towards a vision
>of alliance with the social movements of the third world – including
>the third world of immigrants and dissidents in the belly of the
>imperialist beast, and also including workers, women, ethnic
>minorities and other oppressed groups in the Middle East.
>
>All of us – and this applies to Palestinians as well – must remind
>ourselves that without a globalized politics that demands
>redistribution on a world scale, attempts to remedy the situation in
>Israel/Palestine will only intensify the exploitative power of the
>Arab, Israeli and global bourgeoisies over the rest of us. We must
>resist the facile imitation of the experience of European
>decolonization, which can lead us to reformist national "solutions".
>We must link the right of return of the Palestinian refugees to the
>struggles of immigrants and refugees around the world for human
>rights. We must think long-term about the possible lives of Jewish
>Israelis in a post-Zionist Middle East, and we must turn this
>eventuality from an apocalyptic threat into a viable alternative.
>
>The proportion of migrant workers in the Israeli population is
>already one of the highest in the developed world. These Africans,
>Latin Americans and Asians have been brought here to replace the
>troublesome Palestinian workers whom we have locked behind walls;
>they are periodically shipped off to make sure they don't get any
>ideas. Thus, today the Levant is once again seeing populations moved
>around by force of hunger and violence, an imperialist tactic this
>part of the world has known at least since the days of the Assyrian
>Empire. The struggles of the Palestinians and of oppressed people in
>Israel can, and should, become part of the wider struggle for a world
>without borders and without masters.
>
>
>--Matan Kaminer is an Israeli left activist. He would be happy to
>receive comments at matan.kaminer@gmail.com. The author wishes to
>thank Eilat Maoz for her vital comments and criticism.
>
>[1] The "colonialism within colonialism" (see below) of the 1967
>occupation has a linguistic aspect. While the word moshava ("colony")
>and the linguistically related yishuv ("settlement") and mityashvim
>("colonists", "settlers") are currently seen as politically neutral
>and retain a positive, if somewhat naïve, connotation in Israeli
>culture, the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are called hitnah)
>aluyot, a word with a different root which echoes the Hebrew
>colonization of Canaan in the Old Testament. This epithet, originally
>borne with pride by the settlers (mitnah)alim), has understandably
>acquired a negative connotation over the years, and the settlers
>themselves now prefer the words yishuv and mityashvim.
>
>[2] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://
>dictionary.reference.com/browse/colonialism (accessed: February 24,
>2007).
>
>[3] It also conquered the Sinai Peninsula (from Egypt) and the Golan
>Heights (from Syria). I will not discuss these here.
>
>[4] Jews are not allowed to marry non-Jews in Israel. Such marriages
>are recognized by the State only when performed abroad.
>
>[5] For instance, most of the money sent to Israel as military aid
>returns to the West as arms purchases.
>
> >From ReuvenKaminer.com
***


Jeff Blankfort writes:
The following contribution to the discussion of the Israel Lobby between Matan Kaminer and myself is unique because it comes from someone who has actually worked inside the legislative system on both the national and state levels and therefore speaks from an experience that only the handful of persons on my list who have actually served in Congress (and experienced the workings of The Lobby directly ) can claim. As Peggy McCormack points out, this lobby has penetrated and infiltrated our political system, literally hijacked it, in a way that is totally without precedent. The results may be invisible on the surface in the US but they are visible on a daily basis in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, and if the lobby has its way, Iran. This message should open the eyes of those who defend the lobby's actions as being completely within the spirit of American democracy, when clearly one sees that it is consuming what is left of it from the roots.-JB


Peggy McCormack wrote:

Dear Jeff and anyone else:


The Lobby and American Campaigns

I am so glad that this discussion about the lobby is open, now, to outsiders. My name is Peggy McCormack, and I have worked inside Congress and the California Legislature off and on for 30 years. I am currently teaching at a small college.

Almost everyone who talks about "the lobby", including Jeff Blankfort, who is absolutely the best on this subject (especially of the role the lobby plays with state and local governments and labor unions), are woefully ignorant of the inner workings of Congress. Congress may be the last place that any form of representation of "the people" takes place. As it gets more and more controlled by monied interests, Congress becomes more and more homogeneous. However, with regard to foreign policy, there are always the few brave members who routinely challenge American Imperialist policy. This was certainly true with regard to Latin America, Vietnam and other US imperialist debacles.

It is not true of Israel. Have you questioned how this came about? When it came about? I worked in many Congressional Campaigns and with many Political Campaign firms. Most of the really good campaign firms are controlled by Zionists (read Tom Hayden's article in Counterpunch). They function as money laundries, provide expensive services for practically nothing, demand loyalty to Israel, walk out in the middle of campaigns if candidates do not swear loyalty to Israel, and as private consultants have great impact on reapportionment processes in major states. I am familiar with California because the Campaign Firm that routinely tried to take my former boss out of Congress either by running primary candidates against him, or reapportioning him out, has run the reapportionment in California for the Democrats since 1970. There are other Zionist entities, such as the Congressional Committee for and Effective Congress that "helped" Democrats throughout the US with their reapportionment and made sure that some anti-Israel candidates had districts drawn in order to make picking them off in a primary easy.

Congressional candidates are frightened of the lobby. They certainly don’t want putting up with the hassles of having the "lobby" come after them, but worse, they fear being targeted. Ask Jim Moran, Congressman from Virginia’s 8th District who refused to vote for every anti-Palestinian resolution that came before Congress, and spoke out against the nasty occupation of Palestinians. He endured day to day torment , outrageous surveillance, electronic eavesdropping bugs, photos by Zionist paparazzi’s who followed him, and on and on.

Part of the problem of uncovering the details of how the Lobby works in effectively controlling the campaign technology and expertise is the need for research. My ex-Communist party friends here in California are as ignorant of how the behind the scenes political campaign work is done, as the average citizen. A quick example I often use: I was once hired by a campaign to literally keep volunteers busy and away from the major activity of the campaign. Donations, of course, and endorsements (In the Democratic Party labor), are the milk of American politics. Since the bulk of donations to the Democrats come from Israeli support groups, and Labor, (Blankfort has documented how the Zionists control Labor PAC committees) the power of the Israeli “lobby” becomes clearer and clearer. Tie that to the overpowering control by campaign firms themselves, and yes, Ariel Sharon is right "We own the Congress".

If I could interview Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucus members "off the record" I would uncover recent and current campaign practices that my former boss endured, and sadly, that I watched intimately when I worked in campaigns myself -- loans (that quickly come due if the member steps out of line, as my boss did), "loyalty oaths" prepared speeches, imbedded campaign workers, imbedded Congressional staff, partially paid by various lobbies (this could not happen if AIPAC and their dozens of clones had to register as foreign lobbyists).

Oh, and all those campaign firms that do the extremely expensive work of polling, paid voter registration, and precinct analysis (remember campaign firms do not have to report any of this work) – who pays for that? Blessed candidates get the benefits, but at what cost? It is interesting to note that the power of the lobby grew as campaigning became more and more computerized, and the need for more and more “experts” entered the game.

If I had the time and money, I would investigate this phenomenon, I don’t, but someone needs to look at the “way it works”. Peg McCormack
>