?
-
Guest
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=126
The Israel Lobby's Campaign for War: What Every American Should Know
Issues; Posted on: 2007-03-22
[ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
An address by Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical
Review, delivered at a locally organized meeting in Redwood City,
California, on March 8, 2007.
In the months leading up to the March 2003 attack on Iraq, President
Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the
Baghdad regime posed a threat to the US and the world that was so
grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb,
invade and occupy that country.
On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, Bush said: "The danger to our country
is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and
chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and,
according to the British government, could launch a biological or
chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given...
This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could
build one within a year."
Shortly before the invasion, on March 6, 2003, the President declared:
"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,
to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a
threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the
neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe
that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know
that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no such
arsenal, and posed no threat to the US. Alarmist suggestions that the
Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise
proved to be without foundation. The claims by President Bush and
other high-level American officials to justify the war, and their glib
assurances about how "regime change" in Iraq would usher in a new dawn
of democracy and freedom throughout the region have proven
disastrously wrong.
Now, four years later, something of the scale of the calamity is
clear. More than 3,000 American military personnel have lost their
lives, along with many tens of thousands of Iraqis. Many more have
been horribly wounded and maimed. The war and the occupation have cost
hundreds of billions of dollars. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has
fueled intense hatred of the US, and has brought many new recruits to
the ranks of anti-American terrorists. Around the world, it has
generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the United States.
A few months after the attack, President Bush denounced as
"revisionists" and "revisionist historians" the skeptics who
questioned his claims that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons so vast and
so dangerous that the US had to act quickly to attack and occupy that
country. On that occasion, Bush was unintentionally telling the truth.
Those who question government claims, particularly wartime claims, are
indeed "revisionists" - that is, thinking men and women who question
dogma, propaganda and political orthodoxy.
Today, virtually the entire world is "revisionist." Regardless of what
President Bush and his friends may snidely suggest, the revisionists
were and are right, and revisionism - that is, thoughtful skepticism
of official claims - is an honorable and essential feature of any free
society.
In recent years, awareness of the Jewish-Zionist role in the war, of
the reality of Jewish-Zionist power, and of its hold on US policy, has
grown everywhere - an awareness that, once grasped, is obvious and
confirmed anew each day with the unfolding of events
More prominent individuals have been willing publicly to acknowledge
this power. In Britain, a veteran member of the House of Commons
bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America's
foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. Tam
Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member,
said:
"A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States
and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians. There is
far too much Jewish influence in the United States."
In Malaysia, prime minister Mahathir Mohammed declared in October
2003:"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But
today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and
die for them."
Here in the United States, John Mearsheimer, a professor of political
science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor of
international affairs at Harvard, issued in March of last year a
carefully written, judiciously worded and copiously referenced paper,
"The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," which has generated wide
interest and spirited discussion around the world.
Quickly, and predictably, the paper and its authors came under fierce
attack from Zionist leaders and organizations - a vicious response
that underscored one of the paper's main points. But the critics have
been outnumbered by those who have welcomed this work as a landmark
event and as an important breakthrough.
In their paper, professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote:
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for
Israel and the related effort to spread `democracy' throughout the
region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only
US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation
has no equal in American political history.
"The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States
have worked together to shape the administration's policy towards
Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the
Middle East. Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only
factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was
critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but
there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead,
the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more
secure."
Almost nothing in the Walt-Mearsheimer paper is new or original. Its
main point about the dangerous role of what they call "The Lobby" is
understood around the world by informed men and women who closely
follow political affairs and history. The paper is significant because
it was written by two scholars of eminence and stature.
Another important contribution to the growing public awareness of the
power and impact of the pro-Israel lobby has been the new book by
former president Jimmy Carter. In this book, entitled Palestine Peace
Not Apartheid, and in statements made in connection with the book's
appearance, Carter has spoken pointedly and critically about the
pro-Israel lobby and its role in shaping US policy to support Israeli
oppression and war.
Immediately following the book's publication, the former president was
predictably assailed with the usual smears, and by the usual crowd.
Jewish writer David Horowitz, for one, wrote a widely-circulated essay
entitled "Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar," a vicious
item that reflects his outlook and the attitude of many other
pro-Israel activists.
As it happens, I had a run-in myself with David Horowitz in December,
when I appeared , along with him, as a fellow "guest," if that's the
right word, on the nationally-broadcast radio show of Sean Hannity. I
won't go into details of that raucous appearance, except to mention
that both Horowitz and Hannity were as ignorant and bigoted as they
were rude.
Right now the foremost international issue is the question of war or
peace in Iran. The world is anxiously following the so-called crisis
over Iran, or as the Zionist ADL prefers to call it "The Iranian Threat."
This crisis is artificial. It is every bit as phony as the one
manufactured to provide a pretext for war against Iraq.
Once again our leaders prepare Americans for a new war.
Once again we are told that another country that Israel regards as an
adversary is a grave threat to the peace of the world.
Once again we are told lies so similar to those we heard in 2002 and
2003, and from the same people, that it's amazing that anyone takes
them seriously.
For more than a year now, high-ranking US officials have been
pressuring Iran, including repeated threats of military attack, if the
government in Tehran does not give up its nuclear development program.
The announcement last year that Iran had enriched a minute amount of
uranium unleashed urgent calls for a preventive US military strike
against that country. Officials in Washington ominously declare that
"all options" are "on the table." Vice President Cheney has said that
Iran is "right at the top" of the world's so-called dangerous
countries, and he expressed the view that Israel "might well decide to
act first" to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared: "The pursuit by the
Iranian regime of nuclear weapons represents a direct threat to the
entire international community, including to the United States and to
the Persian Gulf region."
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that the US is planning
military action against Iran, and that President Bush is already
intent on "regime change" there. Hersh wrote that the Bush
administration is stepping up clandestine activities inside Iran, and
has intensified planning for a major air attack. Hersh also concluded
that the White House is considering the use of tactical nuclear
weapons against Iran.
With regard to Iran, professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote in their paper:
"Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but
Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the
most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard
an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat
to their existence. In late April 2003, [the Israeli daily] Ha'aretz
reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for
regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was `not
enough'. In his words, America `has to follow through. We still have
great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.'
The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime
change in Tehran. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent
neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran.
"The Bush administration has responded to the Lobby's pressure by
working overtime to shut down Iran's nuclear program. But Washington
has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear
arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds
and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran,
caution against any appeasement of a `terrorist' regime, and hint
darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail.. Israeli officials
also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down
the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington's
attention on the issue.
"One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence
on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping
Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran's
nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington
could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a
nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why
the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront
Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not
exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would
not be a serious option."
A good example of the "bevy of articles" referred to by Walt and
Mearsheimer is a prominently featured piece in the Los Angeles Times
last November, entitled, "Force is the Only Answer." Written by Joshua
Muravchik, prominent neocon associated with the pro-Israel "American
Enterprise Institute" think tank, the essay begins with the sentence:
"We must bomb Iran."
In January the London Sunday Times reported that the Israeli
government is planning to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facilities
with tactical nuclear weapons. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert
calls Iran an "existential threat."
In Israel, the former commander of the artillery units of the
country's armed forces, Brigadier General Oded Tira, has been candid
in calling for a US attack against Iran on behalf of the Jewish state.
In December General Tira declared:
"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an
American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help
him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party and US newspaper
editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a
bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. We must turn to
Hillary Clinton and other potential candidates in the Democratic Party
so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
Scott Ritter, an American who served as a senior United Nations weapon
inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, says in his new book, Target
Iran: "The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli
government and the pro-Israel lobby, has succeeded in exploiting the
ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear
weapons so as the engender enough fear that the American public has
more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to
militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran." Ritter also writes: "Let
there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war
that was made in Israel and nowhere else."
An attack against Iran by the United States, or Israel, would be, in
the absence of an imminent threat, an illegal, unilateral act of war.
If undertaken by the US without a formal congressional declaration of
war, such an attack would be unconstitutional. A war against Iran
would serve only Israeli and Zionist interests. For everyone else, war
against Iran would be a catastrophe.
For many years now, American political leaders of both parties have
been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This singular
devotion to Israel - which is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip
on America's political and cultural life - seems to have reached a new
apex in the current administration.
In an address to pro-Israel activists at a convention of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), President Bush said:
"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed,
to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state."
No American political leader would dare make a similar pledge about
any other country. Try to imagine a President saying, for example,
that the United States is strongly committed to the security of
Pakistan as a vibrant Muslim state. Or to the security of Australia as
a vibrant White, European state. Or to the security of Portugal as a
vibrant Catholic state.
President Bush's worldview is shared by Condoleezza Rice, who served
as his National Security Advisor, and is now the US Secretary of
State. In a May 2003 interview Rice made the astounding statement that
the "security of Israel is the key to security of the world."
Again, it's difficult to imagine an American leader making a similar
statement about any other country. Imagine a US Secretary of State
saying, for example, that the "security of Nigeria is the key to
security of the world." Or, that the security of Russia, Taiwan, or
Serbia, is the key to the security of the world. It's unthinkable.
President Bush, in talking about the possibility of war against Iran,
has sometimes "slipped" by candidly citing Israel as the sole or
primary reason for taking military action against Iran.
In an interview in February 2006, he was asked about his reaction to
anti-Israel remarks by Iran's president. Bush replied: "We will rise
to Israel's defense, if need be." And he added, "You bet we'll defend
Israel."
In a speech in March 2006, Bush said: "Now that I'm on Iran. the
threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our
strong ally Israel. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in
essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear
again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel."
Such remarks have worried Jewish leaders - not because they do not
agree with them, or because they doubt Bush's sincerity, but because
they believe that the President has been too candid, too open, in
acknowledging Israel's importance in determining American war policy.
Jewish leaders are concerned that non-Jews might draw all-too-obvious
conclusions from such statements.
In April 2006, the Jewish Week of New York reported:
"President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish
community - and his own cause - by repeatedly citing Israel as his top
rationale for possible US military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders
and Middle East analysts warned.. Bush's repeated, sometimes
exclusive, focus on Israel could spark public fury against the Jewish
state and Jews if US military action is accompanied by skyrocketing
gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen GIs who might be seen as dying
for Israel, some said."
Another Jewish community paper, the influential Forward of New York
reported in May 2006:
"Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from
publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian
hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward . [Jewish]
communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the
president's repeated promises to come to Israel's defense, public
declarations to that effect do more harm than good." Jewish leaders
went on to express concern that such statements "could lead to
American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an
American strike against Iran."
George W. Bush, and others in his administration, have often lectured
Iran about democracy. Well, that's pretty rich coming from a man who
became president after an election in which he received fewer votes
than his opponent.
Contrary to the impression given by the Bush administration and neocon
propagandists, Iran was never allied with, or even friendly to, the Al
Qaeda organization or the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan.
In fact, in 1999 Iran almost went to war against Taliban-ruled
Afghanistan after Taliban fighters kidnapped and murdered nine Iranian
diplomats.
In the barrage of alarmist anti-Iran and pro-war propaganda of recent
months, we've heard a lot about how Iran is a great danger to Jews. To
be sure, Jews do not have anything like the power and influence in
Iran that they do here in the US, but the insinuation that Iran's Jews
are somehow terrorized or oppressed is rubbish. Jews have far more
freedom in Iran than they do in several Middle East countries that are
allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Iran's Jewish community of some 25,000 is represented in the nation's
parliament by a Jewish representative. There are 20 active synagogues
in Tehran. The Jews of Iran, many of whom own and run successful
businesses, have a standard of living that is above the country's
average. Similarly, the status of women is much better in Iran than it
is in some countries that President Bush regards as allies in what he
calls the "war against terrorism."
To put this Iran "crisis" into some perspective, it's worth noting
that although Iran has not attacked another country in 200 years, it
has itself repeatedly been a victim of aggression. A look at the
historical record shows that Iran has at least some valid reason to be
skeptical of Washington's policies and intentions.
In 1941, military forces of Britain and the Soviet Union, with backing
from the United States, invaded and occupied Iran in flagrant
violation of international law. The British and Soviet Russian
occupation forces removed the government in Tehran, which was
considered too sympathetic to Germany, and installed the youthful
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as the country's Shah, or monarch.
In 1953 the United States, operating through the Central Intelligence
Agency, and acting in concert with the British, organized the
overthrow of the popular government of prime minister Mohammed
Mossadegh, and brought back to power the Shah who had briefly fled the
country.
From 1953 until 1979, the United States generously supported the Shah,
a ruler who became increasingly out of touch with the interests and
aspirations of his people. In 1979 he was overthrown in a popular
uprising, and fled into exile. An Islamic Republic was proclaimed.
In the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein in
neighboring Iraq ordered his armed forces to invade what he thought
was a weakened and vulnerable Iran. The war started by Iraq in
September 1980 lasted nearly eight years, and was one of the most
destructive of the twentieth century. Casualty figures are uncertain,
though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and
war-related casualties. Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people
died in the war, and estimates of the Iraqi dead range from 160,000 to
240,000.
The US role in that conflict was a cynical one. While publicly
lamenting the bloodshed, the US at the same time provided aid and
support to Iraq. To cement that support, Donald Rumsfeld, who later
served as Secretary of Defense during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, flew
to Baghdad in December 1983 as a special envoy of President Reagan, to
meet and shake hands with Saddam Hussein, and to reaffirm US backing
in the war against Iran.
In the current US-Iran showdown, most of the world is mindful of the
blatant double standard of US policy. While Washington threatens war
against Iran for developing a nuclear program, it sanctions Israel's
vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, and seemingly has no problem with a
nuclear-armed China, Pakistan, Russia and India.
In fact, given its geo-political position, Iran would be foolish if it
did not try to develop the most effective military force possible. On
its eastern border is Pakistan, which now has nuclear weapons, and
Afghanistan, which is currently under the control of the military
forces of a nuclear-armed United States. On Iran's western border is
Iraq, which likewise is occupied by the armed forces of a nuclear US.
In the region, the only country that currently has a nuclear weapons
arsenal, that occupies territory of its neighbors, and which is in
violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions - is Israel.
If the United States held Israel to the same standards that it has
applied to Iraq and now Iran, American bombers and missiles would be
blasting Tel Aviv, and American troops would seize Israel's leaders
and put them behind bars for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When a society is healthy, its leaders - political, social, cultural
and intellectual - speak to its citizens with honesty and candor. A
sound social-political system encourages truth. In a sick and corrupt
society, leaders resort to lies and deceit. And the more decayed the
society, the more its leaders lie and deceive.
In our society, the lies and deceptions of the government are so
numerous and so brazen, it's difficult to enumerate them. I've already
referred to its lies about the Baghdad regime in the months before the
US invasion of Iraq . But it's worse than that.
In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine Eleven terrorist attack, for
example, President Bush on national television told the world that:
"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon
for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that
"freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators
had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the
world." These are not just false statements. They are absurdly
ignorant and deceptive ones.
The focus of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, mentioned earlier, is,
appropriately, the role of the Israel lobby in determining US policy
in the Middle East. But this is no ordinary lobby. Its power and
influence is much greater, more insidious, and more dangerous, than
that of any other lobby. Far beyond determining US policy in the
Middle East, it has a profound impact on every aspect of American
social, political and cultural life. That's why, instead of talking
about the "Israel Lobby," I routinely speak instead of Jewish-Zionist
power.
The Walt-Mearsheimer paper is much more than a trenchant analysis or
persuasive critique of a particular lobby. It is implicitly a damning
indictment of the American social-political system. The Jewish-Zionist
grip on our nation is an expression of a profound and deeply rooted
problem. Such a lobby or power - particularly one that represents the
interests of a self-absorbed community that makes up no more than
three or four percent of the population - could only gain such a hold
on the governmental machinery of a society that is fundamentally sick
and corrupt. No healthy society would permit a small minority to gain
and hold such power, and wield it for its own particular interests.
The failure of virtually the entire American political and
intellectual establishment to challenge this illicit and dangerous
power is an expression of deep-rooted cowardice and corruption.
Cowardice and corruption on such a scale is possible only in a society
that is gravely ill - one that is beyond reform or redemption. This
sickness is manifest not merely in the hijacking of our foreign
policy, or in the corruption of our political system, but in our
nation's high level of crime, the squalor of our inner cities, in a
culture that is ever more infantile and crass, and in the spreading
vulgarity of our social life.
In every society, it is quite normal that most people are concerned
with little more than the happiness, interests and well-being of
themselves, their families, and their friends. In any society, only a
small number of men and women have the wit and awareness to understand
the social, political and cultural forces that shape the present and
the future. Only a small minority has the soul or temperament to care
about, and be seriously concerned for, the long-term health and
well-being of the world, or even of their country.
Normally, and understandably, we expect - and have every right to
expect - that our political leaders are mindful of and planning for
the long-term interests of the nation. Tragically, our leaders have
proven themselves grossly derelict. With very few exceptions, our
political leaders - Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal
- have betrayed their oaths of office, showing far more concern for
their own welfare and the next election than for the long-term
interests of our people and the world.
We seek to raise public awareness of the great issues that confront
us, that impact every aspect of our lives, and which have the most
profound consequences for the future. We realize, of course, that our
words will reach the minds and hearts of only a few. We know that we
cannot hope to match the financial resources, influence and outreach
of our adversaries. We cannot hope to compete, much less offset, the
great power and impact of the media giants who control most of what we
view, hear and read.
Our great task is to reach those who, first, think about the present,
and the past, and second, who care about our future. That is, we work
to reach men and women, especially younger men and women, of unusual
awareness and a higher sense of responsibility - the men and women who
will be the leaders of the future, who can, and, if our children and
grand-children are to live in a decent world, must assume power,
replacing the failed leaders who have betrayed the people's trust.
A few of those who are here this evening have come, perhaps, out of
simple curiosity, or to meet others who are attending. But most of us
are here this evening because we care. We care about what is right and
wrong. We care about what is true and not true. We care about the past
and, more importantly, we care about the future. We care about the
world we live in. We feel a sense of responsibility for the world
we've inherited, and for the world of the future. We want to make a
difference - to make this a better world - a world that, even beyond
our own lifetimes, is more just and right.
Some of us may feel a special concern for the cause of peace, mindful
of the destruction, suffering, and death of war. Some may feel a
special concern for justice, perhaps especially for the people who
have lived for decades under Zionist occupation. Some of us may feel a
special concern for the welfare and future of his or her own culture,
race or nation, while others may feel a responsibility for the future
of all mankind.
Regardless of the particular causes or principles that most move us,
that are closest to our hearts, no issue is of greater urgency than
breaking the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political, social and
cultural life. As long as that power remains entrenched, there will be
no end to the systematic Jewish-Zionist distortion of history and
current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist corruption and domination of the
US political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody
conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli
threat to peace.
We are engaged in a great, global struggle - in which two distinct and
irreconcilable sides confront each other. A world struggle that pits a
self-assured and diabolical power that feels ordained to rule over
others, on one side, and all other nations and societies - indeed,
humanity itself - on the other.
This struggle is not a new one. It is the latest enactment of a great
drama that has played itself out again and again, over centuries, and
in many different societies, cultures and historical eras. In the past
this drama played itself out on a local, national, regional, or,
sometimes, continental stage. Today this is a global drama, and a
global clash.
It is a struggle for the welfare and future not merely of the Middle
East, or of America, but a great historical battle for the soul and
future of humanity itself. A struggle that calls all of us - across
the country and around the world - who share a sense of responsibility
for the future of our nation, of the world, and of humankind.
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/
News Source: Institute for Historical
2007 European Americans United.
The Israel Lobby's Campaign for War: What Every American Should Know
Issues; Posted on: 2007-03-22
[ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
An address by Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical
Review, delivered at a locally organized meeting in Redwood City,
California, on March 8, 2007.
In the months leading up to the March 2003 attack on Iraq, President
Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the
Baghdad regime posed a threat to the US and the world that was so
grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb,
invade and occupy that country.
On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, Bush said: "The danger to our country
is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and
chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and,
according to the British government, could launch a biological or
chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given...
This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could
build one within a year."
Shortly before the invasion, on March 6, 2003, the President declared:
"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,
to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a
threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the
neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe
that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know
that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no such
arsenal, and posed no threat to the US. Alarmist suggestions that the
Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise
proved to be without foundation. The claims by President Bush and
other high-level American officials to justify the war, and their glib
assurances about how "regime change" in Iraq would usher in a new dawn
of democracy and freedom throughout the region have proven
disastrously wrong.
Now, four years later, something of the scale of the calamity is
clear. More than 3,000 American military personnel have lost their
lives, along with many tens of thousands of Iraqis. Many more have
been horribly wounded and maimed. The war and the occupation have cost
hundreds of billions of dollars. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has
fueled intense hatred of the US, and has brought many new recruits to
the ranks of anti-American terrorists. Around the world, it has
generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the United States.
A few months after the attack, President Bush denounced as
"revisionists" and "revisionist historians" the skeptics who
questioned his claims that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons so vast and
so dangerous that the US had to act quickly to attack and occupy that
country. On that occasion, Bush was unintentionally telling the truth.
Those who question government claims, particularly wartime claims, are
indeed "revisionists" - that is, thinking men and women who question
dogma, propaganda and political orthodoxy.
Today, virtually the entire world is "revisionist." Regardless of what
President Bush and his friends may snidely suggest, the revisionists
were and are right, and revisionism - that is, thoughtful skepticism
of official claims - is an honorable and essential feature of any free
society.
In recent years, awareness of the Jewish-Zionist role in the war, of
the reality of Jewish-Zionist power, and of its hold on US policy, has
grown everywhere - an awareness that, once grasped, is obvious and
confirmed anew each day with the unfolding of events
More prominent individuals have been willing publicly to acknowledge
this power. In Britain, a veteran member of the House of Commons
bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America's
foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. Tam
Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member,
said:
"A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States
and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians. There is
far too much Jewish influence in the United States."
In Malaysia, prime minister Mahathir Mohammed declared in October
2003:"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But
today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and
die for them."
Here in the United States, John Mearsheimer, a professor of political
science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor of
international affairs at Harvard, issued in March of last year a
carefully written, judiciously worded and copiously referenced paper,
"The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," which has generated wide
interest and spirited discussion around the world.
Quickly, and predictably, the paper and its authors came under fierce
attack from Zionist leaders and organizations - a vicious response
that underscored one of the paper's main points. But the critics have
been outnumbered by those who have welcomed this work as a landmark
event and as an important breakthrough.
In their paper, professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote:
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for
Israel and the related effort to spread `democracy' throughout the
region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only
US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation
has no equal in American political history.
"The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States
have worked together to shape the administration's policy towards
Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the
Middle East. Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only
factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was
critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but
there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead,
the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more
secure."
Almost nothing in the Walt-Mearsheimer paper is new or original. Its
main point about the dangerous role of what they call "The Lobby" is
understood around the world by informed men and women who closely
follow political affairs and history. The paper is significant because
it was written by two scholars of eminence and stature.
Another important contribution to the growing public awareness of the
power and impact of the pro-Israel lobby has been the new book by
former president Jimmy Carter. In this book, entitled Palestine Peace
Not Apartheid, and in statements made in connection with the book's
appearance, Carter has spoken pointedly and critically about the
pro-Israel lobby and its role in shaping US policy to support Israeli
oppression and war.
Immediately following the book's publication, the former president was
predictably assailed with the usual smears, and by the usual crowd.
Jewish writer David Horowitz, for one, wrote a widely-circulated essay
entitled "Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar," a vicious
item that reflects his outlook and the attitude of many other
pro-Israel activists.
As it happens, I had a run-in myself with David Horowitz in December,
when I appeared , along with him, as a fellow "guest," if that's the
right word, on the nationally-broadcast radio show of Sean Hannity. I
won't go into details of that raucous appearance, except to mention
that both Horowitz and Hannity were as ignorant and bigoted as they
were rude.
Right now the foremost international issue is the question of war or
peace in Iran. The world is anxiously following the so-called crisis
over Iran, or as the Zionist ADL prefers to call it "The Iranian Threat."
This crisis is artificial. It is every bit as phony as the one
manufactured to provide a pretext for war against Iraq.
Once again our leaders prepare Americans for a new war.
Once again we are told that another country that Israel regards as an
adversary is a grave threat to the peace of the world.
Once again we are told lies so similar to those we heard in 2002 and
2003, and from the same people, that it's amazing that anyone takes
them seriously.
For more than a year now, high-ranking US officials have been
pressuring Iran, including repeated threats of military attack, if the
government in Tehran does not give up its nuclear development program.
The announcement last year that Iran had enriched a minute amount of
uranium unleashed urgent calls for a preventive US military strike
against that country. Officials in Washington ominously declare that
"all options" are "on the table." Vice President Cheney has said that
Iran is "right at the top" of the world's so-called dangerous
countries, and he expressed the view that Israel "might well decide to
act first" to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared: "The pursuit by the
Iranian regime of nuclear weapons represents a direct threat to the
entire international community, including to the United States and to
the Persian Gulf region."
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that the US is planning
military action against Iran, and that President Bush is already
intent on "regime change" there. Hersh wrote that the Bush
administration is stepping up clandestine activities inside Iran, and
has intensified planning for a major air attack. Hersh also concluded
that the White House is considering the use of tactical nuclear
weapons against Iran.
With regard to Iran, professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote in their paper:
"Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but
Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the
most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard
an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat
to their existence. In late April 2003, [the Israeli daily] Ha'aretz
reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for
regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was `not
enough'. In his words, America `has to follow through. We still have
great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.'
The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime
change in Tehran. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent
neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran.
"The Bush administration has responded to the Lobby's pressure by
working overtime to shut down Iran's nuclear program. But Washington
has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear
arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds
and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran,
caution against any appeasement of a `terrorist' regime, and hint
darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail.. Israeli officials
also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down
the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington's
attention on the issue.
"One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence
on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping
Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran's
nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington
could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a
nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why
the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront
Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not
exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would
not be a serious option."
A good example of the "bevy of articles" referred to by Walt and
Mearsheimer is a prominently featured piece in the Los Angeles Times
last November, entitled, "Force is the Only Answer." Written by Joshua
Muravchik, prominent neocon associated with the pro-Israel "American
Enterprise Institute" think tank, the essay begins with the sentence:
"We must bomb Iran."
In January the London Sunday Times reported that the Israeli
government is planning to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facilities
with tactical nuclear weapons. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert
calls Iran an "existential threat."
In Israel, the former commander of the artillery units of the
country's armed forces, Brigadier General Oded Tira, has been candid
in calling for a US attack against Iran on behalf of the Jewish state.
In December General Tira declared:
"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an
American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help
him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party and US newspaper
editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a
bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. We must turn to
Hillary Clinton and other potential candidates in the Democratic Party
so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
Scott Ritter, an American who served as a senior United Nations weapon
inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, says in his new book, Target
Iran: "The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli
government and the pro-Israel lobby, has succeeded in exploiting the
ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear
weapons so as the engender enough fear that the American public has
more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to
militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran." Ritter also writes: "Let
there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war
that was made in Israel and nowhere else."
An attack against Iran by the United States, or Israel, would be, in
the absence of an imminent threat, an illegal, unilateral act of war.
If undertaken by the US without a formal congressional declaration of
war, such an attack would be unconstitutional. A war against Iran
would serve only Israeli and Zionist interests. For everyone else, war
against Iran would be a catastrophe.
For many years now, American political leaders of both parties have
been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This singular
devotion to Israel - which is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip
on America's political and cultural life - seems to have reached a new
apex in the current administration.
In an address to pro-Israel activists at a convention of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), President Bush said:
"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed,
to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state."
No American political leader would dare make a similar pledge about
any other country. Try to imagine a President saying, for example,
that the United States is strongly committed to the security of
Pakistan as a vibrant Muslim state. Or to the security of Australia as
a vibrant White, European state. Or to the security of Portugal as a
vibrant Catholic state.
President Bush's worldview is shared by Condoleezza Rice, who served
as his National Security Advisor, and is now the US Secretary of
State. In a May 2003 interview Rice made the astounding statement that
the "security of Israel is the key to security of the world."
Again, it's difficult to imagine an American leader making a similar
statement about any other country. Imagine a US Secretary of State
saying, for example, that the "security of Nigeria is the key to
security of the world." Or, that the security of Russia, Taiwan, or
Serbia, is the key to the security of the world. It's unthinkable.
President Bush, in talking about the possibility of war against Iran,
has sometimes "slipped" by candidly citing Israel as the sole or
primary reason for taking military action against Iran.
In an interview in February 2006, he was asked about his reaction to
anti-Israel remarks by Iran's president. Bush replied: "We will rise
to Israel's defense, if need be." And he added, "You bet we'll defend
Israel."
In a speech in March 2006, Bush said: "Now that I'm on Iran. the
threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our
strong ally Israel. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in
essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear
again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel."
Such remarks have worried Jewish leaders - not because they do not
agree with them, or because they doubt Bush's sincerity, but because
they believe that the President has been too candid, too open, in
acknowledging Israel's importance in determining American war policy.
Jewish leaders are concerned that non-Jews might draw all-too-obvious
conclusions from such statements.
In April 2006, the Jewish Week of New York reported:
"President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish
community - and his own cause - by repeatedly citing Israel as his top
rationale for possible US military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders
and Middle East analysts warned.. Bush's repeated, sometimes
exclusive, focus on Israel could spark public fury against the Jewish
state and Jews if US military action is accompanied by skyrocketing
gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen GIs who might be seen as dying
for Israel, some said."
Another Jewish community paper, the influential Forward of New York
reported in May 2006:
"Jewish community leaders have urged the White House to refrain from
publicly pledging to defend Israel against possible Iranian
hostilities, senior Jewish activists told the Forward . [Jewish]
communal leaders say that although they deeply appreciate the
president's repeated promises to come to Israel's defense, public
declarations to that effect do more harm than good." Jewish leaders
went on to express concern that such statements "could lead to
American Jews being blamed for any negative consequences of an
American strike against Iran."
George W. Bush, and others in his administration, have often lectured
Iran about democracy. Well, that's pretty rich coming from a man who
became president after an election in which he received fewer votes
than his opponent.
Contrary to the impression given by the Bush administration and neocon
propagandists, Iran was never allied with, or even friendly to, the Al
Qaeda organization or the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan.
In fact, in 1999 Iran almost went to war against Taliban-ruled
Afghanistan after Taliban fighters kidnapped and murdered nine Iranian
diplomats.
In the barrage of alarmist anti-Iran and pro-war propaganda of recent
months, we've heard a lot about how Iran is a great danger to Jews. To
be sure, Jews do not have anything like the power and influence in
Iran that they do here in the US, but the insinuation that Iran's Jews
are somehow terrorized or oppressed is rubbish. Jews have far more
freedom in Iran than they do in several Middle East countries that are
allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Iran's Jewish community of some 25,000 is represented in the nation's
parliament by a Jewish representative. There are 20 active synagogues
in Tehran. The Jews of Iran, many of whom own and run successful
businesses, have a standard of living that is above the country's
average. Similarly, the status of women is much better in Iran than it
is in some countries that President Bush regards as allies in what he
calls the "war against terrorism."
To put this Iran "crisis" into some perspective, it's worth noting
that although Iran has not attacked another country in 200 years, it
has itself repeatedly been a victim of aggression. A look at the
historical record shows that Iran has at least some valid reason to be
skeptical of Washington's policies and intentions.
In 1941, military forces of Britain and the Soviet Union, with backing
from the United States, invaded and occupied Iran in flagrant
violation of international law. The British and Soviet Russian
occupation forces removed the government in Tehran, which was
considered too sympathetic to Germany, and installed the youthful
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as the country's Shah, or monarch.
In 1953 the United States, operating through the Central Intelligence
Agency, and acting in concert with the British, organized the
overthrow of the popular government of prime minister Mohammed
Mossadegh, and brought back to power the Shah who had briefly fled the
country.
From 1953 until 1979, the United States generously supported the Shah,
a ruler who became increasingly out of touch with the interests and
aspirations of his people. In 1979 he was overthrown in a popular
uprising, and fled into exile. An Islamic Republic was proclaimed.
In the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein in
neighboring Iraq ordered his armed forces to invade what he thought
was a weakened and vulnerable Iran. The war started by Iraq in
September 1980 lasted nearly eight years, and was one of the most
destructive of the twentieth century. Casualty figures are uncertain,
though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and
war-related casualties. Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people
died in the war, and estimates of the Iraqi dead range from 160,000 to
240,000.
The US role in that conflict was a cynical one. While publicly
lamenting the bloodshed, the US at the same time provided aid and
support to Iraq. To cement that support, Donald Rumsfeld, who later
served as Secretary of Defense during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, flew
to Baghdad in December 1983 as a special envoy of President Reagan, to
meet and shake hands with Saddam Hussein, and to reaffirm US backing
in the war against Iran.
In the current US-Iran showdown, most of the world is mindful of the
blatant double standard of US policy. While Washington threatens war
against Iran for developing a nuclear program, it sanctions Israel's
vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, and seemingly has no problem with a
nuclear-armed China, Pakistan, Russia and India.
In fact, given its geo-political position, Iran would be foolish if it
did not try to develop the most effective military force possible. On
its eastern border is Pakistan, which now has nuclear weapons, and
Afghanistan, which is currently under the control of the military
forces of a nuclear-armed United States. On Iran's western border is
Iraq, which likewise is occupied by the armed forces of a nuclear US.
In the region, the only country that currently has a nuclear weapons
arsenal, that occupies territory of its neighbors, and which is in
violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions - is Israel.
If the United States held Israel to the same standards that it has
applied to Iraq and now Iran, American bombers and missiles would be
blasting Tel Aviv, and American troops would seize Israel's leaders
and put them behind bars for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When a society is healthy, its leaders - political, social, cultural
and intellectual - speak to its citizens with honesty and candor. A
sound social-political system encourages truth. In a sick and corrupt
society, leaders resort to lies and deceit. And the more decayed the
society, the more its leaders lie and deceive.
In our society, the lies and deceptions of the government are so
numerous and so brazen, it's difficult to enumerate them. I've already
referred to its lies about the Baghdad regime in the months before the
US invasion of Iraq . But it's worse than that.
In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine Eleven terrorist attack, for
example, President Bush on national television told the world that:
"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon
for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that
"freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators
had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the
world." These are not just false statements. They are absurdly
ignorant and deceptive ones.
The focus of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, mentioned earlier, is,
appropriately, the role of the Israel lobby in determining US policy
in the Middle East. But this is no ordinary lobby. Its power and
influence is much greater, more insidious, and more dangerous, than
that of any other lobby. Far beyond determining US policy in the
Middle East, it has a profound impact on every aspect of American
social, political and cultural life. That's why, instead of talking
about the "Israel Lobby," I routinely speak instead of Jewish-Zionist
power.
The Walt-Mearsheimer paper is much more than a trenchant analysis or
persuasive critique of a particular lobby. It is implicitly a damning
indictment of the American social-political system. The Jewish-Zionist
grip on our nation is an expression of a profound and deeply rooted
problem. Such a lobby or power - particularly one that represents the
interests of a self-absorbed community that makes up no more than
three or four percent of the population - could only gain such a hold
on the governmental machinery of a society that is fundamentally sick
and corrupt. No healthy society would permit a small minority to gain
and hold such power, and wield it for its own particular interests.
The failure of virtually the entire American political and
intellectual establishment to challenge this illicit and dangerous
power is an expression of deep-rooted cowardice and corruption.
Cowardice and corruption on such a scale is possible only in a society
that is gravely ill - one that is beyond reform or redemption. This
sickness is manifest not merely in the hijacking of our foreign
policy, or in the corruption of our political system, but in our
nation's high level of crime, the squalor of our inner cities, in a
culture that is ever more infantile and crass, and in the spreading
vulgarity of our social life.
In every society, it is quite normal that most people are concerned
with little more than the happiness, interests and well-being of
themselves, their families, and their friends. In any society, only a
small number of men and women have the wit and awareness to understand
the social, political and cultural forces that shape the present and
the future. Only a small minority has the soul or temperament to care
about, and be seriously concerned for, the long-term health and
well-being of the world, or even of their country.
Normally, and understandably, we expect - and have every right to
expect - that our political leaders are mindful of and planning for
the long-term interests of the nation. Tragically, our leaders have
proven themselves grossly derelict. With very few exceptions, our
political leaders - Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal
- have betrayed their oaths of office, showing far more concern for
their own welfare and the next election than for the long-term
interests of our people and the world.
We seek to raise public awareness of the great issues that confront
us, that impact every aspect of our lives, and which have the most
profound consequences for the future. We realize, of course, that our
words will reach the minds and hearts of only a few. We know that we
cannot hope to match the financial resources, influence and outreach
of our adversaries. We cannot hope to compete, much less offset, the
great power and impact of the media giants who control most of what we
view, hear and read.
Our great task is to reach those who, first, think about the present,
and the past, and second, who care about our future. That is, we work
to reach men and women, especially younger men and women, of unusual
awareness and a higher sense of responsibility - the men and women who
will be the leaders of the future, who can, and, if our children and
grand-children are to live in a decent world, must assume power,
replacing the failed leaders who have betrayed the people's trust.
A few of those who are here this evening have come, perhaps, out of
simple curiosity, or to meet others who are attending. But most of us
are here this evening because we care. We care about what is right and
wrong. We care about what is true and not true. We care about the past
and, more importantly, we care about the future. We care about the
world we live in. We feel a sense of responsibility for the world
we've inherited, and for the world of the future. We want to make a
difference - to make this a better world - a world that, even beyond
our own lifetimes, is more just and right.
Some of us may feel a special concern for the cause of peace, mindful
of the destruction, suffering, and death of war. Some may feel a
special concern for justice, perhaps especially for the people who
have lived for decades under Zionist occupation. Some of us may feel a
special concern for the welfare and future of his or her own culture,
race or nation, while others may feel a responsibility for the future
of all mankind.
Regardless of the particular causes or principles that most move us,
that are closest to our hearts, no issue is of greater urgency than
breaking the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political, social and
cultural life. As long as that power remains entrenched, there will be
no end to the systematic Jewish-Zionist distortion of history and
current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist corruption and domination of the
US political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody
conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli
threat to peace.
We are engaged in a great, global struggle - in which two distinct and
irreconcilable sides confront each other. A world struggle that pits a
self-assured and diabolical power that feels ordained to rule over
others, on one side, and all other nations and societies - indeed,
humanity itself - on the other.
This struggle is not a new one. It is the latest enactment of a great
drama that has played itself out again and again, over centuries, and
in many different societies, cultures and historical eras. In the past
this drama played itself out on a local, national, regional, or,
sometimes, continental stage. Today this is a global drama, and a
global clash.
It is a struggle for the welfare and future not merely of the Middle
East, or of America, but a great historical battle for the soul and
future of humanity itself. A struggle that calls all of us - across
the country and around the world - who share a sense of responsibility
for the future of our nation, of the world, and of humankind.
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/
News Source: Institute for Historical
2007 European Americans United.