ZGram - 8/24/2002 - "The Zionist Lobby and American Foreign Policy"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

August 24, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Tough but thought-provoking!

[START}

August 22, 2002

The Zionist Lobby and American Foreign Policy

by Gilad Atzmon

In the last weeks there have been some very serious rumours, probably 
originated in Israel, claiming that George W. Bush's latest speech 
concerning the need for 'Palestinian reforms' was sent to Jerusalem 
for final proofing and corrections not less than twenty-eight times. 
Whether this is the case, whether it was twenty-eight times or just 
seven, whether it was physically corrected in Jerusalem or just 
followed some guidelines that were drawn by the Jewish lobby in 
Washington, is not the real issue anymore. It is more than clear that 
the American administration is completely biased when it comes to the 
Israeli-Arab conflict. This very one-sided approach should be 
scrutinised.

These days when American policy makers endorse far right 
nationalistic views, the US administration reveals itself voluntarily 
as a major enemy of world peace, and the American president is 
searching desperately for new allies to form a coalition to support 
his phony 'war against terror', it is hardly surprising to discover 
that the Jewish state and Zionists lobbies are fairly active behind 
the scenes. It all makes far more sense when you find out that 
America's current divorce from humanism is closely associated with 
Israeli interests. A brief study of the history of Israel will reveal 
that from its very early days Zionism specialised in tracing dark 
political motivations and interests in order to abuse them to the 
very limit. Zionism is a very singular political method aimed at 
perfecting the transformation of world disasters and human pain into 
Jewish gain.

Already in the first Zionist congress, in Basel (1897), Herzl, the 
first and most famous Jewish Zionist, illustrated this method. 
According to Herzl, Zionism could promise redemption for the Jewish 
people as long as it fit into a larger colonial agenda of any of the 
greater colonial superpowers. Herzl himself travelled between the 
European political centres, promising full collaboration and support 
from the Jewish people in exchange for land in which to locate the 
Jewish state. This very basic motivation to associate with the world 
superpowers is an evident factor throughout the history of Zionism. 
Somehow, Zionists always volunteer to serve the colonial interests of 
any leading power. This fundamental tendency to join forces with 
superpowers led to an internal debate within the Zionist movement 
concerning the independence of the whole Zionist adventure. Since 
Zionism religiously presents itself as a devoted servant of larger 
colonial forces, it is not clear whether Zionism can possess any 
sense of autonomy.

After the creation of the state of Israel this very question turned 
into a political debate. Since the Zionist movement insisted on 
presenting the world with the Idea of a Jewish sovereign state, it is 
clear that many of the most crucial developments in the history of 
Israel and Zionism were influenced by major global changes. Since 
Israel associates its fate with major dominating forces there is a 
growing concern among Zionist politicians regarding the independence 
and the autonomy of Israeli decision-making. Those concerns are well 
justified. Throughout the history of Israel we can detect different 
cases of obvious conflict between Israel and its source of colonial 
hegemony.

 From time to time, Israel fails to comply with its supporting 
superpower. These kinds of conflicts led to the divorce from the 
British Empire (1947) and from the French hegemony (before the '67 
war). Moreover, more than once Israel got itself into face to face 
conflicts with the US. Until now it has been Israel that had to bow 
and eventually to accept American views. Somehow, this time it looks 
a bit different. For the very first time it looks as if it is 
America, the world supreme superpower, that should be concerned. This 
time it is America that is about to lose its sovereignty. Now, it 
looks as if Zionist lobbies control American foreign politics. After 
so many years of independence, the United States of America is 
becoming a remote colony of an apparently far greater state, the 
Jewish state. Yes Israel, a very small place in the eastern corner of 
the Mediterranean Sea. If you try to look for it on your globe at 
home you will probably need a magnifying glass.

The idea that Zionists have taken over America might sound bizarre in 
the first instance but we must remember that this kind of strange 
scenario does happen. Last month I heard Israel Shamir's observation 
regarding this very issue. In a very open manner he said that no one 
would be surprised to hear that during different phases of the 
British Empire the world was governed by a very close group of 'Eton' 
graduates. "Some times" he added, "great empires are taken over by 
very marginal groups". We might have to acknowledge that this is the 
case with America. American foreign policy is dictated by a very 
marginal group of Zionist activists, even by the state of Israel 
itself. Good news for Israel, quite an amazing achievement for a 
microscopic state. But is it good news for the American people? Is it 
good news for the world?

The history of Zionism provides us with manifold stories of great 
empires that were misled in believing that coalition with the Jewish 
state will serve their own interests. In the long run those decisions 
proved to be unreasonable, irrational and even disastrous. The most 
famous one is probably the 'Balfour Declaration' (1917). It was in 
the midst of WW1 when the British foreign minister announced the 
empire's support for turning Palestine into the "national home for 
the Jewish people". At the time there were less than 60.000 Jews in 
Palestine leaving peacefully among a total population of 600.000 
Arabs.

What led the British Empire to such a strange declaration? What led 
the world leading superpower at the time to commit itself to such an 
unreasonable affair based on support from a marginal ethnic group 
(less than 10% of the entire population)?

If there had been some deep colonial strategic or any other rational 
thought behind 'Balfour's declaration' they proved to be very 
misleading. Soon Jews flood into Palestine. Native Arab Palestinians 
start to show their severe dissatisfaction. Conflict becomes 
inevitable. When Britain tried to repair Balfour's damage it was too 
late ('The White Paper' 1939). The Jewish right wing terrorist and 
paramilitary resistance were about to teach the mandate forces a 
lesson in Yiddisher brutality. From a British point of view, the 
alliance with Zionism turned into a disaster. It was 2 years after 
the 2nd WW when the Zionist pushed the British colonial forces out of 
the region. A very similar pattern of unfortunate thought led both 
decaying empires Britain and France to join forces with Israel in the 
Suez operation (1956).

Following Nasser's nationalisation of the 'Suez Canal Company' both 
France and Britain were looking for a military operation that would 
retrieve control over the Suez to the west. Clearly, Israel wasn't a 
part of this conflict but as an 'obedient servant' of colonial 
western thought Israel as usual offered its military assistance for 
any imperial aggression. As long as the aggressor promises to inflict 
pain over its Arab neighbours. The Suez Operation was launched with 
an IDF operation on 29 October. Two days later both Britain and 
France joined the party. The operation provoked an outraged American 
response to the aggressive coalition. On November 9th, less than ten 
days after the operation had started, Israel bowed to American 
pressure and announced its immediate withdraw from Sinai desert. For 
Britain and France this unsuccessful affair symbolised the end of 
their colonial era. More than anything else the Suez Operation 
indicated the loss of European influence in the region. Again, from a 
colonial point of view, the association with Zionism was 
counter-productive.

The Europeans learnt their lesson; they became very suspicious of 
Zionist political affairs. At the same time we have to admit that the 
Americans have not yet learned theirs. The American people have not 
yet seen that a coalition with Israel puts their life at great risk. 
The American people fail to associate September 11th and the hopeless 
American support of Zionism. I assume the reason the American people 
fail to acknowledge such a straightforward connection can only be due 
to the fact that Zionist lobbies have managed to comprehensively 
dominate the major sources that control American public opinion: both 
in culture, in media and in finance. Ted Turner the owner of CNN, the 
world's leading TV news network had to go out of his way to persuade 
the Zionist lobbies that he was in a mental state when he 
'mistakenly' referred to Israel as a "terrorist state". It is very 
apparent that Israel enjoys full protection in the American media. 
The question to be asked is who is going to protect the Americans 
from their motherland Israel?

While the American people take their time to answer this crucial 
question we can stretch our intellectual faculties by contemplating 
the following questions. How is it that the great American nation, 
the world's leading superpower, has become dominated by a narrow 
lobby from a miniature foreign state? Do the American and the 
Israelis really share the same interests? And if they do can someone 
enlighten us as to what those interests are? Are the American people 
aware of the fact that their becoming a direct target of Islamic 
terror is of prior interest to Israel?

On reflection, it must be terrifying that such a small lobby from a 
tiny state is so eager to push the rest of the world into endless 
confrontation.

Do we really need all this?

[END]

=====

(Source:  http://www.counterpunch.com/atzmon0822.html )