|
The
Israel Lobby's Campaign for War:
What Every American Should Know
http://www.ihr.org/news/0703_meeting.shtml
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.
http://www.ihr.org/news/0703_meeting.shtml
|