A Zionist War
By Kristoffer Larsson
Some weeks ago I happened to watch
Oliver Stone’s great production Born the Fourth of
July for the second time. In the movie, Ron Kovic
(played by the handsome as always Tom Cruise) signs up
for the army. He wants to go to Vietnam to fight
Communism. “Better dead then red” is his motto. He
leaves for Vietnam as a well-trained, young, brave
American standing up for democracy fully prepared to die
in order to fight the Communist threat wherever it
arises. When he comes back from Vietnam, he is paralyzed
from the waist and down. But he’s not meet by his fellow
citizens as a hero. Instead he is met by demonstrators
in his own age setting American flags on fire. He
doesn’t understand why. Expressing his hatred for the
demonstrators when at the Bronx Veteran Hospital, he
soon comes to realize the black nurses have quite
another view of the war. As a male nurse explains to
him, “Vietnam is the White man’s war, the rich man’s
war.” Later, as many other Americans in Vietnam, Kovic
came to realize that war was not about democracy at all.
Young Americans like himself were sent there to oppress
a people fighting for their own freedom.
Some decades later, the world’s
biggest war-machine is now under way with genocide once
again, this time in Iraq. The mass slaughtering is
implemented by young boys who aren’t really sure why
they’re there, but it’s ordered by the White House on
behalf of a ruthless, powerful elite. It was no surprise
that Iraq didn’t possess any weapons of mass
destruction. After all the U.S. is not stupid enough to
attack a state that actually so does – it could be
dangerous! But although we for sure know that this war
indeed was not a “preemptive war” or about “liberating”
Iraq, the “war for oil”-theory - adopted by the greater
majority in the anti-war movement - looses ground by the
day. One ought to at least question if oil was the main
reason for going to war. Oil tastes good, but the
Americans want cheap oil, not expensive. The occupation
of Iraq cost the American tax payers more then 5.8
Billion dollars a month.
[1] Thus, it would have been cheaper to
support dictators in the region instead of overthrowing
them – with the result of almost no oil at all. But this
is not the White man’s war. Nor is it the oil companies’
war. No, this is the Zionist’s war.
In his outstanding essay The
Shadow of Zog, Israeli author Israel Shamir writes
about what was probably the real reason for invading
Iraq:
“As the head of the Occupation
Administration, Jay Garner's task is to create a new
Iraq, friendly to Israel. The Jerusalem Post, a
hard-line Zionist daily published by Conrad Black,
friend of Pinochet and Sharon, carried an interview with
one of his wannabe Quislings, Ahmad Chalabi's right hand
man, Musawi.
'Musawi talks enthusiastically of his
hopes for the closest possible ties with Israel. There
will be no place for Palestinians in the new Iraq, for
the large Palestinian community is regarded by INC
leaders (and presumably by their Zionist instructors) as
a loathsome fifth column. Instead, an 'arc of peace';
would run from Turkey, through Iraq and Jordan to
Israel, creating a new fulcrum in the Middle East.'
The Occupation Regime in Iraq was
installed by the US army in the interests of Zionists,
and it may be rightly called ZOG, Zionist Occupation
Government if anything.”[2]
The war on Iraq – just like the
U.S.-threats against Iran – can be traced to Israel’s
interests in the region. Israel and its powerful lobby
has for long been after the U.S. to deal with the Iraqi
regime. The destabilization of the region is more
favorable to Israel than it is to the U.S. After
discussing “what is possibly
the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
policy” of going to war on Iraq, historian Paul W.
Schroeder, in a footnote, wrote that if this is accurate
“it would represent something to my
knowledge unique in history. It is common for great
powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller
powers to fight for their interests. This would be the
first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a
superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a
small client state.”[3]
The Jews constitute no more then
between 2% and 2.5% of the American population, a fact
which seems hard to believe for most Americans.
According to a pull, published in October 2002, the
average non-Jewish American believed that no less then
18% of the population were Jews.
Every fourth American asked answered
that between 10% and 19% of the Americans were Jewish,
while almost every fifth guessed that the Jews
constitute between 20% and 29%. Some 12% thought the
number was between 30 and 49%!
“Pretty wild?” Lenni Brenner
comments, and continues:
“But why should gentile Americans
know better? Their guesses are based on what they see.
Turn on the TV, go to the movies, pick up a newspaper,
follow an election, and in every case Jewish involvement
is far above 2.5%. (...) Twelve percent of our Jews
think they are 2% of Americans, 13% think Jews are 3%,
and 11% say they don't know, which is also a 'proper'
answer. But 7 % of America's Jews think they are 1% of
Americans. Five percent of the Jews thought Jews are 4%.
Ten percent of the Jews said they are 5%. Eighteen
percent believed Jews are 6-10%. Six percent estimated
our Jews to be 11-15%, and 18% of America's Jews
projected themselves as over 15% of the population, a
whopping margin of error of over 600%.”[4]
However, being a Jew does not make
one a Zionist (although, unfortunately, almost all
organized Jews are Zionists). In fact, the majority of
the (non-organized) American Jews opposed the Iraqi War.
But the way too powerful Israel lobby did support it.
Its strong support for the war was definitely a major
factor that shouldn’t be overseen. Still today Zionist
Jews stands for a big share of the contributions to the
two big parties in America. As the Swedish daily
Aftonbladet pointed out,
“The Jews pump enormous amounts of
money into American politics, 30 times more then the
Arab Americans. They have power. They rule by the motto
'money talks'.”[5]
As a matter of fact, close to half
the American billionaires are Jews (This phenomenon is
however not limited to the United States. Six of the
seven Russian Oligarchs are Jews![6]).
In his foreword to late Professor Israel Shahak’s great
book Jewish history, Jewish religion, the
American dissident and author, Gore Vidal reveals a
story which has affected the Middle East in a crucial
way during the last sixty years:
“Sometime in the late 1950s, that
world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F.
Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been
pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run
for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two
million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his
whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition
of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack
nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my
grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story
about Truman and the serene corruption of American
politics. (...)
I shall not rehearse the wars and
alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the
hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and
intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely patron.
Unlikely, because no other minority
in American history has ever hijacked so much money from
the American taxpayers in order to invest in a
'homeland'. It is as if the American taxpayer had been
obliged to support the Pope in his reconquest of the
Papal States simply because one third of our people are
Roman Catholic. Had this been attempted, there would
have been a great uproar and Congress would have said
no. But a religious minority of less than two per cent
has bought or intimidated seventy senators (the
necessary two thirds to overcome an unlikely
presidential veto) while enjoying support of the media.”
Shahak himself translated an article
which appeared in hebrew in Kivunim, the journal of The
World Zionist Organization, in February 1982, and has
become known as the Kivunim-plan. The article, written
by a Oded Yinon, had the title A Strategy for Israel
in the Nineteen Eighties and its idea for the Middle
East was “based on the division of the whole area into
small states, and the dissolution of all
the existing Arab states,” as Shahak summarized it.
Although he considered it way too optimistic, or in fact
“pure fantasy,” Shahak added that
“The idea that all the Arab
states should be broken down, by Israel, into small
units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic
thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military
correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the
most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes
about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests
in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state,
a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz
6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very
old.”[7]
As happens, in the New York Times
in November 2003, an article appeared by former
president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a
former editor of the Times, Leslie H. Gelb, with the
headline The three-state solution. The idea
presented was that the U.S. should consider dividing
Iraq into three different states with “Kurds in the
north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.”
Gelb writes that “This
three-state solution has been unthinkable in Washington
for decades... But times have changed.”[8]
Thus, the plan conceived by Zionists is everything but
dead.
While almost the whole world
denounces Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinian
people, the Zionists demonstrate their control over
Washington. Not only do they finance a great deal of the
presidential campaigns, they also have mainstream media
in their control. “For the
media is the nerve system of a modern state,” writes
Shamir.
“Modern democracy in practice in a
very complicated society can be compared to a
sophisticated computer. Its machinery can function
successfully on one condition: there is a free flow of
information across the system. While every input is
instinctively checked and sieved on one criterion,
whether it is good for Jews, it is not odd that the
machine produces such freak output as “revenge on
Babylon for its destruction of Jerusalem in BC 586”.
Indeed, in long-gone 1948 the first ruler of Israel,
David Ben Gurion, promised: "We shall mete historic
vengeance to Assyria, Aram and Egypt". Now it comes to
pass, as Iraq, Syria and Egypt are targeted by Zog.”[9]
Three decades after the death of Ben
Gurion, the Guardian reports that
“troops from the
US-led force in Iraq have caused widespread damage and
severe contamination to the remains of the ancient city
of Babylon.”[10]
It took some time, but the prophecy has come true. But
the late Ben Gurion did not just have dreams of meting
revenge. He had dreams of creating a Greater Israel,
too. In a speech in Knesset, on the third day of the
Suez War, as then Prime Minister he recognized that the
real purpose of fighting the war was “the restoration of
the Kingdom of David and Salomon” to its biblical
borders.[11]
His successor Ariel Sharon has the same dream, and is
fully prepared to fulfil it when given the opportunity.
When the time is right, the mass slaughter and expulsion
of the remaining Palestinians in the region will take
place, no doubt.
Jeff Blankfort refers to Washington
as the "the Zionists' Most
Important Occupied Territory".
He is right. Zionist Jews are more powerful then ever
before. With the devoted support from Zionist
Christians, Israel’s interests are secured. The Zionist
grip over American foreign policy on the Middle East has
become impossible to deny. It is not in the interest of
America to always do what’s best for Israel. The U.S. is
not ruled by the Americans, but by an elite and lobbies
that finances (and threatens) politicians into
obedience. Fighting wars in countries most Americans
can’t find on maps are of course not in the interest of
the people. Despite greedy capitalists, there is one
major factor that has to be taken into consideration
when finding the motives for war. Far too many
underestimate the strong importance Zionism plays in
American foreign (and, to a lesser extent, domestic)
affairs.
The U.S. is a “lobbyocracy” – a state
ruled by powerful lobbies. Politicians are dependent of
financial support from them to even stand a chance in
electoral races. So is the case with the contemporary
regime in Washington. President Bush and colleague war
criminals in the White house have stocks in the war
industry and are financed by it. They personally gain
from the war. However, the American foreign policy on
the Middle East and the unreserved U.S. support to
Israel cannot be explained simply by this fact. Control
over the Iraqi oil supplies alone are not reason enough
for sending 150 000 American Soldiers to Iraq, at a so
high cost. It is important to acknowledge that there is
devoted Zionists in leading positions fully prepared to
do whatever necessary as long as it’s good for Israel.
I’m speaking of the neoconservatives, shortly refered to
as the neocons. Actually, Israel was the main issue for
the neocons to leave the Democratic Party, where they
once were to be found. Back in 1993,
Professor of Political Science,
Benyamin Ginsburg wrote:
“One major factor that drew them
inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel
and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a
Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed
to American military preparedness and increasingly
enamored of Third World causes. In the Reaganite right's
hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American
military strength, and willingness to intervene
politically and militarily in the affairs of other
nations to promote democratic values (and American
interests), neocons found a political movement that
would guarantee Israel's security.”[12]
The neocons’ commitment to Israel,
the great influence of the Jewish lobby and the
captivation of the Christian Communities by Zionism, is
indeed the explanation for the constant U.S. support to
Israel. It might seem foreign to some, but today it
would be wrong referring to Israel as the client state
of U.S. Nowadays it’s more correct to say it’s the other
way around if anything. This was well put by
Israeli born
musician Gilad Atzmon, when interwieved:
“I think that
originally Israel was there to support western
colonialism (Balfour Declaration, etc.). It didn't stop
there. American administrations realised in the late
'70s and '80s that the only real danger to western
globalization is Arab opposition and Islamic resistance.
Israel was there to maintain a continuous conflict in
the region. The Americans got involved in the peace
process, not in order to push for peace, but rather to
maintain the conflict forever. So, in a sense, at least
historically, you are right. Israel was there to serve
American interests, but things have changed. In the
last ten years we face a shift in the balance of power.
The new bond between Zionists, Republican,
and right-wing Christian groups introduced a completely
new phase in the American-Israeli relationship. I think
that American people would do themselves a great favour
if they start to scrutinise the acts of their
government. Americans should ask themselves whether it
is American interests that are looked after or rather
Israeli ones. The war in Iraq is a good place to start
such an intellectual exercise.”[13]
In the case of the war on Iraq, the
interests of greedy politicians selling themselves to
the highest bidder (or keeping their mouth shut if they
disagree), and the interests of the devoted Zionists as
the neocons are, goes hand in hand. Peace will not come
to the Middle East until the Americans have liberated
themselves from the Zionist’s grip over Washington and
some peoples´ conviction of always doing what’s best for
Israel over what’s best for America. Conservative Pat
Buchanan well summarized what the neocons´ ideology is
all about:
“What these
neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to
make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of
the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die
if necessary to impose it.”[14]
Truer words have never been written.
In the end the Americans, just like Kovic, will have to
ask themselves the one crucial question: What is it all
good for us?
Kristoffer Larsson
kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu
[1]
Iraq Monthly War Cost Rises To $5.8 Billion, Set
To Go Higher;
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002494.html
[2]
Shadow of Zog; http://www.israelshamir.net/english/shadowofzog.html
[3]
Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War; http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html
[5]
Freden dör på stadens gator;
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0010/15/israel.html
[6]
The Oligarchs, by Uri Avnery; http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032004.html
[7]
A Strategy for Israel
in the Nineteen Eightees, translated by Israel
Shahak with a foreword; http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html
[8]
The three-state
solution, by Leslie H. Gelb, New York Times,
November 25 2003; http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/supfacts/id365.html
[9]
Shadow of Zog; http://www.israelshamir.net/english/shadowofzog.html
[11]
Jewish History, Jewish
Religion, by Israel Shahak (p. 8 in the Swedish
edition)
[12]
Quoted in “The Shadow
of Zog”.
[14]
Whose war?; http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html