Spotlighting Netanyahu's Role in the US War on Iran

The following article (If the US goes to war with Iran, Netanyahu will be the prime suspect, Chemi Shalev, Haaretz, 16/5/19), is of considerable interest when we consider that Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister at the time of the 2003 Iraq War, felt obliged to keep as low a profile as possible with respect to Israel's crucial role as the key detonator of the war. Sharon relied instead on his US Ziocon assets and the Israel lobby to steer the Bush administration in the direction he wanted, that of regime change and the balkanisation of Iraq, and to utililise the US military, as opposed to the Israeli, to bring this about.

Since that time, it should be clear to all and sundry that the current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has ditched the pretense of Israel as an innocent bystander in matters of regional regime change and balkanisation, and come out, time and again, publicly swinging in favour of a war with Iran. As Shalev points out, if and when the US takes on Iran militarily, there'll be no hiding the key role of Netanyahu's Israel in initiating the move to Iraq Iran. (Note that I have somewhat truncated Shalev's essay in order to highlight his thesis):

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the only world leader to openly express support for the escalating US campaign against Iran, but his statement is an exception to the general Israeli rule... The attempt to distance itself from an American military operation in the Middle East, as if Israel were merely a fan sitting in the bleachers cheering its favorite team, inevitably sparks analogies to Yitzhak Shamir's policy of restraint in the 1991 Gulf War and Ariel Sharon's similar attitude during the 2003 war in Iraq... And while Israel did not come under direct attack in the 2003 Iraq War, it was nonetheless compelled to defend itself against claims, which proliferated as the war progressed, that it had pushed President George W. Bush to decide on the attack in the first place. In the lead up to that ill-fated war, Netanyahu was once again one of a handful of prominent Israelis who preferred to break the silence. In public testimony before the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives in 2002, Netanyahu assured American lawmakers that Saddam either had nuclear weapons or was on the verge of acquiring them... Deposing Saddam, Netanyahu promised, would do wonders for the Middle East as a whole...

"But even without his damning testimony from the past... if war breaks out between the US and Iran, he will be named as the prime suspect as far as its opponents are concerned. Netanyahu... persuaded Donald Trump to abandon Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu convinced Trump that a combination of crippling economic sanctions and a credible military threat will force Tehran to beg for a new and improved nuclear deal, which will include its malevolent regional activities... Netanyahu become a one-man cheerleading squad for Trump's latest moves.

"But while the campaign to blame Israel for the Iraq War was limited to a relatively small clique of its most vociferous critics - the most prominent of which were Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their book about the Israel lobby - conflagration with Iran would dramatically expand the circle of Israel-accusers... It's situation today is substantially worse. After burning his bridges with American liberals, including most Jews... many Democrats are far more likely to point fingers at Netanyahu the moment the first American soldier is killed... Netanyahu believes that the Iranian leadership, like much of the Arab, understands only force. He is convinced that the intense economic pressure coupled with the nightmarish specter of American bombers laying waste to their country will compel Tehran to come back to the negotiating table on all fours in order to carve out the fabled 'better agreement' that both Trump and Netanyahu claim, with no evidence, is eminently achievable... [But] Iran does not view itself as a weak and vulnerable state that has no choice but to capitulate to US ultimatums, but as an equal rival determined to foil Trump or, at worst, survive him...

"Small wonder that in the past 48 hours, White House officials have started to brief US reporters that Trump is less happy with the bellicose approach of his National Security adviser John Bolton, known as one of Israel's closest confidantes in Washington. The catalyst for Trump's reservations was the leaked story of a Pentagon paper prepared for Bolton that envisaged sending 120,000 US troops to fight against the Iranians. Trump boasted that if it came to open conflict, the size of the US force would be much larger, but distanced himself from what critics describe as the warmongering winds emanating from Bolton's office. Experienced Washington observers claim that, based on previous patterns, Trump will soon start criticizing Bolton in public and, after a short hiatus, boot him out of the White House as well... Netanyahu may have to face the possibility that his all-in bet on Trump has failed to produce the dividends he sought and that the anti-Iran strategy built on his beautiful friendship with the US president could be on the verge of collapse.

"The remaining options are both unpalatable for Netanyahu. The first is that Iran will resist recently fortified economics sanctions and continue to incrementally abandon its commitments under the 2015 nuclear accord, without risking any retaliation from the countries that still adhere to it. The second is a military fare-up between Iran and the US, which or may not cripple Tehran's nuclear infrastructure but is certain to inflict human suffering, financial upheaval, escalating internal strife in Washington and the certainty that Netanyahu will be held responsible for them all. Worse, Trump may eventually reach the same conclusion."

Homework is All

And today's use of the anti-Semitism smear is:

"Democratic politician Ilhan Omar has apologised after party leaders condemned her use of 'anti-Semitic tropes' in suggesting US congressional support for Israel is a result of campaign donations." (Democrat apologises for 'anti-Semitic tropes', AP/Sydney Morning Herald, 13/2/19)

To be specific, Omar's 'offence' came in the form of a tweet to the effect that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) "was paying US politicians to support Israel." (ibid)

Her apology read, in part: "Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes." (ibid)

Really, it's beyond sad to see progressive, pro-Palestinian, rookie politicians like Omar, who have merely spoken the truth, grovel in this way.

Instead of the 'education' she speaks of here, wouldn't it have been better for her (and others like her) as a young activist, before choosing to embark on a political career in the United States, to educate herself by reading Mearsheimer & Walt's definitive 2007 study The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy?

Had she done so, rather than grovel after the inevitable attack from the AIPAC mob and/or its dupes, she could simply have tweeted the following extract in response:

"AIPAC's success is due in large part to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda and to punish those who do not, based primarily on its capacity to influence campaign contributions. Money is critical to U.S. elections, which have become increasingly expensive to win, and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get financial support so long as they do not stray from AIPAC's line." (p 154)

In this game, it's really all about homework.

(FYI, read my 3/11/16 post Clinton Emails Reveal the Hold of Zionist Money Over Democrats.)

Ziofascist Legislation Creep in the US

On 23/7/17, in my post First They Came for the Palestinians, I drew attention to Glenn Greenwald's ominous essay, US lawmakers seek to criminally outlaw support for boycott campaign against Israel, in which he warned that "the criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West," and went on to analyse the circumstances around the introduction of a bipartisan, AIPAC-drafted, Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) into the US Senate, noting in particular its foreshadowing of maximum criminal penalties of $1 million and 20 years in prison for Americans supporting the international boycott of Israel.

So where are we now with this piece of Ziofascist legislation creep, almost one year on? Here's an update from theintercept.com's Alex Emmons, New house bill would empower Donald Trump to punish US companies that boycott Israel (29/6/18):

"The House Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously passed a measure on Thursday that would give the Trump administration power to decide how to punish US companies that engage in or promote boycotts of Israel - including through criminal penalties. The committee passed an amendment... from Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif, that largely replaced the text of... the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. When the original legislation was first introduced last year, it drew outrage from activists, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned that by threatening to impose steep criminal penalties on boycott activists engaged with international bodies' boycotts, the bill was unconstitutional.

"After the uproar, the initial bill... lost momentum. But Royce's effort to move his version out of the Foreign Affairs Committee is part of a push to reinvigorate Capitol Hill's efforts to use statutory means to clamp down on the growing movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction the Jewish state for human rights violations against the Palestinians. Pro-Palestinian activists said Royce's amendment, despite being an attempt to work around civil liberties concerns, could be the most dangerous version of the bill yet, because it delegates the lawmaking power to the Trump administration...

"Royce's amendment rewrites the bill to direct the administration to issue regulations that prohibit US companies from involvement with the BDS movement... The bill covers those companies that attempt to 'comply with, further, or support' UN or EU calls for a boycott of Israel... [It] requires them to be 'consistent with the enforcement practices' of the 1979 Export Administration Act - which allows for a range of civil and criminal penalties stopping out at a maximum of $1 million fine and 20 years in prison...

"According o the ACLU, 24 states have passed laws aimed at punishing the boycott movement, and more than 100 bills have been considered by state and local legislatures across the country."

Land of the free? You're kidding me!

Must Watch: The Occupation of the American Mind

Sut Jhally's film, The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States, is an absolute must watch. Jhally is professor of communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the director of other films on msm manipulation of the American mind. I received notice of his latest film with the following note attached. Having just viewed it, I fully concur - watch and share widely:

"Despite receiving an overwhelmingly positive response from those who have actually seen it, The Occupation of the American Mind has been repeatedly attacked and misrepresented by right-wing pressure groups and outright ignored by virtually all mainstream media outlets and North American film festivals. To bypass this campaign of misrepresentation and suppression, we've decided to make the film available for FREE online so that people can make up their own minds about its analysis of US media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please watch and share widely!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmoYoiMgpWU

Mugging Syria for Israel 2

Still don't get who's behind the 'get Syria' push? Still don't see who's had it in for Syria for decades. Clearly, you haven't done your homework. Specifically, by reading John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's seminal 2007 study, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy:

"It is worth recalling that some important figures in the lobby had their sights on Syria well before the Twin Towers fell. Damascus was a prominent target in the 1996 'Clean Break' study written by a handful of neoconservatives for incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu.* In addition, Daniel Pipes and Ziad Abdelnour, the head of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), had coauthored a report in May 2000 calling for the United States to use military threats to force Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon, get rid of its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism. The USCFL is a close cousin to the lobby, numerous neoconservatives are among its major activists and supporters, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser. In fact, all of them signed the 2000 report, as did pro-Israel Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), another core USCFL supporter.

"This proposal, and others like it, did not gain much traction in Washington during the Clinton years, mainly because Israel was committed to achieving peace with Syria during that period. Apart from these hard-liners, most groups in the lobby had little incentive to challenge Clinton's policy toward Syria, because the president's approach tended to mirror Israel's. But when Sharon came to power in 2001, Israel's thinking about Syria changed dramatically. Reacting to this shift, a number of groups in the lobby began to press for a more aggressive policy toward Damascus.

"In the spring of 2002, when Iraq was becoming the main issue, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was also promoting legislation to formally place Syria on the 'axis of evil' and Congressman Engel introduced the Syria Accountability Act in Congress. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism. The proposed act also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by a number of groups in the lobby - especially AIPAC - and 'framed,' according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 'by some of Israel's best friends in Congress.' JTA also reported that its 'most avid proponent in the administration' was Elliott Abrams, who, as we have seen, is in frequent contact with [Israeli PM Ehud] Olmert's office.

"The Bush administration opposed the Syria Accountability Act in the spring of 2002, in part because it feared that the legislation might undermine efforts to sell the Iraq war, and in part because it might lead to Damascus to stop providing Washington with useful intelligence about al Qaeda. Congress agreed to put the legislation on the back burner until matters were settled with Saddam.

"But as soon as Baghdad fell in April 2003, the lobby renewed its campaign against Syria. Encouraged by what then looked like a decisive victory in Iraq, some of Israel's backers were no longer interested in simply getting Syria to change its behavior. Instead, they now wanted to topple the regime itself. Paul Wolfowitz declared that 'there has got to be regime change in Syria,' and Richard Perle told a journalist that 'we could deliver a short message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: 'You're next.' The hawkish Defense Policy Board, which was headed by Perle and whose members included Kenneth Adelman, Eliot Cohen, and James Woolsey, was also advocating a hard line against Syria.

"In addition to Abrams, Perle, and Wolfowitz, the other key insider pushing for regime change in Syria was Assistant Secretary of State (and later UN Ambassador) John Bolton. He had told Israeli leaders a month before the Iraq war that President Bush would deal with Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea, right after Saddam fell from power. Toward that end, Bolton reportedly prepared to tell Congress in mid-July that Syria's WMD programs had reached the point where they were a serious threat to stability in the Middle East and had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The CIA and other government agencies objected, however, and claimed that Bolton was inflating the danger. Consequently, the administration did not allow Bolton to give his testimony on Syria at that time. Yet Bolton was not put off for long. He appeared before Congress in September 2003 and described Syria as a growing threat to US interests in the Middle East.

"In early April, WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] released a bipartisan report stating that Syria 'should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.' On April 15, the Israeli-American journalist Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times titled 'Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,' while that same day neoconservative Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in the Washington Times that the Bush administration should use 'whatever techniques are necessary - including military force - to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus.' The next day Zev Chafets, an Israeli-American journalist and former head of the Israeli government press office, wrote an article for the New York Daily News titled 'Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.' Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.

"The charges leveled against Syria were remarkably similar to those previously made against Saddam. Writing in National Review Online, conservative commentator Jed Babbin maintained that even though Assad's army was a paper tiger, he is still 'an exceedingly dangerous man.'  The basis for that claim was an 'Israeli source who had told Babbin that 'Israel's military and intelligence arms are convinced that Assad will take risks a prudent leader wouldn't' and therefore, 'Assad's unpredictability is itself a great danger.' Marc Ginsberg, former US ambassador to Morocco, warned of 'Syria's secret production of weapons of mass destruction and its weaponization of missile batteries and rockets.' And like their Israeli counterparts, American supporters of Israel suggested that Syria was hiding Saddam's WMD. 'It wouldn't surprise me,' Congressman Engel remarked, 'if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria.'

"Back on Capitol Hill, Engel reintroduced the Syria Accountability Act on April 12. Three days later, Richard Perle called for Congress to pass it. But the Bush administration still had little enthusiasm for the legislation and was able to stall it again. In mid-August, Engel and a group of politicians and Jewish leaders from New York traveled to Israel and met for ninety minutes with Ariel Sharon in his Jerusalem office. The Israeli leader complained to his visitors that the United States was not putting enough pressure on Syria, although he specifically thanked Engel for sponsoring the Syria Accountability Act and made it clear that he strongly favored continued efforts to push the legislation on Capitol Hill. The following month, Engel, who announced he was 'fed up with the... administration's maneuvering on Syria,' began pushing the bill again. With AIPAC's full support, Engel began rounding up votes on Capitol Hill. Bush could no longer hold Congress back in the face of this full-court press from the lobby, and the anti-Syrian act passed by overwhelming margins (398-4 in the House; 89-4 in the Senate). Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003." (pp 273-76)

[*See my posts Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze (22/12/08) & Netanyahu & the Cauldronization of Iraq & Syria (14/3/13).]

Working for the (White) Man

You've really gotta feel sorry for Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley in a way. I mean, with parents like hers:

"When [Nikki] Haley was 5 years old, her parents entered her in the 'Miss Bamberg' contest. The contest traditionally crowned a black queen and a white queen. Since the judges decided Haley did not fit in either category, they disqualified her." (Wikipedia)

And, really, what kind of parental advice is this?:

"Every position I've ever had, people have assumed that I am looking towards something bigger, when in reality I am the daughter of Indian parents who said to me, 'Whatever you do, be great at it and make sure people remember you for it. That's all I'm trying to do,' she said." ('New sheriff in town' seizes the foreign affairs agenda, Cameron Stewart, The Australian, 5/4/17)

Seems like Nikki's being trying to earn the approbation of the White Man ever since:

"The days of Israel-bashing are over,' she told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] in Washington last week to a standing ovation. 'For anyone who says you can't get anything done at the UN, they need to know there is a new sheriff in town'' She said the Trump administration was 'putting everyone on notice,' at the UN. 'I wear heels. It's not for a fashion statement,'' Haley said. 'It's because if I see something wrong we're gonna kick 'em every time'." (ibid)

Pathetic, if it weren't so serious.

Tom Hayden, A Cautionary Tale

Tom Hayden (1939-2016) died on October 23. He was one of the leaders of the new Left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organisation in the United States in the 1960s. Despite the strength of pro-civil rights and anti-Vietnam War activism of the 60s and 70s, this did not translate into an understanding of, let alone an engagement with, the oppressed Palestinians, except to some extent by Black Panther radicals.

While SDS activists such as Hayden identified with (and even met with) the Viet Cong, there is only one reference in Kirkpatrick Sale's massive 700+ page book on SDS to the Middle East. This refers to a certain Sue Eanet visiting "leaders of Al Fatah in the spring of [1969]," and writing "an adulatory three-part account of the 'Palestinian liberation struggle' in [SDS's paper] New Left Notes." Sale records in a footnote that "This last position received a great deal of flak from Jewish SDSers, several of whom wrote to the paper with strangulating outrage. But as near as one can figure out, 'Jewish consciousness' was not high among SDSers or student activists generally, who were more likely simply to ignore their Jewish heritage or, if committed revolutionaries, discard it as 'bourgeois' baggage." (SDS, 1974, p 517)

Hayden, of course, would move on from 60s/70s Left radicalism to marry the actress Jane Fonda and carve out a career as a liberal Democrat politician in California. What interests us here, however, is that, in 1982, the pair turned up in Israel, in the immediate wake of Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The mainstream US press reported their appearance at the time as follows:

"Jane Fonda and her husband, Tom Hayden, arrived today for a weeklong visit here and said that the Palestine Liberation Organization's terrorist acts and refusal to recognize Israel had made the invasion of Lebanon inevitable. The visit was arranged by the Israeli Association for the Welfare of Soldiers, which has invited several American entertainers to Israel to improve morale." (Jane Fonda criticizes PLO, UPI, 3/7/82)

"Today Jane Fonda and her husband, Tom Hayden, briefly visited the Israeli position at St. Anthony's School and watched the shelling [of West Beirut]. The movie star and her husband have been visiting Israeli soldiers and Lebanese wounded in in the invasion. Israeli soldiers crowded around Miss Fonda to be photographed with her, but she looked distant and uncomfortable. Mr Swersky, the Israeli command spokesman, gave Miss Fonda and her husband a private briefing on the military situation. Mr Hayden, who was a leader of the opposition to the Vietnam War, has said that the Israeli invasion is justified because the PLO refused to recognize Israel." (Israelis keep reminding Beirut that siege is on, James M Markham, New York Times, 5/7/82)

So what possessed this doyen of 60s Leftist radicalism to become a running dog of the Israelis, to revive the old phrase, or, to put it in more Zionist terms, one of Israel's useful fools? Needless to say, it's a very American story, only prised out of him by another, much later Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, this time in 2006, in the form of a mea culpa with the title, I was Israel?s dupe (counterpunch.org, 20/7/06). Here is a slimmed-down version:

"Twenty-five years ago (in 1981) I stared into the eyes of Michael Berman, chief operative for his congressman-brother, Howard Berman. I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them. 'I represent the Israeli defense forces,' Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn't. Michael seemed to imagine himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented one-third of the Democratic district's primary voters, Berman held a balance of power...

"I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting officials from all parties... befriending peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with Palestinians and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As a result, a Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an attempt to discredit my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in the California state capital. This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff... But they calculated that Schiff couldn't win without name recognition, so they were considering 'renting' me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But there was one condition: that I always be a 'good friend of Israel.'

"That wasn't a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements... While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination, I didn't share the animus of some on the American left who questioned Israel's very legitimacy...

"I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about the existence and power of an 'Israel lobby.' It is not as monolithic as some argue, but it is far more than just another interest group in a pluralist political world... During my ultimate 18 years in office, I received most of my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and less observant voters. But I also received support from conservative Jews who saw themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and democratic) establishment. However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified 'kosher', not once but over and over again.

"The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations... An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels-general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a 'friend of Israel.'...

"I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed neutral... But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and [Israeli counsel-general in Los Angeles] Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to be supportive... Ever curious, and aware of my district's politics, I decided we should go to the Middle East. But only as long as the Israeli 'incursion,' as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the 'incursion' was limited... I also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what Israel's Peace Now would say.

"There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitik that still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israel-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon - with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon's secret plan all along."

You can access the full text at Counterpunch. Suffice it to say that copies of it should be compulsory reading for all Young Labor activists aspiring to climb the greasy pole, because sure enough, sooner or later, in one form or another, they will find themselves being approached by a Michael Berman figure, proposing that they become 'a friend of Israel,' and advising them that an all-expenses-paid 'study tour' of Israel would be the-mother-of-all career-enhancing moves.

Learn from Tom Hayden...

Sanders Does AIPAC

The circus clowning of a Clinton or a Trump is not the nadir of a US presidential campaign. Kissing Israel's ring at the court of King AIPAC is.

This was Obama in 2008:

"I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland in the face of impossible odds... Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel, threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."

This is Bernie Sanders now:

"I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are here. The issues that AIPAC are dealing with are very important issues and I wanted to give the same speech here as I would have given if I were at that conference. Let me begin by saying that I am probably the only candidate for president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about Israel. Clearly the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment to democratic principles, civil rights, and the rule of law." (Sanders outlines Middle East policy, berniesanders.com, 21/3/16)

No need, as you can see, to bother with the rest of his speech. Same old, same old.

As Mearsheimer & Walt noted almost ten years ago:

"America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007)

Shefali Meets the Beautiful Woman from AIPAC

All that frenetic folderol on Shefali's CV was nothing! Nothing, that is, but a prelude to the moment when Shefali met a beautiful woman from AIPAC who popped THE QUESTION of QUESTIONS. That is, the single most important question any political aspirant in the West could ever be asked, and the magic words which signal that the way now lies open to political stardom. (Warning: Shefali's not into paragraphs):

"The trip to Israel was an utter dream come true. It all started when I first was appointed by President Barack Obama to join the board of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC (sworn in December 2014 in Washington DC). As I attended a few of the board meetings, I realized that I wanted to really understand and become engaged within the Jewish American community, as I thought it was important for me to comprehend as many perspectives within the culture as possible. I had some good friends who were involved with AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - the largest Jewish American organization in the US) and thus I thought that this would be a good organization for me to introduce myself. AIPAC is known to be bipartisan. Whilst I am a democrat, I am also very bipartisan in my thinking, thus, I felt in alignment with how AIPAC did their outreach and operated overall. A few friends did introductions to folks to AIPAC folks in San Francisco, a few others did introductions to AIPAC in Washington DC. I met with the San Francisco folks and knew this was a great organization. I was making a trip to Washington DC for some other meetings, and reached out to see if the Washington DC AIPAC folks would be open to meeting with me. To my surprise... they were! I had a lunch meeting with a wonderful woman named Marilyn, and I was under the impression that it was an introductory meeting between she and I. I have always believed DEEPLY that I should be 100% myself, right from the get go. I am a fairly outgoing, friendly, transparent person and personality... an open book. I don't have separate personal and professional personalities... I am, literally, for better or worse... completely the same person in all situations. I feel that if I need to not be myself at any moment, at any time, that I am not honoring my soul and thus... whatever I am attempting to do, it is then NOT ultimately worth it. Thus, as this beautiful woman from AIPAC sits down to share lunch with me, I was myself right from the moment she walked in the door. After a wonderful 1.5 hour long luncheon, she smiles and asks me what I am doing the first week of June. I, literally, had no idea why she was asking me this question. I said, 'Huh, I really don't know. I don't think anything, although I'd have to look at my calendar on my phone..' She smiled and said, 'Would you like to go to Israel with AIPAC'?' 'WHAT???? WHAT????!!!??? I said (may have yelled) 'YES! YES! YES! This is a dream come true for me! I have always wanted to go to Israel!' I then jumped out of my seat (I really did) and leaped over and gave her a tight hug! I think that she was both pleased at my happiness and a little stunned at my overt expression of joy! I literally was so full of happiness and gratitude from that moment until... frankly, ALWAYS!"

Next post: Shefali Meets the Not-So-Beautiful Women from the PLO

'A Stinging Defeat' for AIPAC

Netanyahu's US 5th column, AIPAC, bites the dust:

"Officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee knew the odds were against them in the fight to block President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran from surviving a congressional vote. But the influential pro-Israel group threw itself into a nearly $30 million advertising and lobbying effort to kill the accord anyway. On Thursday, the committee, known as Aipac, was handed a stinging defeat. After Mr Obama mustered enough Democratic backing in the Senate to halt a vote on a resolution of disapproval against the deal, a group known for its political clout saw its power and reputation in Washington diminished. 'They failed - they couldn't even get a vote,' said Clifford Kupchan, an Iran expert and the chairman of the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm, who noted that Aipac had gone 'all in' and tried everything to stop the deal. 'It's among the biggest setbacks for Aipac in recent memory.'...

But watch this space:

"Aipac now faces a debate within its ranks about how to respond to the defeat, whether by exacting a political price from lawmakers - all of them Democrats - who defied its wishes and supported the Iran deal, or moving swiftly to mend fences with lawmakers and White House officials angered by the group's efforts to kill the deal... 'I think you may see donors withholding or not wanting to write a check to people because they feel betrayed... said Josh Block, the president of the Israel Project, a pro-Israel public relations group." (Influential pro-Israel group suffers stinging political defeat, Julie Hirschfeld, nytimes.com. 10/9/15)

For the background see my posts: Israeli Desires vs American Interests (17/8/15); Made in Israel: America's Next War 1& 2 (18-19/8/15); Zionzilla vs Uncle Sam: An Update (4/9/15)

Lobbywhipped

Next year will be the 10th anniversary of the publication of one of the most important works ever written on American foreign policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy.

At the time, these two fearless, truth-telling American political scientists were accused of "gross exaggeration of the power of the 'lobby'," and of reviving "elements of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories... [namely] that Jews have excessive, overarching power..." (An anti-Jewish screed in scholarly guise, adl.org, 24/3/06)

In the meantime, the hold of the Israel lobby over Congress has only grown, with gobsmacking results like this: 

"The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), the educational wing of hardline right-wing pro-Israel lobbying organization the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is taking all but 3 freshmen US lawmakers on a tour of Israel, in hopes of turning them against the Iran nuclear deal... Congress has 60 days to review the Iran deal. AIEF/AIPAC is hoping to persuade US congresspeople to undermine and vote against the deal, although Obama has vowed to veto any attempt by the legislature to do so. Congress would need a two-thirds majority in order to override the president's veto." (AIPAC taking all but 3 freshmen Congresspeople to Israel in effort to sabotage Iran deal, Ben Norton, mondoweiss.net, 3/8/15)

So 57 out of 60 of recently elected US legislators simply haven't got what it takes to say no when the Israel lobby snaps its fingers.

God help America.

Her Master's Voice

Former Labor PM Paul Keating was moved to say of his late mother Minnie Keating that "At the core  of [her forthrightness] was a manic commitment to honesty and truth and her utter contempt for humbug and sleight of hand. Her guiding light was that which was true and right and she instilled those values into each of us as children and as adults." (Keating farewells his mother and guiding light, Andrew Hornery, Sydney Morning Herald, 9/7/15)

I very much doubt that this could be said of the author of the following letter (2/7/15), Hillary Clinton. The letter is essentially a shameless pitch for funds from the Israeli-American billionaire and mega-donor to the Democratic Party, Haim Saban, who said in 2004 that "I'm a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel."

"Dear Haim:

"I am writing to express my alarm over the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction [sic] movement, or 'BDS', a global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges."

No, you're not. You're merely parroting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, specifically his 2014 AIPAC speech, where he refers to "the so-called BDS," and tells his American agents that it's "morally wrong" and "simply the latest chapter in the long and dark history of anti-Semitism."

"I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority. I am seeking your advice on how we can work together - across party lines and with a diverse array of voices - to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel."

Which is just another way of repeating these Netanyahu tropes:

"Today the singling out of the Jewish people has turned into the singling out of the Jewish state."

"But the BDS movement is not about legitimate criticism. It's about making Israel illegitimate."

"As you know, BDS seeks to punish Israel and dictate how the Israelis and Palestinians should resolve the core issues of their conflict. This is not the path to peace. I remain convinced that Israel's long-term security and future as a Jewish state depends on having two states for two peoples. But that outcome can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians - it cannot be imposed from the outside or by unilateral actions."

Ditto:

"BDS sets back peace because it hardens Palestinian positions and it makes mutual compromise less likely."

"I am also very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world - especially in Europe - we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. After all, it was only six months ago that four Jews were targeted and killed in a Kosher supermarket in Paris as they did their Sabbath shopping."

Ah yes, the anti-Semitism card. Netanyahu again:

"We have a boisterous democracy where everyone has an opinion... Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot."

"BDS is the latest attempt to single out Israel on the world stage, but we've seen this sort of attack before, at the UN and elsewhere. As Senator and Secretary of State, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, the Human Rights Council, and other international organizations. I condemned the biased Goldstone Report, making it clear that Israel must be allowed to defend itself like any other country. And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood. Time after time, no matter the venue, I have made it clear that America will always stand up for Israel - and that's what I'll always do as President."

Hillary or no Hillary, Democrat or Republican, covering Israel's nakedness in the UN Security Council with its veto, or voting NO in the General Assembly or other UN body, is simply what we've come to expect from USrael.

Most recently, at the 29th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council, the US was the only country to vote NO against a resolution 'ensuring accountability and justice for all violations of international law in' the Occupied Palestinian territories, a vote which followed the release of the UN Human Rights report on the 2014 massacres in Gaza.

"Now I am seeking your thoughts and recommendations on how leaders and communities across America can work together to counter BDS. From Congress and state legislatures to boardrooms and classrooms, we need to engage all people of good faith, regardless of their political persuasion or their views on policy specifics, in explaining why the BDS campaign is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace and harmful to Israelis and Palestinians alike."

And classrooms???!!! 

"I hope you will work with me on this priority. It was more than three decades ago when Bill and I took our first trip to Israel...

Do you remember our first rambamming, Bill?

Did the earth move for you too, Bill?

"... walked the ancient streets of Jerusalem's Old City, and fell in love with the country and its people. Israel became a special place for us, and I'm lucky to have had many opportunities to return and to make many dear friends there over the years. The Jewish state is a modern day miracle - a vibrant bloom in the middle of a desert. We must nurture and protect it."

Israel's a plant alright, a poisonous settler-colonial implant which continues to blight every inch of occupied Palestine:

"'When I arrived on my farm on Wednesday morning. I was surprised when I saw an Israeli farming plane crossing the border towards farms inside Gaza,' farmer Ahmed Badawi said. 'The plane started to spray unidentified chemicals. My farm is 400 metres from the border and I planted several kinds of vegetables. Two days [later] negative effects started to appear on the plants.' Mahmoud Dalloul, another farmer in a different area near the border, said that this was not the first time..." (Israel sprays Gaza farms with poisonous gases, again, middleeastmonitor.com, 20/4/15)

"I will be speaking out publicly on this issue in the weeks ahead, so I am eager to hear your perspective and advice. 

"With warm regards, I am 

"Sincerely yours, 

"Hilary Rodham Clinton."

And Hillary has written in her own hand:

"Look forward to working with you on this."

AIPAC: Syria Today, Iran Tomorrow

"'This [striking Syria] is something that the United States as a country needs to do,' [House of Representatives Speaker] John Boehner said." (Backing grows for Syria attack, John Lyons, The Australian, 5/9/13)

And why is that, John? Simple! The Israel lobby wants it.

Here's the dirt from former AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] staffer, M.J. Rosenberg:

"The media today is full of stories about AIPAC and its decision to push for a 'yes' vote on Syria to ensure that President Obama initiates the war it really wants, with Iran...

"There is simply no way AIPAC and its camp followers would do this for Syria. Israel has no problem with the Assad regime. Like their dearly departed fellow former strongman Hosni Mubarak, both Hafez and Bashir Assad scrupulously kept the peace with Israel since 1973. As for chemical weapons, Israel not only has used them in Gaza but is one of 7 countries in the world (Syria is another one) that has not ratified the treaty banning their use...

"The reason Israel (and its lobby) are going all out to push the United States to attack Syria is as a precedent for a much larger attack on Iran. As AIPAc admits in its own statement of support for the Syria attack: 'This is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah... America's allies and adversaries are closely watching the outcome of this momentous vote. This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability. Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country's credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country's security and interests and those of our regional allies.'

"To put it simply, AIPAC fears that if it lets President Obama go wobbly on Syria, it is impossible to imagine that he would undertake a war with Iran that could ignite the entire Middle East and lead to the commitment of US troops in a third major Middle Eastern war in a little over a decade.

"And that is why AIPAC and its satellites are turning the screws on Congress, especially on progressive and liberal Democrats who tend to be antiwar except when AIPAC comes knocking. (Republicans are more immune to AIPAC because they do not rely on AIPAC-directed campaign dollars given that they have so many other sources. Besides, they tend to be hawks on their own, without pressure. So what does AIPAC pressure feel like? How does it work?

"I called a friend who is a foreign policy aide to a House member and, after I promised not to identify him in any form, he told me this:

"'First come the phone calls from constituents who are AIPAC members. They know the Congressman and are nice and friendly and just tell him... just how important this vote is to him and his friends back in the district.

"'Then the donors call. The folks who have hosted fundraisers. They are usually not only from the district but from New York or LA or Chicago. They repeat the message: this vote is very important. Contrary to what you might expect, they do not mention campaign money. They don't have to. Because these callers are people who only know the Congressman through their checks, the threat not to write any more of them is implicit. Like the constituents, the donors are using AIPAC talking points which are simple and forceful. You can argue with them but they keep going back to the script.

"'Did I mention the rabbis? We only have a few in our district but we get calls from all of them and from other rabbis from around the state.

"'Then there are the AIPAC lobbyists, the professional staffers. They come in, with or without appointments. If the Congressman is in, they expect to see him immediately. If not, they will see a staffer. If they don't like what they hear, they will keep coming back. They are very aggressive, no other lobby comes close. They expect to see the Member, not mere staff.

"'Then there are the emails driven by the AIPAC website, the editorials in the one Jewish newspaper we have in our state.

"'And then the 'Dear Colleague' letters from Jewish House members saying how important the vote is for Israel and America. They also will buttonhole the Members on the House floor. Because my boss is not Jewish, he tends to defer to his Jewish colleagues. It is like they are the experts on this. And, truth be told, all the senior Jewish Members of the House are tight with AIPAC. Also, the two biggest AIPAC enforcers, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his Democratic counterpart, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, are fierce AIPAC partisans, and they make sure to seek out Members on the floor to tell them how they must vote. On anything related to Israel, they speak in one voice: AIPAC's.

"'My friend concluded: Obviously, there is no counterpart to this on the antiwar side. No anti-AIPAC to speak of. AIPAC owns this issue. It gets what it wants. It will get this and, sad to say, my boss, who hates the idea of using more war as a means to end war, will probably vote 'yes'. He says he will never support an attack on Iran but, when the time comes, this Syria push will look like nothing. Syria is just a tactic for AIPAC. But its number one goal, at least from the vantage point of Capitol Hill, is war with Iran.

"'Yeah, it's scary.

So where do we fit in, as of now?

"In a minor diplomatic advance for Obama, 11 of the G20 nations signed a joint statement at the end of the two-day summit calling for 'a strong international response to a grave violation of the world's rules' in response to last month's chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, east of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The signatories, including the UK, the US and France, said evidence 'points clearly to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack...' and warned it would not be possible to achieve a UN consensus on action... Other signatories included Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Turkey..." (Obama assembles fragile alliance blaming Assad for chemical attacks, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 7/9/13)

Australia just can't help itself.

Doing the Donkey

Of all the dance crazes to have emerged in the United States since 1945, from rock and roll on, the craziest, the most enduring, and the most consequential has got to be 'the donkey'.

Evolving from a fairly basic routine in the 50s, its steps have grown more and more outrageous with the years. Which perhaps explains why it has only recently, in the wake of NBC's brilliant parody of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's grilling by Republican senators (see my 14/2/13 post USrael: The Movie), acquired its current, catchy name.

Prior to that it was known only by the rather uninspired, somewhat clunky, term, sucking up to the Israel lobby.

As I've already noted, the donkey's steps have grown ever more outrageous as the 20th has given way to the 21st century. The fact is, these days, they're downright obscene, hence the final, definitive re-naming.

The United States Congress, where the very latest gyrations of the dance, choreographed by AIPAC, are performed by America's top dancers, has never seemed more aptly named:

"Douglas Bloomfield at The Jewish News informs us that 13,000 lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) will descend upon Capitol Hill this weekend for their annual conference to order members of Congress not to cut $3 billion-plus in aid to Israel, even as automatic budget cuts are set to take place in a matter of days: 'At a time when sequestration is about to take a big bite out of the Pentagon budget, AIPAC will be sending thousands of its citizen lobbyists to Capitol Hill next week to make sure Israel is exempted from any spending cuts. This could prove a very risky strategy at a time when millions of Americans will be feeling the bite of the sequestration debacle, from the defense budget to the school lunch program. But not aid to Israel, which will be untouched if Israel gets its way.' People are coming up with all kinds of things that will need to be cut if (when) this sequester takes place. At Wired's Danger Room, for example, it was reported that cuts to the military budget 'will mean delays for veteran funerals at Arlington National Cemetery.' So grieving American families may have to wait longer to bury their loved ones who died fighting in Afghanistan, but Israel won't suffer one bit. Nothing could be more important than contributing money to the apartheid state." (AIPAC lobbyists to Congress: despite sequester, don't touch Israel aid, John Glaser, antiwar.com, 28/2/13)

"A bipartisan group of US senators is pushing a resolution declaring that if Israel attacks Iran 'in self-defense', the United States will join in the military assault on Israel's behalf. The chief sponsors of the resolution are Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham said the resolution will be non-binding and is neither a declaration of war nor an authorization to use military force. Non-binding resolutions are supposed to express the sentiment of Congress, as opposed to actually legislate policy. This one seems tied to placating AIPAC, which holds its annual conference in DC this weekend. Leaving aside the fact that under no reasonable definition of 'self-defense' could Israel conceivably justify an attack on Iran, the resolution is both an illustration of Congress's fealty to Israel, as well as their aggressiveness towards Iran." (Senators push resolution committing US to aid Israel in attack on Iran, John Glaser, antiwar.com, 28/2/13)

'One Dumb Thing'

"Chuck Hagel, President Obama's nominee to be secretary of defense, faced sharp and sometimes angry questioning from fellow Republicans... at a contentious confirmation hearing on Thursday that focused on his past statements on Iran, the influence of pro-Israel organizations in Washington and the Iraq war... One of the most hostile questioners was Senator [Lindsey] Graham of South Carolina, who told Mr Hagel to 'name one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.' Mr Hagel, who in 2006 said that the 'Jewish lobby' intimidates Congress, could not." (Hagel has rough outing before ex-colleagues, Elizabeth Bumiller, The New York Times, 31/1/13)

Just "one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli lobby," eh?

No problem. How about this:

"On Friday night, the Senate passed by a 90-1 vote an AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] drafted a resolution telling the president that containment of a nuclear Iran is not an option. If Iran passes Binyamin Netanyahu's 'red line', the United States must go to war. As a US President, Barack Obama opposes automatic wars. He wants to keep all his options open. But the Senate gets its orders from AIPAC and AIPAC gets its orders from Netanyahu..." (AIPAC salutes itself for senate passage of its Iran War Bill 90-1, mjayrosenberg.com, 24/9/12)

Senator Graham, I should add, was instrumental in passing this Israel lobby-authored 'lets-go-to-war-again-for-Israel' bill. As AIPAC's press release of 23/9/12 put it:

"AIPAC praises the efforts of Sens. Graham (R-SC), Lieberman (I-CT) and Casey (D-PA), as well as the additional cosponsors, to get this resolution passed." (ibid)

So why does Senator Graham do such dumb things? Does it just come naturally? Well no, not exactly. Fact is, guys like Senator Graham need a little coaching, at least initially. Perhaps Harry Lonsdale's experience can shed some light on the matter:

"Harry Lonsdale, the Democratic candidate who ran unsuccessfully against Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) in 1990, has described his own visit to AIPAC headquarters during that campaign. 'The word that I was pro-Israel got around,' he writes. 'I found myself invited to AIPAC in Washington, DC, fairly early in the campaign, for 'discussions'. It was an experience I will never forget. It wasn't enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be, and exactly what words I was to use to express those opinions in public... Shortly after that encounter at AIPAC, I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel... that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave, from Florida to Alaska.'" (quoted in The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, 2007 p 155)

Wiping Palestinian Refugee Rights Off the Map

Having created the Palestinian refugee problem, Israel and its agents and dupes in the West have finally embarked on a campaign to redefine it out of existence.

In Australia, the campaign first emerged in the press with a report in The Australian Jewish News of June 1, Carr, Danby at odds over Palestinian aid:

"Foreign Minister Bob Carr's announcement that Australia will boost aid to a controversial United Nations organisation for Palestinian refugees..."

(Controversial is a code word for anything, or anyone, that Zionists don't like.)

"... has raised the ire of Labor Party colleague and chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade, Michael Danby."

Is there any initiative in support of the Palestinians that wouldn't raise Michael Danby's ire, I wonder?

Danby, of course, is Israel's principal enforcer of the Zionist line in the federal Australian Labor Party. A 2009 profile in The AJN suggests that, in his zeal, he's part cattle-dog, part yapping terrier: "Jewish voters concluded they... need[ed] a Jewish MP... to keep in line a Labor opposition... and after November 2007 to act as a watchdog within the new Rudd Government... He corrals his parliamentary colleagues and forces them to think long, hard and seriously about matters that often conjure knee-jerk reactions." (A decade of Danby, 27/2/09: See my 1/3/09 post Nipping at their Heels.)

"'I don't support it. Aid could certainly be more appropriately targeted', the Melbourne Ports MP told The AJN after Carr's office announced the $90 million worth of funding for the United Nations Relief & Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA)."

The chutzpah is obvious.

Let me spell it out for you: Israel expels the Palestinians from their homeland in 1948, confiscates their homes, lands and other assets, and refuses to allow them to return despite a UN resolution calling on it to do so... but should an Australian Labor foreign minister see fit to lift a finger on their behalf, even if at one remove, through a UN agency, he risks being bailed up in the corridors of federal parliament by a certain pampered ($185,000 base salary) parliamentary pooch and subjected to a furious yapping.

"Danby slammed UNRWA for its ballooning definition of Palestinian refugees, which includes not only those who lived in Palestine in 1946-48 and lost homes and livelihoods in the 1948 war..."

The klutzes! Always losing things!

And that ballooning definition - I like that! Wouldn't be anything like Zionism's ballooning definition of anti-Semitism, would it? Here's the latest in that department: "All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible." (Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic!, Benjamin Kerstein, The Jerusalem Post, 20/5/12)

"... but their descendants..."

How dare these refugees have kids! The nerve! Actually, they only have the little buggers for one reason:

"... noting Palestinian supporters use these figures to pressure Israel."

Unsurprisingly, the real centre of the Zionist campaign to disappear the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees, however, is in the United States:

"Palestinians in the occupied territories, the diaspora and in refugee camps protested earlier this month on the 64th anniversary of the Nakba, commemorating the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians by nascent Israeli forces in the late 1940s. Palestinians were sending a message to the world that the right to return to their homes would not be forgotten, and that millions of refugees are awaiting a solution. One senator from Illinois, though, wants to write off those millions and change who is classified as a Palestinian refugee. Mark Kirk, a hawkish Repblican whose political career has been boosted by right-wing Israel advocates, is leading a drive to fundamentally redefine who a Palestinian refugee is in the eyes of the United States. Critics see the move as just one step in a larger strategy to take the issue of refugee rights for Palestinians off the negotiating table, and to cut funding from UNRWA, the UN agency that assists Palestinians... On Thursday May 24, a senate committee passed an amendment by unanimous voice vote that would require the State Department to differentiate between Palestinian refugees who were displaced first-hand and those born after to families who were refugees. The senator behind the amendment was Kirk, who is close to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and has received over a million dollars from Israel-oriented political action committees during his political career." (How the Israel Lobby's favorite senator is trying to erase Palestinian refugees, Alex Cane, alternet.org, 2/6/12)

And if you thought Danby was rich, here's Kirk's statement following the passing of his amendment: "With US taxpayers providing more than $4 billion to UNRWA since 1950, the watershed reporting requirement will help taxpayers better understand whether UNRWA truly remains a refugee assistance organization or has become a welfare agency for low-income residents of the Levant." (ibid)

This, from a Zionist stooge, advocating for a foreign power - an apartheid state, in fact - that has bilked the US taxpayer of $103.6 billion in military aid from 1949 to 2008, with a further $30 billion promised between 2007 and 2018.*

[*See US military aid to Israel, aidtoisrael.org]    

The Illusion of an Imaginary Common Interest

In light of the most recent Obama-Netanyahu AIPAC love-in, and the increasingly bizarre and dysfunctional US-Israel relationship, few words have as much resonance today as these from George Washington's Farewell Address:

"The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave... Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."

Read on and you'll see what I mean:

Obama to Netanyahu:

"As I've said repeatedly, the bond between our two countries is unbreakable. My personal commitment - a commitment that is consistent with the history of other occupants of the Oval Office - our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid. And as I've said to the Prime Minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security. This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people-to-people contacts that we have between our two countries." (Remarks by President Obama & Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, Oval Office, whitehouse.gov, 5/3/12)

Netanyahu to Obama:

"Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that too. For them, you're the Great Satan, we're the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you're us. And you know something, Mr President - at least on this last point, I think they're right. We are you, and you are us. We're together. So if there's one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it's that Israel and America stand together." (ibid)

Another Compelling Reason to Go to War

As if invoking the Holocaust in his AIPAC speech to sell an attack on Iran were not sufficiently outrageous, the seriously unembarrassed Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, also saw fit to invoke the biblical story of Esther:

"This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some, 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman - Esther. In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself. Thank you for your friendship. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state."

Remember the refrain over Iraq? We were lied into a war. Well, this time around, not only are we being fed Israeli lies about Iran, but we're expected to swallow delusional Zionist fantasies and biblical mythology as well. That's chutzpah for you.

Author Robert Wright's reflections in The Atlantic on Netanyahu's abuse of the story of Esther are well taken:

"Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave president Obama a copy of the book of Esther, which will be read in synagogues this week in observance of Purim. Esther tells the story of a Persian government that tries and fails to wipe out all the Jews in the Persian Empire. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu saw this as an occasion to generalize about Persians (or, as we call them today, Iranians). He told Obama, 'Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out'." (Bibi Netanyahu's Bible story, 6/3/12)

And Obama a) rolled his eyes? b) muttered to himself? c) sighed deeply? d) thought Jeeesus! e) bit his tongue and grinned idiotically f) all of the above?

"Here's a thought experiment: Supppose that an Arab or Iranian leader of Muslim faith met with President Obama and told him about some part of the Koran that alludes to conflict between Muhammad and Jewish tribes. For example, according to Muslim tradition, the Jewish tribe known as the Qurayzah, though living in Muhammad's town of Medina, secretly sided with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca. Suppose this Muslim said to Obama, 'Then, too, the Jews were bent on destroying Muslims'. What would our reaction be? I think reactions would vary. Some people would say, 'See, the Koran teaches Muslims to hate Jews!' Some would say, 'Wow, this Muslim is looking really hard for reasons to keep hating Jews, isn't he?' That second point, at least, would have some merit. After all, the Muslim could just as easily have pointed to parts of the Koran that say nice things about Jews - such as the part that says that God, in his 'prescience', chose 'the children of Israel... above all peoples'. Or the part that says that God 'sent down the Torah' as 'guidance to the people' and now had sent down the Koran 'confirming what was before it'." (ibid)

Doing the Time Warp Again

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Monday, March 5.

Although beginning with a funny ("I'd like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently... Iran"), towards the end of his speech a strange thing happened.

The lights suddenly dimmed, flickered and went out for the briefest of moments, and before the assembled AIPACers (who included more than two-thirds of the US Congress!) knew what was happening they had been transported, by some mysterious magic, from Washington DC, 2012 to Auschwitz, 1944!

But stranger still, Netanyahu didn't so much as bat an eyelid! It was as though time travel of this kind was somehow normal for him. No, he just carried on as though nothing had happened:

"As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation. Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran. I've heard these arguments before. In fact, I've read them before. In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came 5 days later. I want to read it to you: 'Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere... and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources...' And here's the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote: 'Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans'. Think about that - 'even more vindictive action' - than the Holocaust."

Seriously now, the man's mad. Bonkers. Loopy as. And yet did this realisation occur to any US congresscreature or government official within earshot?

Back in 1982, after the Israel Offence Forces, under the direction of then Likud prime minister Menachem Begin, had reduced large parts of West Beirut to what one Western diplomat described at the time as "truly a scene from Dante's Inferno," American, and even some Israeli, officials began to question the man's sanity.

Mind you, incredibly, it wasn't so much what the maniac had done, as his justification for it that caused the penny to drop:

"Contemplating the destruction of Beirut, Israel's prime minister sees a historical parallel. In his response to Reagan's birthday cable, Menachem Begin talked about Berlin. 'I did feel as a prime minister empowered to instruct a valiant army facing Berlin where, amongst innocent civilians, Hitler and his henchmen hide in a bunker deep beneath the surface'. A couple of days after the 'Berlin' message reached Washington, some senior US government officials genuinely seemed to question Begin's mental health. Even in Jerusalem, the disturbing thought has occurred to some Israelis that their prime minister is gripped by a 'dark and macabre fantasy'. 'He is now living in a surreal world', said a professor from the Hebrew University. 'Sometimes I think he is fighting the Warsaw ghetto all over again. He sees the PLO as Nazis and Arafat as Hitler in his bunker'. Ze'ev Mankowitz, teacher of holocaust studies in Jerusalem, described the prime minister's message to Reagan as 'a dangerous and delusional analogy'." (Beirut: The liquidation of a city, Robin Wright et al, The Sunday Times, 8/8/82)

Dangerous and delusional?

Yet who in authority today, in the US, in Israel, anywhere, dares say this of Netanyahu? Must Tehran become a scene from Dante's Inferno before anyone speaks out?

If ever proof were needed that we do indeed live in strange times, one need go no further than this month's AIPAC conference, with its preponderance of congressional sycophants, Obama's obscene grovelling and Netanyahu's hysterical rant.

Barack Obama Renews His Vows

Sunday, March 4. Barack Obama, US president and long-suffering partner of insanely jealous and (some would contend) certifiably mad Bibi Netanyahu, aka Mr Israel, finds himself once again at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, preparing to reaffirm his love and commitment for his moody, unpredictable partner.

'Shit, what sort of marriage is this?' thought the president - and not for the first time, either. 'I mean, it was only last May* I was here renewing our vows. Now here I am again! Why is he so damn insecure? Honestly, it's not only me, he's driving everyone nuts! As I confided to Sarko at the G20 conference last year: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!** I just couldn't control myself. He treats me like a doormat. No matter what I do for him, it's just never good enough. And as for gratitude - forget it! Oh well, here we go again':

"[B]ecause of AIPAC's effectiveness in carrying out its mission, you can expect that over the next several days you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the US-Israeli relationship. But as you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last 3 years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture - at every fork in the road - we have been there for Israel. Every single time.

"Four years ago, I stood before you and said that, 'Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable'. That belief has guided my actions as president. The fact is my administration's commitment to Israel has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every single year. We are investing in new capabilities. We're providing Israel with more advanced technology - the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: We will do what it takes to preserve Israel's qualitative military edge - because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

"This isn't just about numbers on a balance sheet. As a senator, I spoke to Israeli troops on the Lebanese border. I visited with families who've known the terror of rocket fire in Sderot. And that's why, as president, I have provided critical funding to deploy the Iron Dome system that has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools in that town and in others. Now our assistance is expanding Israel's defensive capabilities, so that more Israelis can live free from the fear of rockets and ballistic missiles. Because no family, no citizen, should live in fear.

"And just as we've been there with our security assistance, we've been there through our diplomacy. When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism.

"When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to delegitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now - when the chips are down, I have Israel's back."

[*See my 27/5/11 post Obama: Feel the Love; **See my 8/11/11 post That Shitty Little Prime Minister.]