The Passionate Attachment:

U.S. Support for Aggressive Zionism, the Real Problem in the Middle East

By Albert Doyle, LL.B., LL.M.

“So likewise a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. 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 participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. . . .

“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 con- fidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”— Washington’s Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

04/03/06 "ICH" -- -- -- The Bush administration would have Americans believe that the problems in the Middle East are caused by Saddam Hussein, Muslim fundamentalism and mindless terrorism. Increasingly Bush & Co. see all foreign policy matters through the distorting lens of their own “war on terrorism” vision. In fact, a principal if not the main cause of conflict in the Middle East is another “ism,” namely Zionism and the blind support given it by the United States.

The latest confusions, reversals and failures of U.S. policy in the Middle East all trace back to long-standing U.S. support for Zionism. Increasingly, as Bush ties himself ever tighter to the policies of Ariel Sharon, it comes down to Israel and the United States against the world, the recent administration claims of a right of “preemptive attack” on Iraq being just the latest example. Americans must examine closely to what they are being tied and where we are going, morally as well as politically.

Zionism is essentially Jewish nationalism rooted in 19th century racist, colonialist thinking gilded over with a “religious” patina. The earliest Zionists saw security for persecuted Jews in a “return” to Palestine and those early leaders were clear if circumspect to the point of deceit about having to displace the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to secure their goals.1 Zionism became serious about a century ago as east European Jews emerged from their village religious culture, although many early Zionist leaders were not religious Jews. The early Zionist movement was vigorously opposed by more assimilated western European Jews as well as most Jewish religious leaders; it gained support, although still a minority, on the break up of the Ottoman Empire and really got off the ground with the World War I British Balfour Declaration which promised Zionists a homeland in Palestine in exchange for certain services to the British. Palestinian Arabs, Muslim and Christian, were at the time the large majority in Palestine and the famous declaration contained the cynical and impossible condition (now forgotten) that the Jewish homeland was not to be at the expense of the majority Arab population of Palestine. In fact, the Zionist state which came into being was precisely at the cost of that majority of Palestinian Arabs. Today we are expected to forget this but not surprisingly the victims have had trouble with the idea and still do. Ariel Sharon intends to bludgeon them into submission to virtual slave status, at best, and “ethnic cleansing” at worst. The question is whether America should support this. Few want to face this question, least of all our political leaders.

The actual Zionist state came into being when authorized by the United Nations at the end of World War II, fueled by western sympathy for European Jews persecuted by the Nazis and a deeper traditional Biblical-based belief in the “right” of a Jewish “return” to the Holy Land. The subsequent hallmark characteristics of that state have been the accelerating “ethnic cleansing” of the majority Arab population, open defiance of many United Nations criticisms of its abuses of Palestinians, occupation of territory beyond its internationally mandated borders by violence (Israel has never defined its own borders), the utter destruction of large numbers of Arab villages within Israel2 and the planting of its own citizens in occupied territory in violation of international law. These actions are justified by Zionist claims of aggression by the Arabs who indeed initially did resist the Zionist takeover. As in British-ruled Ireland of past centuries this resistance to occupation became “disloyalty,” or in this case “terrorism,” and serves to excuse further dispossession. The British of course no longer rule in Ireland which may be instructive about the longer term effectiveness of such policies.

Such acts would certainly justify the label of “rogue state” if pursued by any other country. Shockingly, they have been supported by successive U.S. administrations and Congresses blinded by “passionate attachment” to the Zionist state. What has caused this to come to pass? The current rhetoric about the “war on terrorism” certainly doesn‘t explain it. The passionate attachment long predated the current intifada and the suicide bombers. The intifada and suicide bombings have of course provided a handy excuse for posturing about “wars on terrorism” by Zionists and their supporters, while ignoring the real causes of conflict.

A serious if often hidden factor in this long-standing support of Zionist goals in Palestine is the strain of Biblical fundamentalist religious belief running deep in the American Protestant tradition, the dominant religious tradition in the United States. As just one example of many which could be given, we note Woodrow Wilson (the selfproclaimed “son of the manse” in this case) promising to deliver Palestine to Jewish Zionist leaders after World War I when Jews constituted a small minority in that country and as an exception to his “crusade for democracy” elsewhere. His position was based on his religious beliefs and he was not alone. Similar views were held by many U.S. politicians and are still held by many. These views also had an ugly negative side of serious bias against Muslims, Arabs and specifically Palestinians, who were widely perceived as inferior, backward people, obstacles to Jewish inspired progress in the Middle East. Ludicrous though it may seem today in the light of current events, many thought that the Palestinians would benefit by the Jewish domination in Palestine and the Zionists who had no such intentions allowed this view to continue.3

Certainly a major factor in the passionate attachment was also sympathy for the Jews because of their mistreatment by the Nazis, the well known and constantly promoted “Holocaust.” The Holocaust is still used to justify violations of Palestinian rights — even though the Arabs had no part in the Nazi mistreatment of the Jews. Jews, mostly from Eastern Europe initially, flooded into Palestine after World War II although at the time they were still a small minority in Palestine and owned little of the land.4 Alarmed Palestinian Arabs did not accept this invasion, protested and resisted (sometimes with violence) but obtained little sympathy from the victorious allies and they were overcome by the superior armed forces of the Zionists who also engaged in widespread terrorism, deliberately encouraged Arabs to flee, as modern revisionist Israeli historians now concede. Nevertheless, to this day the Zionist lies told at the time are often repeated; that the Arab states caused the exodus. Although this propaganda lie is now discredited in Israel,5 it is still often heard in the United States from Israel’s passionate defenders. Palestinian expellees in 1948 constituted 54% of the then Arab population of Palestine. Several years ago the U.N. estimated that there were 4.6 million displaced Arabs in camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and a total of 5.4 million “refugees.” All Palestinian Arabs are estimated to total 8.5 million, greatly outnumbering Israeli Jews (see Prior 1).

Many Palestinians were driven out of their homes, farms and businesses into refugee status and to this day are denied the right to return, against all rules of international law. Their properties were seized without compensation by a variety of means, ranging from crude to devious (e.g., from outright violent military expulsion to “legal” seizure of “abandoned property,” claims of state security needs, etc.) all of which come down to one unpleasant description — seizure or theft.6 When forced to explain this many Zionists fall back on comparison with past colonialist usurpations by others, for example the treatment of the American Indians. Modern humanitarian consensus, international agreements and treaties, painfully worked out by the nations of the world in the aftermath of bloody modern wars, are simply ignored — or it is boldly claimed that they don’t apply to Jews who see themselves as unique victims in world history and thus presumably entitled to oppress others. Some even claim divine authority for these acts and support of fundamentalist American Christians is important in this evil.

The Palestinian refugees, most of whom trace back their history in the land thousands of years, are denied the right of return to their homes, while any Jew, however remote his connection (if any) with Palestine, is entitled to enter Israel under the Laws of Return, usually with significant financial subsidies. This racist and illegal system is supported financially by the United States taxpayer who has given Israel financial and military hardware support now totaling about $100 billion, far more than any aid to any country, including the Marshall Plan aid to all of Europe after World War II. Americans so concerned about the financial health of the U.S. Social Security and Medicare systems ignore this huge outflow and it is seldom mentioned in the media.

All of this was accomplished under cover of a palisade of outright lies that continue to this day — that the refugees had left voluntarily, that the land was a desert before the Jews came, that there were few Palestinians, and other similar nonsense still widely supported by American Jews and many others.7 Some of the worst falsehoods are now recognized and discreetly ignored in Israel today but amazingly still appear routinely in the U.S. media and Zionist propaganda in America. “National security” lies are practiced from time to time in all countries but Israel surely leads the league in volume, crassness and external support! Many brazen examples can be given but some of the worst were the barefaced lies told by Abba Eban to the world and to his sympathetic American government contacts at the beginning of the 1967 war when he denied flatly that Israel had started the war, a fact now conceded by everyone, including most scholars in Israel. (The back-up lie is that it was all justified because of impending Arab attacks — another falsehood, itself now being slowly exposed in turn.)

The bottom line: the Zionist state was created at the cost of a huge historic and human injustice to the Palestinian Arabs, while western governments and the U.S. in particular averted their gaze. Political Zionism was not supported by most religious and secular Jews at the time of its development and this still holds true today among a minority of Jews worldwide who see Judaism as a religion not as a political movement.

The shocking fact is that all of this is known to many of the people in responsible places in our government. Nevertheless they try to avoid thinking about it and do not dare to mention any matter reflecting badly on Zionism because, in the case of the non-Jews in particular, they covet their positions and fear the consequences of incurring the wrath of the Zionist lobby. That lobby is very powerful in this country. It can and does unleash a highly effective intellectual and economic reign of terror against any public figure who dares speak out against Zionist injustices. Criticism of Israel is now routinely claimed by the Zionist lobby to be evidence of “anti-semitism” and no politician dares risk that accusation. The politically dead bodies of the few Congressmen and Senators who dared to question the Zionist steamroller litter the ground in Washington as a reminder.8 Every Washington politician knows this. And they also know there is no U.S. political downside for following the Zionist line. For this reason, with cause, Congress has been called “Israel occupied territory.” Billions in “aid” flow yearly without a murmur.

Seldom discussed but also very important, Christian Biblical fundamentalism is still a major factor in U.S. attitudes. Fundamentalist American Christians in the millions now constitute the blindest of Zionist true believers, outnumbering by far the Jewish Zionists in America. The seriousness of this is illustrated by a recent example: a prominent U.S. political leader, Congressman Dick Armey, apparently a Protestant fundamentalist, recently called openly for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Palestine and it passed virtually without comment in the U.S. media. Can you imagine what would have been the reaction if he called for the removal of the Jews from Palestine? The motive of these Christian Zionists is mainly a primitive, literalist interpretation of certain parts of the Old Testament which causes them to believe that God is on the side of the Zionists in the Holy Land no matter what they do. Many Protestant Christian fundamentalists also expect the conversion of a remnant of the Jews to Christianity as a prelude to the return of the Messiah and the end of the world, a belief quietly ignored by Zionists who take what they can get from whatever source.

Finally, the American public is traditionally and tragically ignorant about foreign countries in general and little interested in foreign events, as often noted by outsiders who visit our shores. This ignorance and lack of interest makes it easy to propagandize Americans about foreign affairs. The Bush administration has benefitted from this in that its inept foreign policy seldom comes under serious criticism and blind, jingoistic support for anything claimed to relate to “the war on terrorism” is now the order of the day. Zionists have exploited this crude ignorance, never more than now. Ignoring their own long-term abuses and world condemnation, they claim to be motivated in their recent brutalities only by the new Bushian “war on terrorism.” They have also recently become quite concerned to “reform” the Palestinian leadership, a hypocritical stance which impresses only the U.S. administration.

The result of this background of ignorance, religious fundamentalist dogma and lies is that successive U.S. administrations continue to support Israel with an almost hypnotic devotion — a startling modern example of George Washington’s warning about “passionate attachment” to foreign countries. No other nation benefits from this extreme emotionalism. Not even Britain. A gigantic transfer of wealth from the United States to Israel occurs with virtually no Congressional oversight. The result has been the creation of a powerful Zionist military machine in the Middle East which bullies its enemies and creates new enemies for the sponsor of that machine, the United States. The constant wailing of the Zionist lobby that Israel is in danger of being “driven into the sea” by militarily powerful surrounding nations is regarded as somewhat of a joke in Israel, but not here it seems. The reality is that it is the Palestinians who are in danger of being driven out of their country — into the sea so to speak! The current Arab intifada, created by desperation, with its suicide bombings provides a convenient cover for the Israelis and the Bush administration to avoid dealing with the cause of this conflict — aggressive Zionism — and to shift public attention to “terrorism” which after all is the result of the problem, not the cause.

Many United Nations Security Council Resolutions critical of Israeli actions over the years have been blocked by the United States veto or are opposed by the U.S. in the General Assembly in ludicrous votes of 120 or so to 2, 3 or 4 with the three of four being the U.S., Israel and sometimes one of our puppets like Micronesia or the Marshall Islands. We have become a world laughing stock for these votes but few Americans know or care. It is in the United Nations that the “passionate attachment” is most apparent but unnoticed by the American public. At home the huge annual “aid” passes silently. Recently in the United Nations things reached a ludicrous stage when the United States reversed the position on a peace-seeking resolution it had sponsored originally when the Israelis decided they didn’t like it. The U.S. also blocked a move to send U.N. peacekeepers to Palestine after the recent Jenin massacres, a move supported by virtually the entire world and one which would have saved many lives. The passionate attachment has a cost and it is the blood of innocent people, Arabs, Jews and others.

Our leaders often say that Israel must be supported because it is a democracy and an ally. We’ve heard a lot of that recently. Indeed Israel has many structures of a democracy: political parties, elections, a somewhat free press, etc., but on even cursory examination it is a democracy only for Jews. Legal and extralegal discrimination of various kinds against non-Jews is an accepted part of the system of that country, very much like the former South African regime.9 These include inability of non-Jews to own property, to move freely, and many others. Arabs inparticular are regularly subject to abusive, humiliating restrictions in their own land — not to mention the continued seizure of their property, deprivation of water, etc. These things are mostly ignored in our media, but when mentioned are excused on grounds that they are necessary for Israel’s security. In fact they trace back to fundamental Zionist policies long predating the Arab intifada, etc. The reality is that “Israel’s security” means that discriminatory rules are necessary to insure a xenophobic, racist state — a state in reality “for Jews only.” The security of the majority is not a factor. Can you imagine the outcry if Ireland or Poland excluded minority non-Catholics who were formerly a majority but had been dispossessed, from ownership of property on grounds that this was needed to ensure state security and religious or national purity! Nor need we compare the similar racial policies of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, a comparison by the way often made by dissenting Jews in Israel. To the credit of Jews there is a vigorous dissent to Israel’s immoral policies within Israel — but not in the United States!

All this leads one to ask: so some people think there are special rules for Jews? The answer seems to be yes, and many Jews and some non-Jews see nothing wrong with this although they prefer that the issue not be discussed as it is morally rather difficult to defend — unless of course one is a fanatical Christian or Jewish Zionist. Those folks are embarrassingly rather open about it as we hear from various famous television preachers.

The “alliance” is a one-way street. Israel is of little practical value as an ally and provides almost nothing in return. It used to be loudly claimed that they were a bulwark against Soviet penetration of the Middle East. They never were, quite the opposite, but in any case that excuse faded with the end of Soviet communism. And the promotion of Israel as bulwark against aggression by Iraq or Iran won’t fly. As for the “war on terrorism,” they are a handicap. One of the restraints on Bush’s desired war on Iraq is fear of Israeli participation and its consequences. No use of bases in Israel is possible for obvious reasons and our blind support of Israel “right or wrong” causes many others increasingly to be wary of American “friendship.” In the real world Israel has repaid our support with spying efforts against us, transfers of forbidden military technology to the Chinese communists, a murderous assault on a U.S. Navy vessel, “Liberty” (falsely claimed to be an error — a claim which no American military expert supports — one more lie in a long train of lies) and other examples. Because of U.S. ineptitude in foreign intelligence matters we have even become dangerously reliant on Israel for many such information in the Middle East where their interests manifestly are not ours.

How did this ridiculous “passionate attachment” to an alien, racist, aggressive and habitually lying nation come about? The long-standing bias based on Biblical fundamentalist views and its anti-Arab, anti-Muslim counterpoint is a deep factor.

As mentioned, a major factor is also “Holocaust” propaganda. Americans have been inundated with propaganda about this historic event for many years, mostly post-1967. Much of it is exaggerated if not outright false.10 Sixty years after the events we are flooded with “commemorations,” government supported “museums” (actually propaganda vehicles) and other daily reminders of the supposedly unique victimhood of Jews. None of this is spontaneous from the American people. It is a skillful and devious manipulation of public consciousness by people with an agenda, that is the continued support of the Zionist state of Israel, come hell or high water!

The Holocaust has become for Jews and some others a quasi-religious dogma.11 As such it simply cannot be questioned even when false stories about it are revealed and faux-religious belief in it is used to stifle criticism of Israel. In many European countries it is a criminal offense to question any aspect of the Holocaust stories, no matter how far-fetched or untrue. Few Americans are aware of this offense against freedom of speech because the subject is studiously avoided by the U.S. media. These laws are no joke. Many have been jailed or fined under them and some Zionist supporters have called for such laws here. The Holocaust is indeed a potent weapon in the hands of Zionists.

When President Harry Truman gave the green light for Zionists to take over Palestine at the expense of its thenconstituted majority, the Palestinian Arabs (the current Bush green light to the evil Sharon shows how little things have changed), his most knowledgeable and objective advisors warned that it would lead to unending conflict in the area and would be to the long-term disadvantage of U.S. interests. In fact, this has come about. Truman candidly admitted that his decision was based on pedestrian domestic political considerations involving the support of U.S. Jews in elections and his personal religious beliefs. Is it possible to redeem this error and put the U.S. back on a course of supporting justice rather than money or power? The answer is of course, yes, but it is unlikely that those presently in power have the wisdom and courage to do so. However, there are signs that many Americans are waking up to the evil of our “passionate attachment” for Zionism. It can only be hoped that their voices will be heard. The wisdom of George Washington must prevail in this for the good of Jews, Arabs and Americans.


* * * * * *


If a reader feels that this article paints too negative a picture of Zionism and Israel as a brutal, devious and unjust group I can only plead that it is the conclusion I have reached only after long and thoughtful study and analysis. I didn’t always have these views. I once followed the herd and didn’t look too hard for the truth and justice in the Palestine disputes. I do not deal here with the undoubted evil and tragedy of the Palestine suicide bombings, etc. These are certainly adequately covered in the daily media in the U.S., although the things mentioned above are certainly not so covered. Consider this an attempt to restore some balance.


Notes, Doyle

1. Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel (London & New York: Routledge, 1999), particularly comments on The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzel, ed. Raphael Patai (New York: Herzl Press, 1960). Prior’s book is one of the best studies of the subjects dealt with here including biblical analysis of Zionist claims.

2. Rashid Khalidi, Palestine Reborn (London & New York: Taurus, 1992). Khalidi estimates the utter destruction and plowing under of over 400 villages. Israeli sources reluctantly now admit this after concealing it for years. See also Khalidi, All that Remains: The Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992).

3. Lawrence Davidson, America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University of Florida Press, 2001).

4. Rashid Khalidi, op. cit. In 1939 Jews were 30% of the population of Palestine but held 5.7% of the land. In 1948 Arabs still far out-numbered Jews and still held a large majority of the land. This changed rapidly.

5. Benny Morris, “Falsifying the Record: A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 24:44–62.

6. Prior, op. cit. 30. Today 92% of the State of Israel is totally closed “legally” to non-Jews.

7. Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial (New York: Harper and Row, 1984). Peters’ book, long exposed as fraudulent (see Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestini Conflict [London & New York: Verso, 1995]) is still cited by American Zionist apologist.

8. Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out; People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985). The recent defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia is just the latest example of many.

9. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London & Chicago: Pluto Press, 1984). See also Edward W. Said et al., “A Profile of the Palestinian People” in Blaming the Victims, ed. by Said and Christopher Hitchens (London & New York: Verso, 1988).

10. Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London & New York: Verso, 2000): “Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler’s Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud.”

11. Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1999).

MR. DOYLE, a lawyer from New York, now resides in Florida. He is married and has five children. Most of his work was as General Tax Attorney in the international area which led him to visit many countries.