|
"It Doesn't Get Any Worse Than
That, Ray"
Unmasking AIPAC
By William Cook
10/06/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- -Ray Suarez (PBS
News Hour Reporter, October 2, 2007): "You're saying that the national
legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the
citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution,
sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the
American-Israeli Political Action Committee?"
Mike Gravel (Democratic Presidential Candidate): "Wait a second.
They'll (sic) be some information coming out about how this
thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. ...
This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the
height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States
Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of
this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray.".
In asking his question, Ray Suarez implies that our Senators
capitulated to the desires of AIPAC, knowing their vote negated
the expressed will of the American people. Gravel, once a
Senator from Alaska during the Vietnam War period, answers
unhesitatingly, "yes," the short answer is yes. The obvious
follow-up question would appear to be: "Why do you think that
our Senators would vote against the expressed wishes of their
constituents in favor of a special interest lobby?" It was never
asked. Fortunately, Sy Hersh, in an interview with Amy Goodman
that same day, responded to a question posed by Goodman, a
question drawn from a Gravel criticism of Hillary Clinton for
having voted for this resolution. Goodman pointed to the 76
votes in favor, both Republican and Democrat, asking Hersh to
respond to Gravel's critique: "This is fantasy land," Gravel
commented, "We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're
just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate
today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has
authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to
let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate
Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm
ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to
get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war
ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it."
Goodman's question is simple enough, why would 76 senators vote
for such a resolution. Hersh's response: "Money. A lot of the
Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A
significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading
American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an
existential threat. And I think it is as simple as that. ...
That's American politics circa 2007."
Gravel understands the consequences of giving Cheney and Bush
the freedom to attack Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist
organization rather than as the legally constituted military of
the state existing to protect the citizens of that state. They
need no act of Congress to attack a terrorist organization and,
citing the Encarta encyclopedia description of terrorism, "These
violent acts are committed by non-governmental groups or
individuals that is by those who are neither part of or
officially serving in the military forces ...," they have
defanged the definition of terrorism as it cannot be applied to
a nation state. Cheney and Bush are now free to invade Iran to
wipe out the terrorist organization harbored by that country.
Why pretend that an established arm of the government of Iran is
a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident?
Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have
not been able to convince the American people of the threat to
the US should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The
Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives this administration license to
attack Iran using the original resolution passed by the Congress
for the invasion of Afghanistan since Iran now harbors
terrorists that threaten America.
How serious is this possibility we might ask. Newsweek carried
an article in the October 1 issue about Israel's "secret" raid
on Syria. In it, Sam Gardiner, a former Air Force Colonel, seen
as an expert in simulation of military exercises, makes this
observation: "Even if Israel goes it alone (attacks Iran's
nuclear facilities), we will be blamed (the United States).
Hence we would see retaliation against U.S. interests." In
short, the United States is tied to Israel and its interests by
an umbilical cord that determines how and when we go to war and
with whom. Iran is Israel's primary nemesis as well as its
primary target. The "mysterious raid deep in Syria" magnifies
this point; only the media control created by "a nearly
impenetrable wall of silence around the operation" has kept the
American public from understanding the potential consequences of
the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that passed October 2, only a month
after Israel's "raid." Should Syria have responded to this
unwarranted aggression by a missile or bomb attack on Israel,
the U.S. Congress would have been forced to determine how to
respond. With the Kyl-Lieberman resolution in place, only Bush
has to respond by citing the Iranian terrorist organization's
ties to Syria and especially to Hezbollah. A threat to Israel is
a threat to the U.S.
It is this reality that makes the recent study by Mearsheimer
and Walt so dangerous to the Israeli lobbies, especially AIPAC.
Indeed, they define AIPAC by encompassing the multitude of
Jewish lobbies under that umbrella while adding in non-Jewish
Neo-cons, Christian evangelicals of the far right and other
sympathizers.
Gravel's awareness of this threat as expressed to PBS represents
the rare occurrence when the reality of our total support for
Israel's interests is aired in public. An objective
consideration of the "raid" of September 6, 2007 by the Israeli
Air Force against Syria as it would have been reported in the
American press had it been Syria attacking Israel would not have
been headlined "The Whispers of War." Indeed that report did not
focus on Israel's disregard for international law or its
consequences, but rather on how Israel can deliver nuclear or
standard bombs as far as Iran. It went further to turn this
unprovoked operation to Israel's cause by noting how that
state's very existence is threatened by one atomic bomb, thus
presenting Israel as the potential victim not the perpetrator of
an action contrary to the United Nations' charter. Had Syria
attacked Israel, the explosiveness of such an unprovoked and
uncalled for attack against an innocent country would have made
front page headlines and the cover of all our news magazines.
Yet Israel's unprovoked and uncalled for attack on Syria is
presented in U.S. News as "Israel takes a swipe at Syria,"
hardly an item that would make the American people aware that
they were at risk for their ally's illegal action against a
neighbor. And as if that were not enough, the significance of
one nation bombing another without provocation becomes only the
10% hike in Ehud Olmert's ratings as opposed to the death and
destruction caused by this illegal action with an accompanying
photo, not of the death and destruction, but of Olmert giving
blood for his countrymen. No outcry follows this despicable
behavior by the Teflon state not from the United States, not
from the United Nations, not from the EU, not from NATO. Only
silence.
Consider for example the consequences of Israel using its United
States' gifts of nuclear bunker buster bombs on Syria or Iran,
both possible scenarios as this "raid" ( the name of an insect
repellent) makes clear: "... huge amounts of radioactive
material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people
of Iran and surrounding countries ... This fallout will induce
cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for
years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of
immense proportions,"(Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not
the Answer.) No outcry, only silence. Why?
What does AIPAC's control of our Congress mean for the American
people? Arguably, that influence propelled the U.S. into war
against Iraq with its inevitable consequences in death,
destruction and debt leaving the nation bereft of a resolution;
it has solidified perception around the world that Israel's
defiance of the UN resolutions demanding that it obey
international law regarding right of return for Palestinians and
return of occupied territory is not just condoned by the U.S.
but is the policy of the U.S., making the United States a
co-partner in international crime; it has made Israel's illegal
treatment of the Palestinians in its indiscriminate killing of
children and women, in its use of extrajudicial assassination,
in its imprisonment of a whole people resulting in extreme
poverty, malnutrition, and disease, in its total control of the
lives of these people who have no recourse to overcome the
occupation since they have no means to do so, practices condoned
by the United States, and turned the U.S. from a compassionate
and morally responsible nation to one that is amoral and
hypocritical; and, in absolute despair, it has placed America on
the thresh hold of one more devastating war against a people
that has done nothing against the United States, has not
occupied another nations's territory, has not invaded another
nation, and has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, all
actions that are diametrically opposed to those of our client
state, Israel. Such is the sell out by our representatives of
their constituents as they grovel, unlike Mike Gravel, before
the insidious lobby that controls our fate. No outcry, only
silence. Why?
Ultimately the question comes back to why those 76 senators
voted for a resolution that "wipes the desires of the American
people off the map," to borrow an intentionally falsified and
reiterated translation of the Iranian President's message to his
people. But those 76 are not alone. Virtually everyone of our
representatives are subservient to the same lobbies, passing on
average 100 resolutions per year favorable to Israel and written
by the lobbyists, obsequiously fawning before AIPAC's annual
meeting where its very existence is touted as of "significant
benefit for both the United States and Israel," and where no one
dares to question or criticize the state of Israel lest they
suffer the fate of those who have, and lose their seats in
Congress. This one might argue is coercion. Can it be
documented? One need only research the congressional and senate
races that put Paul Findley, Cynthia McKenny, Charles Percy and
the few other renegades that dared to be critical of Israel out
of their positions. "The handful of members of Congress who have
been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have been
publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap or, worse, lost
their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents" (NewsMax.com, May 1,
2006. "Israel the Third Rail of American Foreign Policy," Arnaud
de Borchgrava, Editor at large of the Washington Times).
Interestingly, the United States defines terrorism (18 USC 2331)
as "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that ... appear
to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by assassination or kidnaping." Could one not make a
case that our Congress in its total support for Israeli policies
regardless of their negative impact on the country and its
disregard for the expressed desires of its citizens as the Kyl-Lieberman
resolution demonstrates is "influenced" by "intimidation and
coercion" by these lobbies? Add to this reality the influence
they wield in our media where they limit the perception of the
public to the lies and mythologies they present that justifies
the actions of the Israeli state, and the pervasiveness of the
lobbies prevents the American people from controlling their own
destinies. Does that not make them terrorists residing on K
street in our nation's capitol?
Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies
regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive
invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the
same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war
against Iraq -- Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan,
Krouthammer, Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the
hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and
daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in
their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to
their deaths those they never met.
The Hounds of War are gathered
round
To forge the battle plan,
They pat each other on the back,
And grasp their fellow's hand.
To battle stations they disperse
To carry on the fray,
These warriors of the word sublime
That makes us weep or pray.
They swing behind the keyboard
now
That spits out their deceit;
Their goal, the end they desire,
That makes their life complete.
These victors suffer no regrets
As they pen brilliant epithets,
And so they ply their lonely craft,
And carve another's epitaph.
William Cook
is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in
southern California and author of
Tracking Depception: Bush's Mideast Policy. He can be
reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
