Why did the British Empire and all colonial powers before it use "divide and
conquer" while the US government seems intent on unifying diverse groups
from Iraqi resistance to Sunni Hamas to Shi'i Hizballah to Arab
Nationalists? This administration talks and acts based on a supposed common
threat and in the process ofcourse unifying others and creating enemies.
Perhaps the Zionist coined "Islamofascism" term should be a hint. Perhaps
those who think tribally can only think of others as equally tribal: if
there is a Jewish nation and not simply a religion then there must also be
an Islamic nation and not simply a religion. If "goyim/gentiles" are
inherenltly anti Jewish then it would make sense to lump Castro, Chavez,
Nasrallah and Ahmedinujad (and hence help them find common ground)! Or does
it? Looking carefully at these questions sometimes generates discomfort in
both left and right circles. A lifelong pacifict once stated that they were
put on this earth to comfort the afflicted and make the comfortable
uncomfortable. It is IMHO important to engage in open discussion regardless
of where one stands on these matters. The following four pages are not
intended to be a comprehensive analysis but hopefully strings to begin this
needed discussion. I would suggest actually that the Council for National
Interest, ADC or other groups host a conference specifically to delve deeper
into the questions raised.
Howard Friedman, President of AIPAC, titled his letter of July 30 2006 to
friends and supporters of AIPAC "Look what you've done". He explained:
"Israel is fighting a pivotal war for its life...the expected chorus of
international condemnation of Israel's actions. ..only ONE nation in the
world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job.. That nation
is the United States of America--and the reason it had such a clear,
unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of America
Jewry....How do we do it? ... decades of long hard work which never ends."
Ari Berman in The Nation stated that "The congressional reaction to
Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of Lebanon
provide the latest example of why AIPAC's lock on US foreign policy in the
Middle East must be examined." (July 31, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/39679 ). So let us do a little research on
this lobby and cite some resources. Here we divide this into two sections:
a) Articles that describe the lobby and its influence (perhaps not "lock")
on US foreign policy, and
b) Examples of situations when other elite interests (oil, weapons
manufacturers) collided with the Israel lobby and the latter won. There are
of course other situations when the Israel lobby lost, especially early in
its career (e.g. 1956 with Eisenhauer and the Suez crisis).
First a relevant quote from Nehemia Stessler writing in Haaretz, May 12,
1989: "Israel’s dependence on the United States is far greater than
suggested by the sum of $3 billion. Israel’s physical existence depends on
the Americans in both military and political terms. Without the US, we would
not be equipped with the latest fighter planes and other advanced weapons.
Without the American veto, we would have long since been expelled from every
international organization, not to speak of the UN, which would have imposed
sanctions on us that would have totally paralyzed Israel’s international
trade, since we cannot exist without importing raw material"