Date: August 12, 2006 7:19:17 PM PDT
Subject: [IPCUSA] -<Zionist Agenda + The De-Zionization of the American Mind>-
THE ZIONIST AGENDA
THEY TOTALLY CONTROL GOLIATH!
By: Ted Lang
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism; the latter term has been corrupted
to where today its use is as a powerful word weapon smear tactic
to prevent Americans from discussing, realizing, and reacting
to the horrific danger that Zionism presents to not only our nation,
but also to the peace, safety and freedom of the entire world.
And that threat can be summarized as the Zionist’s "global agenda."
Few Americans are aware that the statist Jews that created Israel
were under the direction, funding, support and protection of the Zionist,
communist, Rothschild-led international banking cartel.
And this group of secret, international bankers, often referred to
as the Illuminati, was behind the Balfour Declaration, the Versailles Treaty,
and America’s involvement in both World Wars I and II.
Millions of people have been murdered, maimed, enslaved
and impoverished by this secret, Zionist and communist banking cartel.
And the Bush family has been on board with them and has been
a key part of their operation, especially as regards their funding
and support of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, since the 1920s.
Before a real foe can be attacked, that foe must be seen
and recognized as such. And before that foe can be stopped,
one must know his immediate intent, his methods, and hopefully,
his ultimate objective. The term "anti-Semitic" was created
by the very same organizations that worked side by side
with Adolf Hitler and his Nazis to exterminate orthodox,
Torah-obedient and peace-loving Jews.
These very same "anti-defamation league" types are the very same
genocidal murderers of Jews during Hitler’s time.
Most Americans are clueless about this important fact.
Once again, Dr. Henry Makow has thrown a monumental lead block
into the rushing, advancing line of Zionist liars and propagandists.
His June 28th column on Ether Zone entitled,
"Zionism – A Conspiracy Against Jews," is yet another
- trail-blazing exposé that helps to uncover what is
rapidly becoming the most dangerous threat to Mankind.
Makow offers:
"Why retell this story of Zionist-Nazi cooperation now?
Because ‘Jewish’ leaders have been exploiting their ‘lesser brethren’
for a long time, and are doing so today.
Ordinary Jews pay the price and this price could rise."
This has always been the progressive modus operandi of the Zionists:
- attack,- besmirch,- kill and plunder in the name of Jewry, -
- and then scream "anti-Semitism" when anyone complains.
Makow continues:
"In my opinion, Zionism is a movement to deceive Jews
into advancing the objectives of British imperialism.
(See, The Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism.)
Zionists who have built their lives on a false premise
naturally will reject this view.
Specifically, Jews helped the British-Jewish elite
colonize the oil-rich Middle East under the pretext
- of Jews needing a national home.
Despite the appearance of neutrality, the British (and Americans)
financed, trained and equipped the Jews.
(John Coleman, Diplomacy by Deception p. 107.)
The ‘British’ are really the London-based international banking cartel
associated with names like Rothschild and Rockefeller.
It doesn't answer to any government.
Its goal is to colonize the world and everyone in it.
Jews are a means to this end.
As seen in Iraq, Zionists (a.k.a Neo-Cons) play a major role
in the colonization of the Middle East. The important thing to remember
is that Israel is the creation of this cartel;
- both Israel and the US are its TOOLS."
Occasionally, the term "Illuminati" is used instead of the burdensome
"Zionist, communist, Rothschild-led secret international banking cartel."
That is a very top-heavy description; but, on the other hand, "Illuminati"
is too abbreviated to be enlightening. I prefer the term "Zionist Illuminati."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this term;
- It is brief, and much more descriptive of the moneyed,
Communist secret society that is undermining America
in every way imaginable.
The Zionist Illuminati are the driving force behind a one-world government
New World Order. Why do the multi zillionaire international bankers,
communists, and neo-Nazi Jews or Zionists want a New World Order?
Makow explains:
"All money is created in the form of debt to the privately owned
banking cartel.
Imagine if you could create money out of thin air.
Imagine you have the credit cards of all the nations in your pocket.
Your first impulse is to lend money to your nominees
so they can buy most of the world's real wealth for you.
Your second impulse is to establish a totalitarian system
(‘world government’ ‘globalization’) to prevent any nation
from challenging this system or defaulting on their ‘debt’ to you.
To make them accept ‘world government,’ you need to weaken them
by having them fight among themselves, run up huge debts for armaments
(which you will sell them), kill off the cream of their manhood,
and become demoralized and decadent.
You accomplish this through your ownership of politicians
and the press and your control of MI-6, CIA, [and] Mossad
who carry out terror and assassinations for you.
This is the real history of the last 300 years."
Makow elaborates:
"‘World government’ is really about using debt to enslave us;
it is an international loan collection agency.
Naturally you will shroud this with talk about tolerance,
human rights and preventing war.
A quote from a 1924 edition of the American Banker's Association Digest
sums up what is currently happening.
Keep this in mind when you vote.
‘When, through the process of law, the common people
lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily
governed through the strong arm of government applied
by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.
These truths are well known among our principal men
who are now engaged in forming imperialism to govern the world.
By dividing the voter through the political party system,
we can get them to expend their energies
in fighting for questions of no importance.’"
It may seem foolish to repeat verbatim what Makow has already offered,
but there is an important lesson here. There exists a driving, powerful
international force that plans, engineers, and makes things happen.
I reiterate once again FDR’s observation
that nothing in politics just happens – everything is planned.
And what happens if conspiracy theories like that offered by Makow
prove to be wrong – what would be the harm?
But what would be the result if Makow is right,
and we the people do nothing?
Clearly, the better option is to assume that Makow is right and that
- Rush Limbaugh is a fool, a liar, a Zionist stooge, or all of these.
It is common knowledge that all the Jewish-sounding names
in President George W. Bush’s Pentagon and military advisor group
are transferees from the pro-Israel, neoconservative,
Project for the New American Century group.
It was this secretive, Zionist PNAC cabal that turned
the Bush administration’s military might and America’s anger
away from the al-Qaeda terrorists based in Afghanistan
and focused them instead on innocent Iraq.
And perhaps Iraq wasn’t 100 percent innocent;
perhaps there was some remote flimsy connection.
But solid evidence that a 9-11 collaboration transpired such
that it justified a unilateral, preemptive and unnecessary
attack on Iraq has never been produced.
But the Zionist PNACers have an agenda,
and one not shared by or with the American people.
The anger turned against Iraq was easily accomplished
via the Zionist-controlled, corporate media.
Now here’s where the greatest danger to America exists.
Again, Jewish-sounding names can be found:
Redstone, Sulzberger, Newhouse, Eisner, Bloomberg, etc.
Is it "anti-Semitic" to point this out, or is this rock solid reality?
Is it "anti-Semitic" to point out all the Jewish-sounding names
of the lawyers in the "very rich and powerful"
[Bill O’Reilly] American Civil Liberties Union?
The ACLU also has documented, irrefutable beginnings as a communist
organization, just as is the case with the Trotsky-connected
neoconservatives that make up Bush’s PNAC cabal.
And again, what greater organization spews more "anti-Semitic"
allegations than the Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith?
Remember how Tarpley and Chaitkin
[George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography] described the way
the Zionist B’nai B’rith, the Zionist American-Jewish Committee,
and the Zionist Sulzberger - owned New York Times,
all cooperated with the Rothschild banking cabal
through its agent Max Warburg, whose brother,
Paul Warburg, founded the United States Federal Reserve?
"This seal of approval for Hitler, coming from a famous Jew,
was just what Harriman and Bush required, for they anticipated
rather serious ‘alarm’ inside the U.S.A. against their Nazi operations."
And, " … on March 31, 1933, the American-Jewish Committee,
controlled by the Warburgs, and the B'nai B'rith, heavily influenced
by the Sulzbergers (New York Times), issued a formal,
official joint statement of the two organizations, counseling
‘that no American boycott against Germany be encouraged,’
and advising ‘that no further mass meetings be held
or similar forms of agitation be employed.’"
This is the same anti-Defamation League Zionists of B’nai B’rith
that screamed "anti-Semitism!" and did everything they could
via their Hollywood Zionist connections to block the distribution
of Christian Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of The Christ.
And isn’t it the Zionist, communist, and very rich ACLU,
that has been roaming America from town to town to ban permanently
from our culture Nativity scenes and displays celebrating
the highest Christian holy day in America, namely Christmas?
Haven’t the clever Zionist lawyers been using our freedoms
and our own laws against us?
And hasn’t the Zionist ADL joined forces with Sarah Brady
to ram gun control down our throats all across America?
Wasn’t it the Zionist family of Samuel Newhouse and its
Newark Star-Ledger of New Jersey that launched the initial salvo
against the Boy Scouts of America, a campaign that is mercilessly
hounding and defunding Scout Troops across the nation
hoping to abolish them, and along with them the morality
and honor the Scouts try to inculcate in each boy?
The Newhouse organization was the lead in replacing sodomy
and homosexuality for the Scouts’ "morally straight" oath.
In the Mid West, Newhouse News Service has been performing
above-average "journalistic" coverage of University of Missouri-Kansas City
Professor Harris Mirkin’s writings encouraging pedophilia.
Our nation is under attack by the Zionist Illuminati on all fronts.
The Zionist Illuminati, acting through their Zionist corporate media,
surreptitiously and remotely control public opinion,
encourage and agitate special, superior rights for female communists
[feminism] and homosexuals [human rights] in order to destroy
the number one building block of our society; namely, the normal,
religious family of two legally married heterosexual parents with children.
Under the guise of "tolerance," Zionists are advocating homosexuality,
feminism, and pedophilia and viciously attacking Christianity
through their communist ACLU in order to destroy American society
and its moral fiber. Under the guise of "separation of church and state,"
a term originated by Thomas Jefferson and used completely out of context
by former Chief Justice Earl Warren of the so-called Supreme Court,
legalistic abolition of moral accountability to God, as well as
the celebration of Christmas, Easter, and Christianity itself
along with the Ten Commandments, all are now earmarked
for extinction to rid America of its national character,
identity, resolve and its national sovereignty.
These dangerous Zionist organizations must be identified, examined,
challenged, and neutralized, charges of "anti-Semitism" notwithstanding.
Zionist control of our news and entertainment media,
to include TV network news,
TV entertainment programs,
Hollywood,
newspapers,
magazines,
radio [even Limbaugh and Hannity "talk" radio],
represents the means to justify an end to America.
America is only vital to Zionism in terms of the military might
that can be commandeered by Israel, and the enormous taxpayer funds
that can be funneled to Israel due to its failed socialist economy.
The problem for them is an American freedom-oriented
and armed populace, which present a major threat
and obstacle to the Zionist Illuminati’s agenda
for a New World Order directly under their control.
=============================
"Published originally at EtherZone.com :
republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
############################
How to Deal with The Lobby
The De-Zionization of the American Mind
By JEAN BRICMONT
Americans are constantly told that they have to
defend themselves against people who "hate them",
but without understanding why they are hated.
Is the cause our secular democracy?
Our appetite for oil?
There are lots of democracies in the world that are far more secular
than the United States (Sweden, France...) and lots of places
that want to buy oil at the best possible price (China)
without arousing any noticeable hatred in the Middle East.
Of course, it is true that, throughout the Third World, Americans
and Europeans are often considered arrogant and are not particularly liked.
But the level of hatred that leads a large number of people to applaud
an event like September 11 is peculiar to the Middle East.
Indeed, the main political significance of September 11
did not derive from the number of people killed or even the spectacular
achievement of the attackers, but from the fact that the attack
was popular in large parts of the Middle East.
That much was understood by Americans leaders and infuriated them.
Such a level of hatred calls for explanation.
And there can be only one explanation: United States support for Israel.
It is indeed Israel that is the main object of hatred, for reasons
we shall describe, but since the United States uncritically supports Israel
on almost every issue, constantly praises it as
"the only democracy in the Middle East"
and provides its main financial backing,
the result is a "transfer" of hatred.
Why is Israel so hated?
The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements
and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies
in the very principles on which that state is build.
There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing
the State of Israel in Palestine:
one is that God gave that land to the Jews,
and the other is the Holocaust.
The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious,
like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second,
it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.
Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews,
and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab,
like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion.
This is illustrated by the "law of return": any Jew, anywhere,
having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering
from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel
and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948,
or their children, cannot.
Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy
by three religions has become the "eternal capital of the Jewish people"
(and only them) and one should start to understand the rage
that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
It is precisely this racist aspect that infuriates most Arabs,
even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine
(if they live, say, in the French banlieues).
This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent
in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's
two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein
(the latter thanks to the US), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism.
Now, people often find racism far more unacceptable than
"mere" economic exploitation or poverty.
Consider South Africa: under apartheid, the living conditions of the Blacks
were bad but not necessarily much worse than in other parts of Africa
(or even than in South Africa now).
But the system was intrinsically racist, and that was felt
as an outrage to Blacks everywhere, including in the United States.
This is why the conflict over Palestine goes beyond
the second class status of Israeli Arabs or even the treatment
of the Occupied Territories. Even if a Palestinian state were established
on the latter, and even if full equality were granted to Israeli Arabs,
the wounds of 1948 would not heal quickly.
Arab leaders, even religious ones, can of course
sign peace agreements with Israel, but they are fragile
so long as the Arab population considers them unjust
and does not accept them wholeheartedly.
Palestine is the Alsace-Lorraine or the Taiwan of the Arab world
and the fact that it is impossible to take it back does not mean
that it can be forgotten . (I am not arguing here in favour of
« wiping Israel off the map », or in favor of a « one state solution »
but simply underlining what seems to me to be the root
and the depth of the problem.
In fact, I am not arguing for any solution partly because none seems
to me to be attainable in the short term, but, more fundamentally,
because I do not think that outsiders to the Middle East
should propose such solutions.)
There is no sign that any of this is understood in Israel by more than
a few individuals; if Arabs hate them, this is just another instance
of the fact that everybody hates Jews and it only proves that
they have to "defend themselves" (i.e. attack others pre-emptively)
by any means necessary.
That is bad enough,
but why isn't this understood in the United States either?
There are traditionally two answers to that:
one is that the population is manipulated into supporting Israel
by the government, the arms merchants or the oil industry,
because Israel is a strategic U.S. ally;
the other answer is that the United States is manipulated by the Israel lobby.
The idea that Israel is a strategic ally, if by that one means a useful ally
(useful to, say, the oil interests, broadly understood), although widely
accepted, specially in the Left, does not survive a critical examination.
That may have been the case in 1967 or even during the Cold War period,
although one could argue that, even then, the Arab states were attracted
by the Soviet Union only because it might support them
in their struggle against Israel, albeit ineffectively.
But both in 1991 and in 2003, the United States attacked Iraq
without any help from Israel, even begging Israel not to intervene in 1991,
in order for its Arab coalition not to collapse.
Or consider the post-2003 occupation of Iraq, and suppose that
the goal of that occupation is control over oil.
In what sense does Israel help in that respect?
Everything it does (the currents attacks on Gaza and Lebanon
for example) further alienates the Arabs, and U.S. support for Israel
makes the control of oil harder, not easier.
Even the Iraqi parliament, Malaki and Sistani, who are the closest
to allies that the United States can find there, condemn Israel's actions.
Finally, just imagine that the United States would make a 180 turn
and suddenly side with the Palestinians, as they did with the Kosovars
against the Serbs--who, by the way, were, like the Israelis,
richer and more "Western" than their Albanian adversaries .
Such a change of policies is by no means impossible :
when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975,
the US supported the invasion by providing most of Indonesia's weapons.
Yet, 25 years later, the US supported, or at least did not oppose,
East Timor's accession to independence.
What effect would that have?
Can anyone doubt that such a change of policy would facilitate
U.S. access to oil fields and help it gain strategic allies
(if any were still needed) throughout the Muslim world?
In the Middle East, the main charge against the United States
is that it is pro-Israel, because it lets itself be "manipulated by the Jews".
Therefore, if Washington switched sides, there would be no more basis
for hostility to U.S. presence, including its control over oil.
Thus the notion of Israel as "strategic ally" makes no sense.
This leads us to the "Israel lobby" answer, which is closer to the truth,
but not the whole truth. To get a complete picture, one has to understand
why the lobby works as effectively as it does, and that depends
on factors lying outside the actions of the lobby itself.
After all, the militant Zionists constituting the lobby are a minority among
Jews, who themselves form a small minority of the American population.
The Israel lobby does not work like other lobbies, for example,
the arms and the oil industry lobbies (which is one of the reasons
why it is easy to dismiss it as irrelevant, as long as
one does not understand how it really exerts its influence).
Of course, like the latter, the Israel lobby does fund electoral campaigns
and its power derives in part from its ability to target people in Congress
who deviate from its "line". But if that was all, it could easily be defeated
­indeed, there are other sources of electoral funding,
the big industrial lobbies for example, and if the pro-Israel candidates
could be shown to be paid to serve the interests of another State,
their opponents could denounce the people who receive money
from the lobby as some sort of agents of a foreign power.
Just imagine a pro-French, pro-Chinese or pro-Japanese lobby
that would try to significantly influence the US Congress.
Certainly, money alone cannot suffice.
What protects the Israel lobby is the fact that anyone
who would denounce an opponent funded by the Lobby
as a quasi-agent of a foreign power would immediately
be accused of anti-Semitism.
In fact, imagine that Big Business is unhappy with the current
U.S. policies (as it well may be) and wants to change them-
-how could they do it?
Any criticism of Lobby influence on U.S. policy
would immediately trigger the anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism accusation.
So the strength of the Israel lobby resides in part in this second line
of defense, which itself is linked to its influence on the media.
But even that could easily be defeated -- not all the media
are under the lobby's influence, and, more importantly,
the media is not all-powerful: in Venezuela, it is anti-Chavez,
but Chavez regularly wins elections.
In France, the media were overwhelmingly in favour if the "yes" vote
to the referendum on the European Constitution, yet the "no" won.
The problem, and that is why the Israel lobby is so effective,
is that it expresses a world view that is accepted too easily
by too many Americans.
After all, nothing could be more ridiculous than accusing someone
of anti-Semitism because he wants or claims to put America's interests
above those of Israel. Yet, the accusation is likely to be effective,
but only because years of ideological brainwashing have
predisposed people to consider U.S. and Israeli interests as identical -
- although instead of "interests" one speaks of "values".
Associated with this identification comes a systematically
hostile view of the Arab and Muslim world, which both increases
the lobby's effectiveness and is in part the result of its propaganda.
Despite all the talk about anti-racism and "political correctness",
there is an almost total lack of understanding of the Arab viewpoint
on Palestine, and, in particular, of the racist nature of the problem.
It is this triple layer of control (selective funding, the anti-Semitism card,
or rather canard, and the interiorization) that gives the lobby
its peculiar strength. (And that is also why it is easy to dismiss
its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously,
Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works.)
People who think that it is the arms or the oil industry that are running
the show in Washington as far as foreign policy is concerned,
should at least answer the following question: how does it work?
There is no evidence whatsoever that the oil industry, for example,
pushed for the Iraq war, the threats against Iran or the attack on Lebanon .
(There is a lot of evidence that the Israel lobby pushed for the Iraq war;
see Jeff Blankfort, A War for Israel.They are supposed to act secretly,
of course, but where is the evidence that they do?
And if they is no evidence, even no indirect evidence, how does one know?
Profits from the war, at least for major corporations, haven't materialized yet,
and there are many indications that the U.S. economy will suffer
a lot from war-related expenses and the associated deficits.
On the other hand, it is enough to open any mainstream U.S. newspaper
or TV and read or hear opinions expressed by Zionists calling for more war.
War needs war propaganda and a supporting ideology, and the Zionists
provide it, while none of this is offered by Big Business in general
or the oil industry in particular.
One may also think of historical precedents, like the China lobby
(made of post-1949 Chinese exiles and ex-missionaries,
supported by their domestic churches) in the 1950's and 1960's.
That lobby led the United States to maintain the ridiculous claim
that a billion people were represented by a government (Taiwan)
that had no control over them whatsoever.
It was also very influential in bringing on the Vietnam war.
Whose interests were they serving?
The ones of the American capitalists?
But the latter make huge profits in post-Nixon recognized China.
And the same is true in Vietnam.
In fact both countries, as well as most of Asia, were anti-colonialist
and anti-imperialist, as well as anti-feudal (partly because
the feudal structures did not allow them to resist foreign invasions).
But they were anti-capitalist (in the rhetoric, since capitalism
barely existed there) mostly because their aggressors -
-the West--were capitalist. So that the main lesson to be drawn
from the tragic history of the China lobby is that it held, during decades,
the US policies hostage to revanchist feudal and clerical forces
that were alien to mainstream America, and actually harmful
to capitalist America.
But they worked to the extent that their ideology -
- mixing fear with racist contempt for the "Asian mind" -
- was in sync with Western prejudices.
Replace the China lobby by the Israel one and the Asian mind
by the Arab one and you get a fair picture
of what is going on right now in the U.S.-Middle East relation.
What should the Left do?
Well, simple: treat Israel as it did South Africa and attack the Lobby.
The reason Israel acts as it does is that it feels strong and that,
in turn, is for two reasons: one is its "all-powerful army"
(currently being tested in Lebanon, not conclusively yet);
the other is the almost complete control over
Washington policy-making, specially the Congress.
Peace in the Middle East can only come when this feeling of Israeli
superiority is shattered, and Americans have a great responsibility
is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support.
Now, there are, in principle, two ways to do that: one is to appeal
to American generosity, the other is to appeal to their self-interest.
Both ways should be pursued, but the latter is not enough emphasized
by the Left . (See Michael Neumann, What is to be said ?,
for a discussion of the ethical aspects of that choice.)
That's probably because self-interest does not appear to be "noble" and
because the pursuit of the "U.S. national interest" has all too often been
interpreted as overthrowing progressive governments, buying elections etc.
But, if the alternative to self-interest is a form of religious fanaticism,
then self-interest is far preferable: if the Germans had followed
self-interested policies in the 1930's, even imperialist policies,
but rational ones, World War II could have been avoided.
Also, if the United States were to distance itself from Israel, it would
pursue policies opposed to the traditional ones, and far more humane.
The other problem is that a large part of the Right
(from Buchanan to Brzezinski) correctly sees American interests
as being opposed of those of Israel, and the Left (understandably)
does not like to make common cause with such people.
But if a cause is just (and, in this case, urgent) it does not become less
just because unsavory people endorse it (the same argument applies
to genuine anti-Semitic hostility to Israel).
The worst thing that the Left can do
is to leave the monopoly of a just cause to the Right.
The Left cannot expect the American people
to change radically overnight, abandon religious fundamentalism,
give up oil addiction or embrace socialism.
But a change of perspective in the Middle East is possible:
the strength of the lobby is also its weakness,
namely the naked king effect-everybody fears it,
but the only reason to fear it is that everybody around us fears it.
Left alone, it is powerless.
To change that, one should systematically defend every politician,
every columnist, every teacher, who is targeted by the lobby for his
or her views or statements, irrespective of their general political outlook
(to take an analogy, act as civil libertarians do with respect to free speech).
When people in the antiwar movement divert attention
from Israel by blaming Big Oil or Big Business for the wars
(specially the one in Lebanon, or the threats against Iran)
one should demand that they provide some evidence for their claims.
Challenge all the apologists or excuse makers for Israel or its lobby
within progressive circles. When politicians and journalists claim
that Israel and the United States have common interests, ask what
services exactly has Israel rendered to the United States recently.
Of course one can always point to some (minor) services; but, then,
ask them what a cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis would reveal
and why such an analysis is impossible to undertake publicly.
If they speak of common values (the fallback position),
provide a list of discriminatory Israeli laws for non-Jews.
Rolling back the lobby would necessitate a change of the
American mentality with respect to the people
of the Middle East, and to Islam, like ending the Vietnam war
required a change in the way Asians were looked at.
But that alone would have a greatly humanizing effect on American culture.
It is true that a change in the U.S. policy with respect to the Israel-Palestine
conflict would change nothing about traditional imperialism -
- the United States would still support traditional elites everywhere,
and press countries to provide a "favorable investment climate".
But the conflict in the Middle East, involving Iraq, Iran, Lebanon,
Syria, Palestine, has all the aspects of a religious war-with Islam
on one side and Zionism as a secular Western religion on the other.
And wars of religion tend to be the most brutal and uncontrollable of all wars.
What is at stake in the de-Zionization of the American mind
is not only the fate of the unfortunate inhabitants of Palestine
but also unspeakable miseries for the people of that region
and maybe of the rest of the world.
The ultimate irony in all this is that the fate
of much of the world depends of the American people exercizing
their right to self-determination, which, of course, they should.
=======================================
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium. He is a member
of the Brussells Tribunal. His new book,
Humanitarian Imperialism, will be published by Monthly Review Press.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
