Charles Malik: The West Is the Problem

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Charles Malik was a former president of the UN General Assembly, a former foreign minister of Lebanon, and a professor of philosophy. He was not only a knowledgeable insider in world politics but had the intellect to understand what was happening in a historical perspective. Malik was deeply disappointed by the West's failure to defend Lebanon as --in part and imperfectly-- an outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. In 1984 he wrote an op ed in the Wall Street Journal where he stated:

For months now the world has been focusing on Lebanon as a problem. The problem is not Lebanon or the importance of Lebanon. The problem is the West. Indeed, the importance of Lebanon is precisely that it raises the problem of the West. Lebanon would never have been a problem if the West itself were not the problem. And the West is not only the problem but also the solution. That is its singular greatness. And the solution is to be true to the deepest value of the West: the primacyof the spirit and the freedom of the soul. [WSJ 3-28-1984]

To confirm what Malik wrote, Lee Smith points out how US policy [he refers mainly to the Obama administration] has befriended the Syrian Assad regime despite its many many offenses against the United States and against Americans:

To survive, Damascus needs the world to ignore what it is up to. It particularly needs indifference in Washington, where the Obama administration has seemed sadly oblivious to the fact that what a regime does at home is indicative of how it will act abroad—or, in the case of Syria, a state sponsor of terror and ally of Iran, how it has acted over the last 40 years, targeting especially American citizens, interests, and allies.
For all that, the administration just wants the Syria issue, the uprising, the opposition, to go away. It would prefer not to deal with it and thus has come up with all sorts of excuses to do just that.
It was five months, and many thousand dead, into the uprising before Obama called on Assad to step down. Instead of leading, the president tasked Syria policy out to Turkey, then to the Arab League, which sent a monitoring delegation led by a former Sudanese intelligence chief suspected of war crimes in Darfur.

Smith goes farther. He argues that its position on Syria, since it asked Assad to leave office, does not indicate real opposition to Assad but rather reluctance to see the Assad clan's fall. Smith raises the question of where the Obama administration and the State Dept really stand:

Unfortunately, the White House has painted itself into a corner. Because the administration has never really wanted to see Assad fall, it has talked only of stopping the violence . . . , with the unstated provision that once the murders stop, the murderer still rules. . . .

The question of where Obama & Co. really stand arises concerning the Iranian nuke bomb project as well. Bear in mind that Iran's ayatollahs are major supporters of the Assad regime and vice versa:

What’s odd is that the White House has let on, through various media surrogates, that it may come to accept the inevitability of the Iranian nuclear program and move toward a policy of containment and deterrence. . . . In its dithering on Syria, the administration shows a lack of seriousness in dealing with Iran. . . .

Yet the Assad regime, going back to 1983 at least, has a record of killing offcial Americans as well as American troops in both Lebanon and Iraq:

Under Assad the Damascus airport was a jihadist transport hub from which foreign fighters were either bused directly to the Iraqi border to fight U.S. troops, or warehoused in Syrian prisons until they could be put to some use. Washington knew very well that Syrian intelligence was working with al Qaeda because it had evidence of it in the Sinjar documents, showing that 90 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq were coming through Syria. When a series of suicide bombings killed hundreds of Iraqis in the fall of 2009, the Obama administration hushed Iraqi officials who pointed a finger at Damascus. In other words, al Qaeda’s position in Syria was a problem U.S. officials were content to ignore when, with the help of Assad’s intelligence agents, the organization was killing American troops and Iraqis. But now the fact that al Qaeda elements, which may still be under the control of Syrian intelligence, are targeting regime installations, is a reason not to support the opposition [here Smith is pointing at Obama administration hypocrisy]. . . . The regime in Damascus that has so much Syrian blood on its hands also, along with its allies in Iran and Hezbollah, has killed many thousands of Americans. In Lebanon, U.S. Marines, diplomats, and intelligence officials were slaughtered by Iranian and Syrian assets; in Iraq, the Syrians and Iranians backed both Sunni and Shia fighters in their war against American troops, leaving almost 5,000 dead and many more thousands wounded [The Weekly Standard, 5 March 2012]

So the Assad regime in Syria has been an enemy of the United States and of Americans, including rank and file soldiers plus diplomats and intelligence officials. Yet the Syrian Assad regime was being coddled by the State Dept in the mid-1970s, under Kissinger and since then. The Baker-Hamilton Report drawn up for the Bush 2 administration in about 2006 recommended helping solve all Middle Eastern problems by pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights to Assad-ruled Syria. Apparently, Israel's welfare was secondary to Assad regime welfare. Or just how does one explain the situation that Lee Smith describes together with my extending the picture of Washington indulgence of the Assads back to the mid-1970s?

Lebanese Speak Out against Ahmadinejad & Hizbullah

UPDATING 10-15 & 11-30-2010 at bottom

A group of prominent Lebanese have spoken out against Ahmadinejad, who is now visiting Lebanon as if to signal that he has completed the takeover of the country. Lebanese and people in various Arab states need to realize that Israelophobia was used as a means and/or pretext for building up Hizbullah's power in the state so that it overshadowed all other forces in the country, including the state itself. In many Arab countries Israelophobia and Judeophobia are political tools and pretexts for armed groups and tyrants to control the state and limit the freedom of the population. After Syria, with the help of US secretary of state James Baker, had suppressed the last holdout of Lebanese independence, General Aoun, in 1990, it was agreed at a "peace" conference under pan-Arab auspices [Taif] that all Lebanese militias would be disarmed, except for the Hizbullah. As the AFP article below says, Hizbullah & Syria claimed that the Hizb ought not divest itself of its weapons, "arguing they were needed to defend the country against Israeli aggression." And with those weapons supposedly for use against Israel --and with all other militias disarmed-- Hizbullah helped Syria control the country --occupied by Syria up to 2005.

It also seems that the Hizb helped Syria murder former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, in 2005. This is one lesson among many of how Israelophobia became a political weapon used by Arab tyrants and the power hungry against other Arabs. Unfortunately, former Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora did not comprehend this when in August 2006 he urged the great powers dominating the UN Security Council to pass a war-ending resolution that had little teeth to prevent Hizbullah from rearming and receiving weapons from Syria. The Hizb rearmed to the point where it predominates over the whole Lebanese political/military system, even without direct Syrian intervention except to supply weapons across the Lebanon-Syria border that barely exists now in reality. That disastrous UN SC resolution, 1701, has led to the current pathetic situation of joint Syrian-Iranian-Hizbullah domination of the country and Hizb threats of a renewed civil war if the UN Tribunal to investigate the Hariri murder identifies prime suspects in the murder, naming names. UN SC res. 1701 has also led to A-jad's triumphal visit to Lebanon, whereas he has called southern Lebanon, "Iran's border with Israel." To conclude, let's not forget the shameful role in promoting 1701 of Israel's moronic then foreign minister, Tsipi Livni, still today bleating stupid admonitions at PM Netanyahu, and Israel's crooked prime minister at that time, Ehud Olmert, now on trial and also admonishing Netanyahu, not overlooking Condoleezza Rice then secretary of state under George Bush II and the governments of Britain and France. And let's again cite Fuad Siniora for doing so much to bring Lebanon down to its present state.

Ahmadinejad accused of meddling in Lebanon's affairs

By blade 12/10/2010 - 23:17

AFP - Lebanese politicians and members of civil society issued an open letter to Iran's president on Tuesday, accusing him on the eve of his official visit to Lebanon of meddling in the country's affairs.

The letter was signed by some 250 people, among them former MPs close to the Western-backed parliamentary majority, doctors, teachers and journalists. It lashed out at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over Iran's support of Lebanon's Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

"One group in Lebanon draws its power from you ... and has wielded it over another group and the state," said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

"You are repeating what others have done before you by interfering in our internal affairs," the letter added, referring to Tehran's financial and military backing of Hezbollah, considered a proxy of Iran.

Hezbollah, far the most powerful military and political force in Lebanon, has been locked in a standoff with Western- and Saudi-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri over a probe into the 2005 murder of his father, ex-premier Rafiq Hariri.

Tensions have been mounting between the two sides over unconfirmed reports that a UN-backed tribunal is set to indict Hezbollah members over the murder, a scenario the militant group has openly rejected.

Hezbollah is the only party in Lebanon that refused to surrender its weapons after the end of the 1975-1990 civil war, arguing they were needed to defend the country against Israeli aggression.

The letter, signed by former MPs Fares Souaid, Samir Frangieh and Elias Atallah, criticized Ahmadinejad for declaring support for the Lebanese state while simultaneously providing Hezbollah with financial and military backing.

"Your support of the state is negated by your parallel financial and military support to one party in Lebanon," the letter said, referring to Hezbollah.

"Your talk of 'changing the face of the region starting with Lebanon' ... and 'wiping Israel off the map through the force of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon' ... gives the impression that your visit is that of a high commander to his front line," it added.

The letter also urged Ahmadinejad to convince Hezbollah during a two-day visit starting Wednesday to exist within the confines of the state.

Ahmadinejad is set to meet with his Lebanese counterpart Michel Sleiman as well as Hariri and other politicians during his trip, which will be his first to Lebanon since his election in 2005.

However, the highlight of the visit will be a tour of Lebanon's volatile border with his arch-enemy Israel.

[see AFP article here] [also see our previous blogs on Lebanon here & here]

UPDATING 10-15-2010 Jonathan Tobin on A-jad's tour of his domain[here]
11-30-2010 Carlo Panella describes the horrid situation in Lebanon with the opponents of Hizbullah and its Iranian & Syrian sponsors fearing for their lives and lying through their teeth to protect their skins, knowing that the pro-Syrian Obama cabal in Washington will do nothing to help them [qui]. Sa`ad Hariri, whose own father was murdered by a massive car bomb or truck bomb in 2005 planted by Hizbullah operating on Syria's behalf, now speaks sweet platitudes to Syrian & Iranian leaders. The UN-sponsored Special Tribunal on Lebanon is about to announce indictments of Hizbullah gangsters for the Hariri murder, although it may be dissuaded by the fears of Saad Hariri & other opponents of Syrian-Iranian hegemony in Lebanon who see no way out of their trap at present.

Obama's Secret Dinner with Behind the Scenes Movers & Shakers [mainly white folk]

Obama's secret dinner with behind the scenes movers and shakers, including Lee Hamilton of the notorious Baker-Hamilton Report, requested by George Bush Jr.

Accounts in
American Thinker
Silobreaker
Foreign Policy

Seems obama needed to work out a destructive foreign policy strategy with Hamilton, a Democratic ally of the Republican James Baker. Maybe Zbig got too much bad publicity to be useful.

Who Was President during the Holocaust & Which Was His Party ?

Who was president during the Holocaust? Which party did he belong to?
The Holocaust president was Franklin D Roosevelt. He was a Democrat. He spent much money supposedly to stimulate the American economy and thereby get the USA out of the Depression. He did little to save Jews from the Holocaust. That little was done under pressure from groups like those led by Peter Bergson, such as the Committee for a Jewish Army. Bergson was helped by famous Hollywood scriptwriter Ben Hecht and by many grass roots American Jews and some outstanding non-Jews. What sort of debt do Jews owe to the Democrats for FDR's refusal to bomb the death camps [like Auschwitz] and bomb the railroad tracks leading to them? This was also British policy by the way. So do the Jews owe a debt to either the USA or UK for doing less than the bare minimum to save Jews from the Nazis?

In 1956, seven years after armistice agreements with Arab states had been signed at Rhodes, terrorist attacks from Egyptian-ruled Gaza continued, often with lethal results. In October 1956, Israel, UK and France attacked Egypt together, although each had its own reasons for doing so. Israel attacked a state that was in a state of war with it despite an armistice repeatedly violated by that state, Egypt. However, the outcome of the Sinai Campaign was that President Eisenhower [Ike] demanded that Israel withdraw from Egyptian territory and from the Gaza Strip [part of the internationally designated Jewish National Home] without Egypt signing a peace treaty and ending the state of war, which Nasser's Egypt -- covertly supported by the CIA and the Dulles Brothers, in charge of Ike's foreign policy-- did not want to do. Ike was a Republican.

Years later, in 1977, Jimmy Carter and his liege-man Zbigniew Brzezinski threatened Menahem Begin with an international conference to supposedly settle Israel's fate. Under this threat Begin offered Sadat, Nazi-sympathizing dictator of Egypt, all of the oil-rich, little-inhabited Sinai Peninsula. Not enough, Carter complained at the Camp David Conference [1978]. Jimmy pressured Begin to give more, no doubt under the guidance of Zbig, his national insecurity advisor, for Zbig and Carter also contributed to greater insecurity for the American people [by helping Khomeini take over Iran, etc]. There's a lot wrong with the Israel-Egypt "peace treaty," even from a formal, legalistic standpoint. Carter was a Democrat like FDR who made it difficult for Jewish refugees to come to the USA before and during the Holocaust.

On the other hand, George Bush Senior is a Republican like his liege-man, James Baker. They were notorious for blatant hostility to Israel. As secretary of state Baker helped Hafez Assad, the fascist dictator of Syria, to complete the conquest of Lebanon by Syria. This conquest actually took place in stages. At first it was aided by Henry Kissinger, then by Zbig who picked up the relay and the dirty job was finished by Baker as said [in 1990]. Truly bipartisan foreign policy or, if you like, bipartisan wreckage of civilization.

Baker was notorious for telling Bush Senior: "F. . . the Jews. They don't vote for us anyhow." Of course, Jews did vote foolishly for the Dems, which did not much help when FDR and Carter were president.

Now, one of the remarkable things about personalities involved in the current presidential election is the cyclicality. In other words, zombies rise out of the muck of the black lagoon and policies come back to haunt the Jews. Zbig Brzezinski, formerly Carter's liege-man, has left the tomb of the undead and is now Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, although Obama pretended during the primaries that he did not belong to the old Washington crowd, that he was innocent of its corruption. Obama's partner Biden has an undeserved reputation for being a friend of Israel. During Israel's first big anti-terrorist operation, Defensive Shield in 2002, Biden opposed it in meetings with Jewish leaders:

Joe Biden. . . attacked Ariel Sharon in closed meetings of Jews and Israelis while he [Sharon] was conducting Israel's war against terrorism. These remarks do not get much publicity for some reason, but they are written here on the authority of absolutely reliable sources, of persons who heard them with their own ears.
[Amnon Lord, "The UN Guy and the Jewish Vote" Neged haRuah - Yoman, in Maqor Rishon 10-17-2008].

Meanwhile, George Bush Junior was demanding that Israel withdraw from areas of the Palestinian Authority's zones that Israel had taken in order to fight the PLO/Hamas/Fatah terrorists, areas where murderous attacks against the Israeli people had originated. Here Bush Junior reminds me of Ike in 1956 demanding Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory and Gaza, although terrorist attacks --then called fedayin attacks-- had been launched against Israel from those places and Nasser had brought many German Nazi veterans into his government and foul anti-Jewish, anti-Israel propaganda was regularly featured in the state-controlled Egyptian media. So Biden and Bush Jr were redoing Ike's anti-Israel policy of 1956.

To change the subject slightly, Lyndon B Johnson, a Democrat, was the "peace candidate" in the 1964 presidential election. After the election, LBJ increased aerial bombardments on North Vietnam and hugely increased the number of US troops in that theater of war to more than 500,000. Anybody who thinks that Obama is a peace candidate is an ignorant fool at best.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Obama the war candidate, More on the anti-Jewish racism of the "Peace Process," Republicans, Democrats & Jews [FDR and Eisenhower and Carter and George Bush Sr]; Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, archeological updates, peace follies, propaganda, etc

False Premises of Annapolis & of the "peace process"

It is characteristic of decaying
societies and ruling groups that
they are incapable of adjusting to
the evolution of reality. They repeat
discussions and arguments and behaviors
that have failed, but which they cannot
renounce because they have been as if
hypnotized by their own beliefs.
The myth of the "peace process"
in the Middle East is one of these. ******
Le propre des sociétés et des pouvoirs
finissants est leur incapacité à s'ajuster
à l'évolution de la réalité. Ils réitèrent
des discours et des comportements qui
ont echoué mais auxquels ils ne peuvent
renoncer parce qu'ils sont comme
hypnotisés par leurs propres croyances.
Le mythe du «processus de paix» au
Moyen Orient est de ceux-là.
[Shmuel Trigano, "Le Besoin d'un nouveau
paradigme pour le Moyen Orient,"
France-Israel Information,
juillet-aout-septembre 2007, p 5]

One of the big lies of the "peace process" [and of the Annapolis Conference] is that a "peace process" necessarily ends up in a state of peace. This is idiotically viewing a "peace process" as something like a scientific or industrial process that always produces the same results. As if it were like heating water to 100 degrees celsius which --we know from experience-- will cause it to boil and evaporate as steam. Or the process may be like kindling a fuse that leads to well-packed dynamite. Which --we know from experience and reputation-- will bring about an explosion. Of course a "peace process" may very well end up in an explosion but that's not what the promoters of the process would have us believe. They speak of a "peace process" as if it were scientifically sure to result in peace. They might prefer an analogy to putting out a fire. The rage of the "palestinians" over "unfair treatment" might be likened to a fire which Israel could put out by giving them territory which would have the effect on "palestinian" or Arab rage of the chemicals in a fire extinguisher which put out fires.

Of course that may work in a natural science like physics or chemistry but not in political science. The diplomatic peacemongers disregard or pretend to be unaware of the fact that human beings in all their variety, with their virtues and vices [more of the latter than the former], are involved.

Shmuel Trigano writes that the Oslo "peace process" has "proven itself over the years to be, above all, a war process" [processus de guerre]. That seems obvious to many people, probably to the overwhelmingly majority of Israelis. But it still has to be said. And repeated over and over. Because, as Trigano points out, "'the peace process' still continues today. . . and some push the impudence or the farce" so far as to "announce to us a soon to come final --'historic'-- peace agreement."
So much for "peace processes" in general and the Oslo "peace process" in particular.

Another big lie is that there is a people called a "palestinian people." Actually, those people now fashionably called "palestinians" consider themselves merely a section of the Arab nation [see Article One of the PLO charter, among other documents]. There never was a "palestinian people" in history and indeed the Arabs did not traditionally call the country "palestine" nor did they see it as a separate, distinct country. Rather for Arabs and other Muslims it was an undefined, indistinct area of bilad ash-Sham [translated as Greater Syria or Syria]. But the "palestinian people" notion is necessary for creating a body of public opinion in the West in favor of taking territory away from Israel, territory vital for Israel's defense against the Arab states in general or against Arab and other Islamic states. Shmuel Trigano points out that:

After 15 years of illusions, two facts force themselves to be noticed:
1) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an Israel-Arab conflict, or Israel-Islamic conflict (indeed, Pakistanis and Indonesians, even Muslim Europeans who have become Islamists, are not Arabs).
2) The Palestinians don't want a Palestinian state but the disappearance of the state of Israel.

Hence, Israel is not fighting merely "palestinians" but Arabs generally and other Muslims. Thus Trigano refutes two more lies of the "peace process," that is, that Israel is fighting "palestinians" alone, that there is an "Israel-palestinian" conflict, and that the palestinian Arabs or other Arabs want a separate "palestinian state," much less a state alongside Israel living at peace with Israel.
Of course, President Bush Junior claims that that's what he wants. But if he thinks that that's what the Arabs want, then he's a fool or ignoramus or liar or all of those.

Bush also now says that setting up a "palestinian state" is a "national interest" of the USA. That could be true but it is a matter of interpretation at best or a matter of definition. Bush and the State Department want people to believe that it is within their competence to decide what is the American national interest. But should Americans rely on Bush or the State Department? Jimmy carter and his power behind the throne, Zbig Brzezinski, helped bring the Islamic fanatic Khomeini to power in Iran. The current ranting, bomb-brandishing leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad, was a follower of Khomeini. So carter-zbig's policy helped bring Ahmadinejad to power years later and now the world faces the threat of the atomic bomb in the hands of maniacs. In 1990, james baker, Daddy Bush's secretary of state, helped fascist Syria take over most of Lebanon. This kind of policy is sometimes called "realism." Yes, it's real, real kooky. No doubt walt-mearsheimer agree that a "palestinian state" is a national interest of the United States, one of those national interests that they often talk about as a general category but don't specify when they complain that Israel thwarts US "national interests." If so, then Bush Junior and walt-mearsheimer are on the same team.

That is, walt-mearsheimer aid Bush and Condi Rice [signorina riso amaro] in promoting a "palestinian state." But it is seldom argued any more or even questioned whether there is a "palestinian people," for if there were no "palestinian people," then people throughout the world might ask: If there is no "palestinian people," then why is a "palestinian state" necessary?
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: more lies of Annapolis and the "peace process," peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Land of Israel, etc.

Jim Baker Makes Things Worse in the Middle East -- He's an Old Hand at Creating Chaos & Befriending Oppression

Condi Rice, US secretary of state, is a follower of the Bakerite religion which came back into vogue in Washington in 2006. She recently testified to a congressional committee that many problems in the Middle East were because of Israel's presence in the region, although she was not specific. This is the position of many in Washington and has long been a theme heard there, especially from oil industry defenders, pro-Arab lobbyists, and some of those who call themselves "realists," not to mention most of what is called the "Left." By blaming Israel, they exemplify what in psychology is called projection. That means projecting on someone else what you yourself are doing or want to do. So they blame Israel for causing problems.

Baker himself is an old hand at Middle Eastern troublemaking. Many of the corpses littering the Middle Eastern landscape can be attributed --in part at least-- to Baker's policies. To this day, Baker's "realism" or cynical hatred for people causes problems. Some of his earlier doings as secretary of state have caused enduring trouble. Let's take Lebanon as a case in point. Lebanon has been bedevilled for years by Syrian hegemony, up to 2005, and since then by Syrian efforts to return and retake control of the Land of the Cedars. Here is Michel Gurfinkiel on Baker's illustrious accomplishments in and for Lebanon:

. . . in August 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. The Americans knew several months before that such an operation was being prepared, but did not react as vigorously as one might have expected. For Baker, there was a dilemma between interest and interest. Kuwait, like the other Gulf monarchies, was situated at the heart of the American-Arab petroleum partnership. But Iraq too was a first rank oil producer and seemed to form moreover, in the 1980s, a rampart of those same monarchies against Khomeiniist Iran [bear in mind here that Baker's forerunner as a "realist" US foreign minster, Zbig Brzezinski, had helped Khomeini take over Iran]. What is more, Baker had "advised" --in a personal capacity-- both of those countries [Kuwait & Iraq]. In the end, the secretary of state [Baker] adopted the worst possible attitude. On his instructions, the American ambassador April Glaspie let Saddam Hussein understand in July 1990 that "the United States did not have an opinion on the border conflict between Iraq and Kuwait." The Iraqi dictator interpreted this as an implicit approval of his planned invasion.

For several weeks, Baker tried to dissuade George H W Bush from freeing Kuwait by force. The American president only made a final decision in that direction on the recommendations of British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Then Baker made a strategic and diplomatic "reverse shift." He won over another Baathist dictatorship, Syria, to the anti-Iraqi operation by allowing it to occupy Lebanon in its entirety, including the last Christian bastions. In other words, the United States authorized one Arab country [Syria] to subjugate another [Lebanon] in order to prevent a third [Iraq] from absorbing a fourth [Kuwait]. It might well be, obviously, that Baker wanted to create --through a Syrian protectorate over Lebanon-- a precedent applicable to Kuwait, as long as Saddam Hussein renounced formal annexation [of Kuwait]. Up to 9 January 1991, the American secretary of state was negotiating with the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs, Tariq Aziz, in the hope of finding a compromise [allowing Iraq to keep on occupying Kuwait without formal annexation].
[Michel Gurfinkiel, "Rapport sur Baker" France-Israel Information (Oct-Nov-Dec 2006), p 25]

Here is Gurfinkiel's key phrase above in the original.

En d'autres termes, les Etats-Unis autorisent un pays arabe a` en subjuguer un autre afin d'interdire a` un troisie`me d'en absorber un quatrie`me.

Baker boggles the mind. He is quite a troublemaker all by himself. Can we find anybody to equal his skill at wreck and ruin? The cartoonist Al Capp who drew the Li'l Abner comic strip had a character named Joe Btspflk. Joe always had a cloud over his head wherever he went and wherever he went there was trouble. Joe Btspflk was the artistic representation of James Baker before his time.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, more on Jim Baker versus Israel, etc.

James Baker and US Foreign Policy towards Israel -- Part 4

Throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, the Petro-Diplomatic Complex worked to undermine Israel in American public opinion. One way was to set up the American Friends of the Middle East, which enjoyed government funding. This group lobbied the Congress on behalf of pro-Arab policies, although it was probably illegal for a body supported by government funds [up to $400,000 per year] to lobby its own funder, the US government. I L Kenen points out that this subsidy was not ended until 1967 on account of a Congressional investigation of CIA operations [Kenen, Israel's Defense Line, pp 115-116]. The publications of the Arabian-American Oil Co. [ARAMCO] too, like ARAMCO World, also served to provide the Arabs with a favorable image in the United States. For instance, the barbarous kingdom with its cruel, bigoted medieval laws, based on Wahhabi Islam, was described as: "A Desert Democracy." Likewise, the National Geographic and publications of the Arab League offices in the USA also published pro-Saudi, pro-Arab propaganda. The Luce publications --Time and Life-- did the same, although inconsistently. For instance, after the Six Day War had raised Israel's prestige in the United States, the Luce publications were pro-Israel for a while in accord with public opinion.

Gurfinkiel writes that starting in the early 1960s with the Kennedy Administration, through the Johnson Administration, and into the Nixon Administration of the early 1970s,

Washington began a rapprochement with Jerusalem, . . . In the eyes of the oil men and their friends, the most powerful lobby in the country, this deviation could only be explained by the action of a "Jewish lobby" at least as powerful; a classic case of projection on the adversary of one's own behavior.
[Michel Gurfinkiel, "Rapport sur Baker," France-Israel Information, Oct-Nov-Dec 2006]

This is an important insight. The extremely powerful oil lobby that was able to arrange vast tax advantages for itself and its Arab allies, like application of the Foreign Tax Credit to oil payments to Saudi Arabia, among other tax favors, accused the Jewish lobby of being all-powerful. In fact, the paranoid loathing of a Jewish or pro-Israel lobby interfering in the plans of empires came to the surface in remarks by certain influential Britishers around the time of the reestablishment of Israel and in later years. For instance, various prominent British personalities, such as Dennis Brogan, an influential British political scientist, complained about the Jewish lobby in the United States interfering with British designs for the Land of Israel.

Gurfinkiel believes that the Israel-American partnership of the sixties and seventies had much to do with the Soviet alignment of important Arab states, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, and Libya. Furthermore, the OPEC states, the Arab members first and foremost, had greatly raised the price of crude oil. For this reason and on account of the hostile Arab attitude [including that of Saudi Arabia] in that 1973-74 period, some have claimed, the United States was contemplating seizing the Persian Gulf oil fields. Be that as it may, certainly many Americans were very angry at the Arab oil states for making life more expensive for Americans and the rest of the world. The greatest damage of the sharp rise in oil prices was no doubt to the world's very poorest countries which lacked valuable natural resources and were not exporting manufactured goods. Parenthetically, we should point out that apologists for the Arabs in that period, claimed that the sharp rise in oil prices was "good" for the Third World as a whole, that is, for the poor countries too. These apologists had no shame then just as today apologists for the Arabs are still shameless.

Gurfinkiel also points to the rise of fanatical Islam, as another factor encouraging an Israeli-American partnership. Nevertheless, the Pro-Arab lobby did not go away. The territorial situation created by the Six Day War gave new opportunities to pro-Arab propaganda.

The Pro-Arab Lobby Counter-Attacks
The Six Day War furnished it [the pro-Arab lobby] with a less cynical argument than the interest in oil alone.

During this conflict, the Jewish state had taken control of [not "occupied"] territories situated outside of the demarcation line [armistice line] established in 1949 at the end of the first Israel-Arab war (the Green Line). . . It had also occupied territories situated beyond the international borders of former mandatory Palestine: the Golan, Sinai. The pro-Arab lobby stated that the Arab and Muslim countries --or at least "the more moderate ones"-- would make peace with Israel when Israel had returned these conquests: "Territory for peace." The slogan was striking in its simplicity and its seeming equity. In fact, it made it possible to avoid the true questions: Why had the Arab countries refused the partition of Palestine in 1947? Why did they subsequently refuse to recognize Israel? Why did they multiply attacks on Israel [political attacks in international bodies, attacks by terrorist infiltrators, the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, etc] before 1967, when it did not occupy any territory beyond the Green Line? Why did they refuse after 1967 [after the Six Day War] an Israeli offer for comprehensive negotiations [a refusal embodied in the Three Noes of Khartoum]? How can Israel ensure its security in the long term against repeated aggressions without the strategic depth provided by the conquests [of the Six Day War]? [Gurfinkiel, ibid.]

Indeed, these are all important questions glossed over by the peace-mongers. The Arab states had refused to make peace with Israel when it was in its restricted frontiers of the 1949 armistice lines. Why would they make peace with Israel or keep a peace accord with Israel if Israel went back to those restricted, difficult to defend armistice lines? Why not consider Judea-Samaria or the West Bank area as a parallel --at least in military-strategic terms-- to the protective function of the Sudetenland for Czechoslovakia in 1938? As we know, the Czechs --under British and French pressure-- gave up the Sudetenland in late 1938, in the name of self-determination for the Sudeten Germans and of "peace." Just a few months later, in March 1939, the Germans took the rest of Czechoslovakia. Hence, the Munich Pact for peace had resulted in the total subjugation of Czechoslovakia to the German Nazis and an improved strategic situtation for Germany in its plans to attack Poland later in 1939. In short, the Munich Pact for peace had made war more certain by improving the German strategic situation against Poland, thus facilitating a future attack on Poland. Combining the terms used then and those used nowadays, we may say that the appeasement movement or peace process of the 1930s reached its peak with the inception of World War Two in September 1939. By the way, in accord with the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939, both the Nazis and Soviet Communists invaded Poland from the west, north and south [the Germans] and from the east [the Soviets]. In the fall of 1939, the Communist USSR and Nazi Germany officially declared a joint Struggle for Peace. Is something like this grim scenario the purpose of today's "peace process"?

Note that Gurfinkiel avoids saying that Judea-Samaria were "occupied" by Israel in 1967. He is aware that these areas were part of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference in 1920, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922 and later by the United States in an accord with Britain. He knows that this status was not cancelled by the General Assembly partition recommendation of 29 November 1947.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on James Baker and US-Israel relations, Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, etc.

Who Is James Baker?? -- Part 3

President Harry Truman essentially defied the policy wish of the State Department, War Department [now called "Defense Dept"], and the CIA when he supported Israel's rebirth in 1948, albeit only lukewarmly. We have shown this in previous posts. Now, let's resume quotes from Michel Gurfinkiel's article "Report on Baker" [Rapport sur Baker]. After pointing out that Truman supported Israel's reestablishment in the 1947-1948 period, he points out that this friendly, if not warmly supportive, policy did not last.

From 1949 to 1961, during the major part of Truman's second term, and during Eisenhower's two terms, America adopted a cold, if not hostile, attitude towards Israel: No economic aid (with the exception of 'charitable' gifts from the Jewish community), no military aid (an embargo forbid even in that period the export of American military equipment to the Jewish state), no diplomatic cooperation (the United States imposed the immediate evacuation of Sinai [on Israel] after the Suez Campaign in 1956).

First a minor correction, there was some very minor US economic aid to Israel in this period, mostly involving purchases of US food. However, starting in 1951, the USA started a policy of enriching Saudi Arabia's royal parasites through ARAMCO. This policy had the Saudis legislate a per barrel "oil income tax" on ARAMCO. Then, ARAMCO was allowed to deduct the full amount of this "tax" [really a royalty] from its US corporate income tax on the grounds of the Foreign Tax Credit Law. This meant a heavy US subsidy for the Saudis, a disguised form of foreign aid. Hence, Saudi Arabia has probably received more US foreign monetary aid than any other state.

Gurfinkiel goes on to point out that starting in the 1960s with the Kennedy Administration, and then under Johnson and Nixon,

Washington started a rapprochement with Jerusalem

This relationship resulted in major sales of US weapons to Israel, including fighter aircraft, whereas Israel had fought and won the Six Day War of 1967 with an air force almost entirely made up of French military aircraft. In that war, the Egyptian and Syrian air forces were mainly Soviet. The Israeli victory gave French military aircraft a very good reputation among the world's air forces, leading to increased sales. France did not return the favor. Instead, De Gaulle declared an embargo on major military sales to Israel just as the USA was eliminating its embargo.

Nevertheless, not everyone was pleased with the US-Israel alliance. The Petro-Diplomatic Complex was not happy.

In the eyes of the oil men and their friends, the most powerful lobby in the country [America], this [pro-Israel] 'deviation' could only be explained by the action of a 'Jewish lobby," at least as powerful [as itself]. This was a classic case of projecting on one's adversary one's own behavior.

Gurfinkiel does not mention it, but one of the ways that the Petro-Diplomatic Complex countered pro-Israel forces in the United States was to work through foundations like the Ford Foundation, which in turn directed and funded all sorts of fake "human rights" and "peace" groups to unfairly attack and libel Israel. The pro-Arab, anti-Israel bodies agitating at the 2001 Durban Conference to smear Israel were to a large extent coordinated and/or funded by the Ford Foundation, according to articles by Edwin Black for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Source: Michel Gurfinkiel, "Rapport sur Baker," France-Israel Information no. 335, Oct-Nov-Dec 2006.

UPDATE ON THE PETRO-DIPLOMATIC COMPLEX: See this article by John R MacArthur on the Saudi Lobby in the USA and on its friends in the Petro-Diplomatic Complex.
- - - - -
Coming: more on James Baker, on Carter's support for apartheid against Jews, Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, Jewish antiquities, peace follies, propaganda, etc.