Comments on Zionist control of American foreign policy

 

Uri Avnery, founder of the Israeli peace group, Gush Shalom, recently published an article entitled, In the Name of Zionism, inside of which was a shocking realism about how Zionism controls American foreign policy, which is worth repeating. Our country is not exactly our own when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.

Here is just a brief excerpt that occurs in the context of a discussion about Zionism. The entire article is recommended.

The leaders of the "Zionist State" depend to a large extent upon the Diaspora and use it for their own purposes. The Exile-Jewish AIPAC ensures the subjection of the US Congress to the will of the Israeli government. The "Anti-Defamation League" (which should more properly be called the "Defamation League") is terrorizing the American media in order to prevent any criticism of Israeli policy. In the past, the United Jewish Appeal was essential for the economic wellbeing of Israel.

For years, the foreign policy of Israel has been based upon the power of the Jewish "exile" community in the US. Every country, from Egypt to Uzbekistan, knew that if it wanted aid from the American Congress, it had first of all to acquire the support of Israel. In order to get access to the American Sultan, they first had to get past the Israeli gate-keeper.

LINK: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1272099579

Lest one fails to mention, Uri Avnery is a Zionist, sometimes described as a “soft Zionist.” He believes in a Jewish majority in Israel, but with allowances for others, like Palestinians, to participate equally.

 

 

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

26 Comments

RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

The first time I ever heard talk of the "Zionist Occupation Government," it was from the Aryan Nations. I'm just sayin'.

by Nathan Empsall 2010-04-25 02:27PM | 3 recs
RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

PS: In all of my own readings about the conflict, I have never read or heard of the term, "Zionist Occupation Government." As I mentioned, the Israeli occupation is controlled by the military, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) or the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), as some prefer. And it is not a government as such.

 

by MainStreet 2010-04-25 07:27PM | 0 recs
RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

The phrase refers more to our government. I was reminded of it by the title of the post and the opening statement "Zionism controls American foreign policy."

by Nathan Empsall 2010-04-25 07:39PM | 0 recs
RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

That phrase would appear to summarize Avnery's description of the effect of Zionism on US foreign policy, as stated in the quoted paragraphs. But I have also never heard of Israeli influence on the US Congress extended to references to the occupation, which specifically refers to the state of life in the Palestinian territories. Except for a few people like Kucinich, I would guess that most senators and congressmen avoid drawing attention to or mentioning that occupation.

by MainStreet 2010-04-25 09:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

That phrase would appear to summarize Avnery's description of the effect of Zionism on US foreign policy, as stated in the quoted paragraphs. But I have also never heard of Israeli influence on the US Congress extended to references to the occupation, which specifically refers to the state of life in the Palestinian territories. Except for a few people like Kucinich, I would guess that most senators and congressmen avoid drawing attention to or mentioning that occupation.

by MainStreet 2010-04-25 09:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

well this is where far-left meets far-right: they are both anti-semite conspiracy nuts.

by Lakrosse 2010-04-26 09:37PM | 0 recs
RE: Comments on the Zionist control of America

Geez, Lakrosse, you are now taking to defame everyone as an anti-Semite just because they do not agree with Israel's occupation, and its purpose, to confiscate all Palestinian lands and essentially dissolve Palestinians as a people.

And we are seeing the reemergence of the concept of "transfer," ethnic cleansing by state policy, proposed by Avigdor Lieberman and even Henry Kissinger, a frew years ago. Purity of race or ethnicity is the goal. Now where did we hear that idea before?

Lakrosse, it seems to me that you are the model for one of those ethnocentric transferists, the racists that now give Israel a bad name.

by MainStreet 2010-04-28 10:14AM | 0 recs
I'd like to see the link on that one.

After the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948, it was not until 1967 that anyone began to talk about the "occupation," and it was primarily the occupied Palestinians in the territories who voiced that reality. Strictly speaking, the Zionist Occupation Government is the government imposed by the Israeli military, not the Israeli government in Israel per se.

So I would doubt that anyone talked about the Zionist occupation before the Palestinians themselves.

So I'm just saying, if you think there was (is) no occupation or that the NeoNazis invented it, think again.

Or if you are saying, that people who repeat the term Zionist occupation are NeoNazis, then you definitely need to think again. It acknowledges a considerable ignorance about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

by MainStreet 2010-04-25 04:32PM | 0 recs
Ridiculous headline

Miami Cubans have dictated US policy on Cuba for years but no one would think to write a headline like "Cuban control of America". Conflating the right wing Zionist lobbies influence on policy concerning Israel with Zionist "control of America" is really over the top and sounding a lot like some pretty hateful rhetoric.

by hankg 2010-04-26 06:05AM | 1 recs
RE: Ridiculous headline

Good remark. I changed the title to reflect the narrower meaning in Avnery's article, which I read into it. Thanks.

by MainStreet 2010-04-26 08:51AM | 0 recs
RE: Ridiculous headline

Amd I might add that the title refers mainly to US foreign policy in the Middle East, which probably extends through Iraq and Afganistant to Pakistan. Our foreign policy toward Japan and North Korea, for example, would not apply.

by MainStreet 2010-04-29 11:00PM | 0 recs
In keeping with Avnery's views, but far more analytical is Noam Chomsky's recent article.

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't)

The first paragraph:

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange.  For many of the world’s conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.  In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with “minor and mutual modifications,” to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s."

See Huffington Post for the entire piece.

 

by MainStreet 2010-04-28 10:27AM | 0 recs
RE: In keeping with Avnery's views, but far more analytical is Noam Chomsky's recent article.

Sorry, here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noam-chomsky/a-middle-east-peace-that_b_554178.html

by MainStreet 2010-04-28 10:27AM | 0 recs
Palestinians losing faith in Obama administration, poll finds

Here's yet another consequence of US (read Obama) pandering to Zionist colonialism. Palestinians have become pessimistic.

Ramallah - Palestinian hopes that US President Barack Obama will bring an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory have significantly declined in recent months, a public opinion poll published Wednesday found.

Only 9.9 per cent of Palestinians now believe that Obama's policies will increase chances of achieving a "just peace," down from 23.7 per cent in October last year and 35.4 per cent in June.

The poll also found that over 78 per cent of Palestinians interviewed believe the US-Israel dispute over the issue of West Bank settlements is "not serious." Ramallah - Palestinian hopes that US President Barack Obama will bring an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory have significantly declined in recent months, a public opinion poll published Wednesday found.

by MainStreet 2010-04-28 11:46AM | 0 recs
RE: Palestinians losing faith in Obama administration, poll finds

Link to this poll: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/319834,palestinians-losing-faith-in-obama-administration-poll-finds.html

by MainStreet 2010-04-28 11:49AM | 0 recs
Just to reinforce Avnery's remarks...
Berkeley student body sustains veto of divestment measure

by Philip Weiss on April 29, 2010

The Berkeley student senate voted 13-5 to override the student government president's veto, at 4 a.m. California time. They needed 14 votes. Note that the measure urged the university to divest from two companies doing business in the Occupied Territories.

It failed. AIPAC, which claimed that it would take over our college compuses and nullify the original vote to divest from these companies, won. What are we coming to?

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/berkeley-student-body-sustains-veto-of-divestment-measure.html

 

by MainStreet 2010-04-29 11:14AM | 0 recs
RE: Just to reinforce Avnery's remarks...

An interesting comment on the failed divestment vote:

sherbrsi April 29, 2010 at 2:03 pm

http://www.dailycal.org/article/108783/asuc_president_smelko_vetoes_divestment_bill

“While the ASUC as a body has stated convincingly that it does not want ASUC and UC dollars going to fund weapons, war crimes, or human rights violations, this veto has to do with the mechanism by which the ASUC achieves its mission of building peace and goodwill in a way that avoids the shortcomings of the bill (such as a) … selective, one-sided focus on a specific country that lacks important historical context and understanding,” Smelko said in the statement.

He said in the statement there were significant differences between the bill and a similar resolution approved by the senate in the 1980s that called for the university to divest from apartheid-era South Africa.

“The analogy itself is highly contested, (and) the divestment strategies employed against the apartheid government were not introduced and agreed upon after mere hours of discussion, but involved lengthy and serious deliberation and analysis."

This guy has got to be kidding. Only AIPAC contests the analogy, along with a group of right wing religious nationalists. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been with us for over 60 years and the data confirming "war crimes or human rights violations" has been evident for decades.

Did this guy really qualified to attend UC Berkeley? We will be back, soon.

 

by MainStreet 2010-04-29 05:26PM | 0 recs
The title of this diary was: "Comments on Zionist control of American foreign policy"

Now that AIPAC has entered the arena of higher learning in America, does anyone doubt its validity?

 

by MainStreet 2010-04-29 05:28PM | 0 recs
Was Avnery right or was Avnery right?

This news from Israel today.

US in Middle East peace U-turn

"The Palestinians are accusing Washington of killing all hope of reviving the peace process with the Israelis. It comes after Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, signalled a U-turn on settlement building. During a visit to Jerusalem, she told the Palestinians that the issue is not now a precondition for negotiations."

Read for yourselves, with video.

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 10:32AM | 0 recs
RE: Was Avnery right or was Avnery right?

Here's the link: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2009/11/2009111211336270941.html

Enjoy!

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 10:33AM | 0 recs
RE: Was Avnery right or was Avnery right?

Here's the link: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2009/11/2009111211336270941.html

Enjoy!

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 10:33AM | 0 recs
The Likud Charter is now the determining factor in US foreign policy.

Israel will continue building and expanding settlements until there is just simply no room for a Palestine.

The main question here is: will the Palestinian people cease to exist? That's really doubtful. Look for more killings and massacres as they seek their place in history. Jeff Halper was right in hoping that the Israelis will not just decimate the Palestinians, as they tried to do in Gaza, Dec 2008.

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 10:38AM | 0 recs
Henry Siegman pulls no punches.
AIPAC would marry apartheid

by Philip Weiss

April 29, 2010

Henry Siegman, at Foreign Policy, imagines the inevitable result of the current policies in Israel that Obama has done little to buck-- apartheid-- and wonders what a president would do then:

Most of the political parties that comprise Netanyahu's government, including Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu's Foreign Minister, and Shas, have left no doubt that if forced to choose between democracy and the state's Jewish identity, they would opt without the slightest hesitation to end Israel's democracy.

What exactly would an American president do when confronted with such a new reality, which undoubtedly would again produce a spate of full-page advertisements and AIPAC resolutions in the U.S. Congress stressing the Jewish people's biblical attachment to the land and demanding that we stand by our traditional ally? How would a less than forthright U.S. response to such a situation play in the rest of the world? Isn't it in America's national interest-not to speak of the interests of the State of Israel and its people and of the Palestinian people-for an American president to exert every effort to prevent such a likely deterioration that would force our policymakers to make the most agonizing and fateful decisions?

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 02:57PM | 0 recs
RE: Henry Siegman pulls no punches.

Would Obama be placed in a position that he would have to condone Apartheid? That's the question Siegman is really asking.

Read here: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/aipac-would-marry-apartheid.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feedburner%2FWDBc+%28Mondoweiss%29

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 02:58PM | 0 recs
How many times have we heard this phrase in a BBC article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

"The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this."

The idea to call them disputed territories came from the Republican pollster and consultant for the Israel Project, Frank Luntz. In his propaganda recommendations, he said don't call them "illegal" (which according to international law they are), call them "disputed territories."

And the Israel-biased BBC never mentions its source.

by MainStreet 2010-04-30 06:03PM | 0 recs
you think the BBC is "Israel-biased?"

you're a fucking retard.

by Lakrosse 2010-04-30 06:23PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads