Can't smell Israel
Argue With Everyone
16 Settembre 2009
On September 24th, U.S. President Barack Obama will preside over a U.N.
Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
In March 2010, Moscow will host a Global Nuclear Summit that the U.S.
has agreed to attend.
The next six months could prove hopeful or harmful-depending on the
impact on Israel's nuclear arsenal. With U.S. backing, Tel Aviv has
thus far avoided compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty-joining North Korea, India and Pakistan.
President John F. Kennedy tried to stop Israel from starting a nuclear
arms race in the Middle East. In a June 1963 letter to Prime Minister
David Ben-Gurion, he insisted on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that
Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor
facility. Though his letter was cabled to the U.S. embassy, Ben-Gurion
resigned (citing undisclosed personal reasons) before the message could
be physically delivered.
With Israel's nuclear ambitions under attack by its key ally, that
strategically well-timed resignation duped an inexperienced young
president and denied him a diplomatic victory that might well have
precluded the wars now being waged in the Middle East.
With Ben-Gurion's resignation, JFK was left without an Israeli
government with which he could negotiate. By the time a new government
was formed, the Kennedy threat had been eliminated and Tel Aviv could
start haggling from scratch with successor Lyndon Johnson who was far
more sympathetic to the goals of the Zionist state.
That strategy resurfaced in the recent resignation of Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert just as the Road Map gained traction and the threat of
peace loomed on the horizon. Olmert's successor, Benjamin Netanyahu,
then used the terms of the Road Map as a bargaining chip to start
haggling-with an inexperienced young president-over sanctions against
Iran.
Democrat Lyndon Johnson proved himself a reliably pliant pro-Israeli
president as did his successor, Republican Richard Nixon. Described by
Prime Minister Golda Meir as "the best friend Israel ever had," Nixon
agreed in 1969 to endorse "constructive ambiguity" as a means for Tel
Aviv to obscure its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile Colonial Zionists
brandished the threat of that arsenal to seize land they sought for
Greater Israel.
Israeli incursions provoked the reactions one would expect, enabling
Tel Aviv to portray itself as a hapless victim in need of U.S. support
in a hostile and anti-Semitic neighborhood. Four years after Kennedy
wrote to Ben-Gurion, Israel mounted a massive six-day assault on
neighboring nations, occupying lands that remain at the heart of the
hostilities against which Tel Aviv insists it needs nuclear weapons to
defend itself.
With the war in Iraq poised to expand to Iran, the next six months
offer a rare opportunity to revisit not only Israel's nuclear arsenal
but also-in light of the consistency of its behavior over six
decades-the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise.
Managing the Threat to Zionism: JFK, RFK and Fulbright
In 1962, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, convened hearings to ensure that the American
Zionist Council-funded by the Jewish Agency-register as the agent of a
foreign government. JFK was then president and brother Robert his
attorney general. Edward ("Ted") Kennedy was elected to the Senate that
year to fill his brother Jack's seat. In October 1963, the Department
of Justice-led by Robert Kennedy-demanded that the Council register as
a foreign agent.
Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas
Katzenbach succeeded RFK as Attorney General for Lyndon Johnson. To
avoid registration, the Zionist Council morphed into the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That umbrella
organization-still disguised as a domestic lobby-continues to
coordinate the efforts of dozens of organizations that sustain a U.S.
policy environment favorable to a foreign nation.
The Kennedy brothers shared a little-known insight into the confidence
with which Israel wields political influence across party lines. In the
closing weeks of his 1960 presidential campaign, candidate Kennedy
traveled to New York to seek financial support from Jewish business
leaders. On his return to Washington, he called his old friend Charlie
Bartlett who had introduced Jack to Jackie.
According to Bartlett, Kennedy was livid after those he met in
Manhattan assured him that the funds he sought were available but only
if he turned over to them the formulation of U.S. policy in the Middle
East. With brother "Bobby" his chief campaign strategist, that
experience doubtless came to mind when, in 1963, JFK confirmed that
Israel-while portraying itself a U.S. ally-repeatedly lied to him about
its development of nuclear weapons.
Israel vs. the Kennedys
At the height an unpopular war in Vietnam, Robert Kennedy emerged to
challenge the policies of the Texan who replaced his brother as
president in 1963. No one knows for sure that, as president, RFK would
have followed JFK's stance on the Zionist state's nuclear arsenal. Nor
do we know for certain that he would have renewed his insistence that
the Israel lobby register as the agent of a foreign government.
When a second Kennedy threat was eliminated with an assassination in
June 1968, Tel Aviv welcomed to the White House Richard Nixon who
supported Israel's strategically essential "ambiguous" policy on
nuclear arms. Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell was a partner in the
same New York law firm (Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander) that
Nixon joined in 1963 after his failed bids as president, losing to JFK
in 1960, and as governor of California two years later. In honor of
Nixon's arrival, the dominantly Jewish firm was renamed Nixon, Mudge,
Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.
In 1973, five years after RFK's death, Senator Fulbright could announce
with confidence that "Israel controls the U.S. Senate." By 1974, he was
replaced in the Senate. Journalist Helen Thomas was then covering
Nixon, one of ten presidents in her lengthy career as White House
correspondent. In Obama's first press conference, she sought to clarify
the ambiguity about just who posed a nuclear threat in the region. Her
question for this latest Commander in Chief: which nation in the Middle
East has nuclear weapons?
In response, Chicagoan Barack Obama did the "Tel Aviv Two-Step." Rather
than answer the question, he spoke about the need for nuclear
nonproliferation and disarmament. Not since then has Thomas been
allowed to ask another question. Instead she was subjected to a
withering barrage of personal attacks by pro-Zionist broadcasters who
sought to make it appear that she-not the answer to her question-is the
problem.
At every opportunity, Tel Aviv insists that Tehran's nuclear energy
program poses an "existential threat." That claim is correct though not
for the reason that the Israel lobby would have Americans believe. If
Israel cannot persuade the U.S. to join (or condone) an attack on Iran,
some faint semblance of stability may yet be attained in the Middle
East. With stability will come an opportunity to confirm the common
source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq
in response to the mass murder of 911.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly,
the stable nation state intelligence to mount such a deception inside
the U.S. As that fact becomes apparent, an informed American public
will insist that its leadership revisit the legitimacy of the Zionist
enterprise along with the costs that this "special relationship" has
imposed on the U.S. in blood, treasure and hard-earned credibility.
Israel is the Real Threat to Israel
The existential threat to Israel is real but its source is not Iran.
The real threat is the facts that Tel Aviv may again obscure if it
succeeds in provoking yet another crisis in the region. Those facts
confirm the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise as a nation state.
The threat to Barack Obama could become existential should he act consistent with his oath of office. As yet he has shown no inclination to address the perils that this entangled alliance with Jewish extremists imposes on U.S. national security and on the prospects for peace.
As the source of the duplicity that induced the U.S. to war becomes known, Americans will insist on accountability. Zionist fanatics may choose another course. A modern-day Masada is a nuclear possibility. With their vast arsenal (estimates range from 200 to 400 warheads), these religious extremists could preempt accountability by creating chaos worldwide while affixing blame on "Islamo" fascists in an attempt to keep their victim status plausibly intact.
To eliminate the existential threat posed by nuclear-armed religious extremists requires that the U.S.-as Israel's key ally-isolate the Zionist enterprise, withdraw its recognition as a legitimate state and reclassify its advocates as foreign agents. That long overdue change in the legal status of the Israel lobby-first sought in 1962-will enable U.S. law enforcement to pursue its operatives for giving aid and comfort to an enemy within.
The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Those who seek peace in the region must boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and insist on sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others. Anything less will ensure that Zionist extremists continue to endanger us all.
*Jeff Gates: A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt By Association-How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. For two decades, an adviser to policy-makers worldwide. Counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980-87)
By Jeff Gates
Source > Argue Wit h Everyone | sept 14