From http://snuffysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/unmasking-aipac-by-william-cook.html
"It Doesn't Get Any Worse Than That, Ray"
Unmasking
AIPAC
By William Cook
10/06/07 "Counterpunch"
-- -- -Ray Suarez (PBS News Hour Reporter, October 2, 2007): "You're
saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than
doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran
resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the
American-Israeli Political Action
Committee?"
Mike Gravel (Democratic Presidential
Candidate): "Wait a second. They'll (sic) be some information
coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes,
the short answer. ... This is what's at stake with this resolution.
And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United
States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of
this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray.".
In
asking his question, Ray Suarez implies that our Senators capitulated
to the desires of AIPAC, knowing their vote negated the expressed
will of the American people. Gravel, once a Senator from Alaska
during the Vietnam War period, answers unhesitatingly, "yes,"
the short answer is yes. The obvious follow-up question would appear
to be: "Why do you think that our Senators would vote against
the expressed wishes of their constituents in favor of a special
interest lobby?" It was never asked. Fortunately, Sy Hersh, in
an interview with Amy Goodman that same day, responded to a question
posed by Goodman, a question drawn from a Gravel criticism of Hillary
Clinton for having voted for this resolution. Goodman pointed to the
76 votes in favor, both Republican and Democrat, asking Hersh to
respond to Gravel's critique: "This is fantasy land,"
Gravel commented, "We're talking about ending the war.
My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a
vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq
resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a
fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to
congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it,
and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going
to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war
ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it."
Goodman's question is simple enough, why would
76 senators vote for such a resolution. Hersh's response: "Money.
A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not
kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many
leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an
existential threat. And I think it is as simple as that. ... That's
American politics circa 2007."
Gravel understands the
consequences of giving Cheney and Bush the freedom to attack Iran's
Republican Guard as a terrorist organization rather than as the
legally constituted military of the state existing to protect the
citizens of that state. They need no act of Congress to attack a
terrorist organization and, citing the Encarta encyclopedia
description of terrorism, "These violent acts are committed by
non-governmental groups or individuals that is by those who are
neither part of or officially serving in the military forces
...," they have defanged the definition of terrorism as it
cannot be applied to a nation state. Cheney and Bush are now free to
invade Iran to wipe out the terrorist organization harbored by that
country. Why pretend that an established arm of the government of
Iran is a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident?
Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have not
been able to convince the American people of the threat to the US
should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The Kyl-Lieberman
resolution gives this administration license to attack Iran using the
original resolution passed by the Congress for the invasion of
Afghanistan since Iran now harbors terrorists that threaten
America.
How serious is this possibility we might ask.
Newsweek carried an article in the October 1 issue about Israel's
"secret" raid on Syria. In it, Sam Gardiner, a former Air
Force Colonel, seen as an expert in simulation of military exercises,
makes this observation: "Even if Israel goes it alone (attacks
Iran's nuclear facilities), we will be blamed (the United States).
Hence we would see retaliation against U.S. interests." In
short, the United States is tied to Israel and its interests by an
umbilical cord that determines how and when we
go to war and with whom. Iran is Israel's primary nemesis as
well as its primary target. The "mysterious raid deep in Syria"
magnifies this point; only the media control created by "a
nearly impenetrable wall of silence around the operation" has
kept the American public from understanding the potential
consequences of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that passed October 2,
only a month after Israel's "raid." Should Syria have
responded to this unwarranted aggression by a missile or bomb attack
on Israel, the U.S. Congress would have been forced to determine how
to respond. With the Kyl-Lieberman resolution in place, only Bush has
to respond by citing the Iranian terrorist organization's ties to
Syria and especially to Hezbollah. A threat to Israel is a threat to
the U.S.
It is this reality that makes the
recent study by Mearsheimer and Walt so dangerous to the
Israeli lobbies, especially AIPAC. Indeed, they define AIPAC by
encompassing the multitude of Jewish lobbies under that umbrella
while adding in non-Jewish Neo-cons, Christian evangelicals of the
far right and other sympathizers.
Gravel's awareness of this
threat as expressed to PBS represents the rare
occurrence when the reality of our total support for Israel's
interests is aired in public. An objective consideration of
the "raid" of September 6, 2007 by the Israeli Air Force
against Syria as it would have been reported in the American press
had it been Syria attacking Israel would not have been headlined "The
Whispers of War." Indeed that report did not focus on Israel's
disregard for international law or its consequences, but rather on
how Israel can deliver nuclear or standard bombs as far as Iran. It
went further to turn this unprovoked operation to Israel's cause by
noting how that state's very existence is threatened by one atomic
bomb, thus presenting Israel as the potential victim not the
perpetrator of an action contrary to the United Nations' charter. Had
Syria attacked Israel, the explosiveness of such an unprovoked and
uncalled for attack against an innocent country would have made front
page headlines and the cover of all our news magazines. Yet Israel's
unprovoked and uncalled for attack on Syria is presented in U.S. News
as "Israel takes a swipe at Syria," hardly an item that
would make the American people aware that they were at risk for their
ally's illegal action against a neighbor. And as if that were not
enough, the significance of one nation bombing another without
provocation becomes only the 10% hike in Ehud Olmert's ratings as
opposed to the death and destruction caused by this illegal action
with an accompanying photo, not of the death and destruction, but of
Olmert giving blood for his countrymen. No outcry follows this
despicable behavior by the Teflon state not from the United
States, not from the United Nations, not from the EU, not from NATO.
Only silence.
Consider for example the consequences of Israel
using its United States' gifts of nuclear bunker buster bombs on
Syria or Iran, both possible scenarios as this "raid" ( the
name of an insect repellent) makes clear: "... huge amounts of
radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the
people of Iran and surrounding countries ... This fallout will induce
cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years
to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense
proportions,"(Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the
Answer.) No outcry, only silence. Why?
What does AIPAC's
control of our Congress mean for the American people? Arguably, that
influence propelled the U.S. into war against Iraq with its
inevitable consequences in death, destruction and debt leaving the
nation bereft of a resolution; it has solidified perception around
the world that Israel's defiance of the UN resolutions demanding that
it obey international law regarding right of return for Palestinians
and return of occupied territory is not just condoned by the U.S. but
is the policy of the U.S., making the United States a co-partner in
international crime; it has made Israel's illegal treatment of the
Palestinians in its indiscriminate killing of children and women, in
its use of extrajudicial assassination, in its imprisonment of a
whole people resulting in extreme poverty, malnutrition, and disease,
in its total control of the lives of these people who have no
recourse to overcome the occupation since they have no means to do
so, practices condoned by the United States, and turned the U.S. from
a compassionate and morally responsible nation to one that is amoral
and hypocritical; and, in absolute despair, it has placed America on
the thresh hold of one more devastating war against a people that has
done nothing against the United States, has not occupied another
nations's territory, has not invaded another nation, and has signed
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, all actions that are
diametrically opposed to those of our client state, Israel. Such is
the sell out by our representatives of their constituents as they
grovel, unlike Mike Gravel, before the insidious lobby that controls
our fate. No outcry, only silence. Why?
Ultimately the
question comes back to why those 76 senators voted for a resolution
that "wipes the desires of the American people off the map,"
to borrow an intentionally falsified and reiterated translation of
the Iranian President's message to his people. But those 76 are not
alone. Virtually everyone of our representatives are subservient to
the same lobbies, passing on average 100 resolutions per year
favorable to Israel and written by the lobbyists, obsequiously
fawning before AIPAC's annual meeting where its very existence is
touted as of "significant benefit for both the United States and
Israel," and where no one dares to question or criticize the
state of Israel lest they suffer the fate of those who have, and lose
their seats in Congress. This one might argue is coercion. Can it be
documented? One need only research the congressional and senate races
that put Paul Findley, Cynthia McKenny, Charles Percy and the few
other renegades that dared to be critical of Israel out of their
positions. "The handful of members of
Congress who have been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have
been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap or, worse, lost
their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents" (NewsMax.com, May 1,
2006. "Israel the Third Rail of American Foreign Policy,"
Arnaud de Borchgrava, Editor at large of the Washington
Times).
Interestingly, the United States defines
terrorism (18 USC 2331) as "violent acts or acts dangerous to
human life that ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce
a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government
by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by assassination or kidnaping." Could one not make a
case that our Congress in its total support for Israeli policies
regardless of their negative impact on the country and its disregard
for the expressed desires of its citizens as the Kyl-Lieberman
resolution demonstrates is "influenced" by "intimidation
and coercion" by these lobbies? Add to this reality the
influence they wield in our media where they limit the perception of
the public to the lies and mythologies they present that justifies
the actions of the Israeli state, and the pervasiveness of the
lobbies prevents the American people from controlling their own
destinies. Does that not make them terrorists residing on K street in
our nation's capitol?
Isn't it obvious today that the
direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost
certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of
Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the
disastrous war against Iraq -- Podhoretz,
Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer, Abrams and others
too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt
in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they
wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their
computers guiding to their deaths those they never met.
The
Hounds of War are gathered round
To forge the battle plan,
They
pat each other on the back,
And grasp their fellow's hand.
To
battle stations they disperse
To carry on the fray,
These
warriors of the word sublime
That makes us weep or pray.
They
swing behind the keyboard now
That spits out their deceit;
Their
goal, the end they desire,
That makes their life complete.
These
victors suffer no regrets
As they pen brilliant epithets,
And
so they ply their lonely craft,
And carve another's
epitaph.
William Cook is a professor of English at the
University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking
Depception: Bush's Mideast Policy. He can be reached at:
cookb@ULV.EDU