portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

actions & protests | media criticism

WHO obeyed the "Israeli Lobby?"

The Bush Administration, Congress and Major "News" Media OBEYED the ISRAELI LOBBY'S demand to smash and occupy Iraq (to benefit and protect Israel). The obedient media parroted lies about Iraq - and are again parroting similar lies to falsely "justify" smashing Iran.

Answer: Our President Most in Congress (frightened members in BOTH parties) And especially the opinion molding MAJOR MEDIA, owned or dominated by the influential Israeli Lobby's members!

The major media's editors and "journalists" (to keep their jobs), obediently parroted lies about Iraq's threatening (but non-existant) weapons. Those lies and additional lies were invented by Bush Administration spokesmen (and Israeli Lobby propagandists) and used to falsely "justify" attacking Iraq by terrifying Americans into believing Irag was an imminent threat. America's major media are again parroting similar lies about Iran, attempting to "justify" another war.

The same obedient major media (including too-many obedient "talk radio" hosts), using the tactic of near total NATIONAL SILENCE, are presently suppressing public awareness of "THE ISRAEL LOBBY" report by 2 respected Harvard and University of Chicago Professors, who have detailed the "Lobby's" ENORMOUS power throughout America. Through America's obedient major media, the powerful "Lobby" largely decides what the public will see and hear - or NOT see and NOT hear.

Everyone dedicated to America, needs to read "The Israel Lobby" report - because the powerful Lobby's influential members are primarily dedicated to advancing and protecting THEIR "cherished" State of Israel, not America!

Apparently unconcerned that Americans - and millions of innocent Iraqis and Iranians - may die in another of Bush's unilaterally-decided Wars of Terror on Israel's Muslim neighbors, the Lobby's influential members are insanely demanding America's military immediately smash IRAN (even using nukes). And afterward, smash SYRIA and other Muslim neighbors perceived as possible future "threats" to the State of Israel by its paranoid Zionist regime!

Will Bush and Congress obey the Israeli Lobby's demand for MORE contrived middle east wars (to benefit Israel)? Will we allow obedient Bush and obedient Congress to sacrifice more tens of thousands of patriotic, but deceived, young Americans - who will unknowingly be a PROXY army serving to protect the State of Israel?

The Lobby and obedient media also hope most Americans remain unaware that tiny "defenceless" Israel has an estimated 400 nuclear warheads, 3rd or 4th largest stockpile in the entire world! Using their aircraft, missiles and submarines, Israel's military is capable of incinerating all their Muslim neighbors IN MINUTES! That is NOT a threat to world peace?

By John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
London Review of Books
March 23, 2006 (Bold face emphasis added)
Short excerpts only...
Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?
... the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'.
Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from 'targeted assassinations' of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called 'a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers'. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also 'conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally'.
The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will.
The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the 'smart' choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.
A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. ...Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: 'My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.' One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel's interests.
The Lobby's perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is 'dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel'. ... It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.
You may also be interested in the following, from the very FEW published articles that comment on (or relate to) the above Walt and Mearsheimer "ISRAEL LOBBY" report....
 http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2006/04/06/200604060031.asp April 11, 2006
Excerpt only...
PARIS - London's Financial Times performed an American public service in its weekend edition, calling editorially for open and honest discussion of the influence of Israel on American foreign policy.
AMERICA'S ISRAELI LOBBY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH :: How Israel's Lobby won & intimidated the West for Israel ::
April 3, 2006 (Revealiing quotes from famous American military officers, Secretaries of State, Diplomats, Senators, Congressmen, Authors, etc. - and prominent Israeli Jews.)
Excerpt only...
"America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power."
-- Uri Avnery, "The Night Before", April 10, 2003, Counterpunch - Uri Avnery is a journalist, former publisher, served 3 times in Israel's Knesset (Parliament), served In the Israeli Army Commando Unit (twice wounded), Peace Activist: For speaking out for Peace and against Israel's Occupation, Mr. Avnery received a death threat from the leader of the "Jewish National Front", Baruch Marzel, who called upon the Israeli army to kill Uri Avnery (Ha'aretz March 21, 2006 and in Maariv) [4]
(Respected, life-long Conservative Editor and King Features Syndicated Columnist)
April 1, 2006
Excerpt only...
The first weapon of choice for the Israeli lobby when someone with prestige publishes a soundly researched paper or book critical of Israel or its powerful lobby is silence. If it's a book, it rarely gets reviewed; its author doesn't get interviewed. If it's a paper, there are no news stories in the big corporate press, no interviews with the authors, no television appearances.
By Ted Lang (Retired Government Official)
March 25, 2006
March 31, 2006
'Israel Lobby' Dean To Leave Post in June.
Reactions to the Israel Lobby Study
March 30, 2006
Excerpt only...
...according to the New York Jewish-American paper the Forward, the lobby decided to bury the study with silence.
The Forward Newspaper Online
March 24, 2006
 http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=512280 March 21, 2006
Excerpts only...
In a scathing attack on what they termed the "Israel Lobby," the Kennedy School's Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago's John J. Mearsheimer argued in a recent article that supporters of Israel have seized control of U.S. foreign policy, making it reflect Israel's interests more than those of the U.S.
In their piece, the authors savaged those on both the political Left and Right, calling groups as diverse as the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal editorial boards, and Sen. Hillary R. Clinton, D-N.Y., and World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz members of the "Israel Lobby."
THE LOBBY - Justin Raimondo
Why is American policy in the Middle East skewed in favor of Israel? March 20, 2006
Harvard study of Israeli lobby's influence costs the academic dean of the Kennedy School his job
March 31, 2006
 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=701583 March 4, 2006
(Philp Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission)
By Emad Mekay
Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source
March 23, 2006

Misses the point 21.Apr.2006 06:58


The Israeli lobby is powerful, but the main article about it and most others ignore US interests. The Middle East has been the focus of our foreign policy since the end of World War II. We don't need an Israeli lobby determining our policy there. In fact, we were doing just fine making things awful over there before we made Israel our mercenary state. Pointing out the lobby is important, but forgetting that the United States has interests over there that have nothing to do with Israel beyond making it a proxy state puts the cart in front of the horse.

not so fast... 21.Apr.2006 18:13


Read what Jeremy Blankfort has been saying lately in his critiques of Chomsky. Or read anything by Michael Neumann on Counterpunch (they're both Jews by the way, not that that represents any protection from "self-hate" accusations these days).

Neumann points out that the US position vis-a-vis Israel actually GOES AGAINST its own interests in the region. Notice afterall who has all the oil and who doesn't. So if US leaders were really looking out solely for US interests, why would they foolishly go around angering the very people who have what they want, and helping out people who don't have any of it??

There's something else at work here, that's for sure...

Disagree 21.Apr.2006 20:04


Have read Blankfort, and while this is somewhat irrelevant, disagree with his critique of Chomsky. Simply, he is wrong about how Chomsky talks about Israel and the Palestinians, particularly Chomsky's sympathies.

As to oil, we don't care about owning it. We care about controlling it. Those are two very different items as the latter--and this has been made clear in released documents, particularly those of John Foster Dulles--lets us decide what other countries will get. Israel serves as our mercenary state to help enforce such things; because far more important after the Shah fell.

Not sure about the point re angering people who have the oil. That is nothing new in history when it comes to resources. We certainly are not angering the Saudi royal family and are not trying to anger those who we want in charge in Iraq. And we loved Sadaam until he stopped obeying orders. But we don't and never have given a shit about the people. Pick your resource, it is always true.

Helping out people who don't have oil? Why do we care if they have oil regarding helping them? We care if they want oil. That is part of the problem for those in power regarding Venezuela these days. They can use their oil to make friends, and we cannot. That is why we would like to get Chavez out of power and install somebody friendly to our interests. That may or may not affect oil prices here--that's a matter of how much gets here and while obviously linked to oil nations, is not as important as controlling other countries' access.

Related to this is one aspect of going into Iraq was Sadaam threatening to make Euros the currency of exchange for oil. If that were to catch on, it would seriously devalue the dollar. In that respect, getting rid of Sadaam was in our interest, and to an extent the occupation still is. That may be why almost no leaders have come forward demanding complete withdrawal from Iraq. It is usually limited to bringing soldiers home and keeping/building the bases there.

Israel gets 6 billion dollars from us a year, seconded by Egypt (or at least this was true for a long time up until a few years ago--where is the Egyptian lobby?). I am not saying the Israeli lobby (and to be specific, the one that supports a violent, expansionist, and religious Israeli state) does not have influence, but it is the tail, and the dog wags it.

pattern recognition 22.Apr.2006 00:24

deuteronomy 7:6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Israel serves as our mercenary state to help enforce such things
[...] As to oil, we don't care about owning it. We care about controlling it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

a) Saddam didn't disobey orders:

and, b)
Oded Yinon's
"A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"
(w/notes by translator, Israel Shahak)


The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe.

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14--Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.

Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track.

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us.
Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities:
Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.
A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s