Discuss INU FORUM !
Un cheveu sépare le faux du vrai. Omar Khayyam
A quoi peuvent donc servir les académies? A entretenir le feu que les grands génies ont allumé. Voltaire
Il importe à l'homme supérieur que ses capacités ne soient pas limitées. Il lui importe peu qu'elles ne soient pas reconnues. Confucius
Since all human life is of undetermined but limited duration, very different lifestyles may be regarded as rational and valid. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations
The only objective (behavioral) measure of collective happiness is the diminution of the suicide rate. INU
A classic published by INU Press
GLOBAL COMMUNICATION WITHOUT UNIVERSAL
The Interuniversity Institute (INU) is an entirely independent, non-governmental institution founded in 1980. As the Founding Act states, it promotes the collaboration of academics with diverse backgrounds and affiliations in the field of human sciences adhering to principles of strict scientific standards.
Current main project: Global Communication without Universal Civilization
INU endeavors to steadily enlarge the circle of people from different continents and civilizations who cooperate to realize the two major aims:
1) Freeing the human sciences from any Western-centered or other authoritarian arguments and sophism by researching and applying universally acceptable principles and methods, as it is the case in other sciences. Accordingly, the INU promotes research especially in those areas, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms and inductive proofs. The objectives and approaches are detailed in the Founding act.
2) Contributing to the construction of a truly universal world civilization by systematic appreciation of approaches and accumulated knowledge emanating from the different living civilizations. (See Current main project.)
The field of activities includes - besides research - conference organization, lectures, documentation and publication (INU Press).
Indeed, the INU elaborates concepts and ideas, brings to light facts as well as proposes action. Although INU combats undisciplined thinking and the proliferation of information parading under the pseudonym of science, this self-imposed discipline in the creation and discovery of knowledge doesn't lead to a "weltfremd" mentality but implies a responsible approach to the solving of practical problems as perceived by individuals and communities. It also remains open to the discussion of any new ideas or findings with any group or individual independent of social status or prestige. This openmindedness, eliminating all considerations extraneous to its creative work, determines the INU's approach and spirit. The INU develops its own research program having its own priorities, disseminating the results for a broader audience, but it also serves as a clearing house for the communication of knowledge coming from others. The INU is a type of non-governmental cooperative university bringing together motivated people, a creative circle held together not by egotism but by common interests. It definitely doesn't try to perpetuate such traditional institutions as credentials and recommendations, affiliated or not, student or professor, full or associate, etc. Indeed, within the INU, dialogue is determined exclusively by complementarity and community of interest and knowledge. The INU is fundamentally against any form of self-complacency and fashionability.
Why and how to cooperate with INU?
As noted, the INU is open to the suggestions and arguments of groups and individuals from different cultural backgrounds without hierarchical considerations. It encourages, assists, and coordinates the work of individuals and groups following rigorous epistemological criteria.
In conformity with its goals the INU disseminates verified research results as well as verifiable ideas through its publications by INUPress and other modern non-conventional means - so far as these techniques are appropriate to channel scientific knowledge and do not serve as vehicles for undisciplined reflection however attractive the presentation might be.
The INU is not guided by other values than sound scholarship and scientific probity.
You can make commentaries by any of the above mentioned electronic or other means of communication. The INU replies to all inquiries.
For practical and financial reasons INUForum's "lingua franca" is English; however, as far as possible, any contributions or letters written in any other of the 6 languages of the U.N. - Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish - as well as in German - will be considered.
Feedback welcome: INU@INUGE.ch.
- Dirk Pereboom:
Logique et Logistique. Une initiation. 2nd enlarged edition.
Apprentissage pratique des bases de la logique et de la logistique, en 233 pages assorties de nombreux exercices et leur solution.
- Guy Ankerl: Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa. Facts, Societal Problems, and Policy. ISBN 2-88155-000-2
- Théopiste Butare: Secteurs traditionnel et moderne dans un processus de développement. ISBN 2-88155-003-7
- Guy Ankerl: Global Communication without Universal Civilization
Book one: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations
(Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western)
2000. XXIX+501 pp.
ISBN 2-88155-004-5 ISBN in Bookland/EAN 978 288 155 004 1.
$40 or 60 Swiss Francs.
Orders may be placed through your local bookseller or addressed directly to INU PRESS
1. case postale: 5044, CH-1211 Genève-11,
2. fax 041-22-7341718 or by
3. e-mail: INU@INUGE.CH
4. site: www.inuge.ch , or
5. via: Amazon.com.
All orders must be prepaid by the following means:
money order to PostFinance : IBAN CH05 0900 0000 1202 5493 3
I. Communication and Civilizations 1
The Problem, Approaches, Methods and Presentation
II. Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, Western Civilizations 49
Their Axial Institution and the Three Building-Blocks
(Shared Scripture of each one, Genetic Variation of
Breeding Communities and Collective Self-Preservation)
III. The West as a Particular Civilization 119
The Identity of the Western Civilization; its Parts;
Afro-Brazil Amalgam and the Anglo-American "Melting-
IV. Globalism 245
The Globe as Anglo-American Sphere of Influence
V. The Federative Agenda 339
From Hegemonic "Salvation of the Third World" to Co-
operation among Civilization-States
- Name Index with Bibliographical Reference
- Subject Index with Conceptual Cross-References
In preparation book two: A WORLD CIVILIZATION BY FEDERATION OF CIVILIZATION-STATES
This unorthodox penetrating study exercises a fundamental criticism on the bipolarizing approach of the Western social sciences and politics.
The "civilized West" should accept that there are not
only major past civilizations but more than just one living
civilization with which - at least in the foreseeable future - the
West should coexist, as well as each one with each other.
Identifying these living civilizations and the problems caused mainly by the Western pretense of being a universal civilization is the main concern of this work.
This first volume outlines the Arabo-Muslim, Chinese, Indian and Western civilizations according to their own anthropological, material and scriptural building-blocks. Because - beyond the present Western "civilization of business" - every other civilization ranks these 3 fundamentals differently and practices a different scale of values, each also has a distinct axial institution.
Within the Western world the interplay of the Anglo-American core, the Latin-Catholic periphery and the Diaspora is treated and contrasted with the Chinese and Indian civilization-states as well as with the countries of the Arabo-Muslim civilization brought together in the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).
In relation to the Western-inspired tendency toward globalism projected by a New-York-type cultural pattern and melting pot, the Brazilian model is also discussed as a more attractive one for the integration of the African civilization complexes.
The last, concluding part of the book introduces the second book. It proceeds with the falsification of the Manichean formula of the Western mind set which divides the world into East-West, North-South or more precisely into West and Non-West; consequently it looks for a valid replacement of so-called West-Third World dialogue by a round table of civilizations. Therefore the second book will design the passage from an unauthentic duologue to a worldwide dialogue based on civilizational pluralism.
Subject index with conceptual cross-references *
Guy C. ANKERL’S PUBLICATIONS
- Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INU Societal Research Series. Geneva: INU Press, 2000. 530 pp.
Epistemological Enlightenment Centre, Khartoum 3.2007
Theology in Global Context by Neville.R.C. p.56, 2004
Xuehai, Hawai 1.2003
Etudes Internationales, 2002
British Journal of Middle East Studies,1.5 2002
Journal of Economic Literature, 2001
Amazon. Com., 2001
ACHA Bulletin, Sept. 5,2001
Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa: Facts, Social Problems, and Policy.
INU Societal Research Series. Geneva: INU Press, 1986. 117 pp.
Salvatore, Dominique: African Development Prospects: A Policy Modelling Approach , p.70, 1989
The Rotarian. 5.1989
Labour, Capital and Society,1988
Contemporary Sociology, 1988
Africa News, 1988
African Urban Quarterly, 1988
The Black Scholar, 1988
Population and Development Review, 1988
The Third World Reports, 1988
Journal of Economic Literature, 1988
Population Index, 1988
Labour, Capital and Society, 1986
Budapest Reriews of Boooks,1.1992
Experimental Sociology of Architecture: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Literature. Studies in the Social Sciences Nr 36. New York – Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1981. 564 pp. ( Paperback edition1983).
Symbolic Interaction 123-55, 2.2006
Croome, Derek J. et al: Creating the Productive Workplace, p.66, 1999
McGuire, W.: Constructing Social Psychology: Creative and Critical Aspects. p.105,1999
Vliet, van Willem (ed.): The Encyclopaedia of Housing. p.3,32,150, 1998
Fletcher, R et al: The Limits of Settlement Growth. New Studies in Archaeology. p.151, 1995
Sterling, Raymond L.: Underground Space Design.1993
Theory, Culture and Society,195-201, 8.1991
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1985
Contemporary Sociology, 1985
Environment and Behavior, 641-3. 1985
Canadian Journal of Sociology,476-9, 1984
Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, 1984
Sage Urban Studies, 1984
Architectural Science Review, 1983
International Journal of Psychology, 1983
Magyar Epitömüvész, 1983
Design Book Review, 88-89, 1983
Review Journal of Social Science, 1982
Towards a Social Contract on a Worldwide Scale. ILO Research Series Nr 47. Geneva: ILO, 1980. 50 pp.
World Development, 1983
Social Forces 1033, 1978
B. Burchell et al.: Job Insecurity & Work Intensification. P. 125. 2001
Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaften, 1990
Political Theory pp.121-4. 2.1981
Sociologie Economique, 1979
Journal of Economic Literature, 1978
The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of society based on contracts between equals.
International Journal of Human Rights. London, sept. 2011, 14-36.
Protection by Persuasion.
Contemporary Sociology. Washington D.C., 6.2010
Contemporary Sociology. Washington D.C., 3.2009.
Stages of Globalization: Priority for Co-operation among Civilization-states instead of New York-type Global Mixing of Individuals by Migration (Dialogue among spheres of civilizations – the Key to safe future)
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of Global Awareness Society International. Bloomsburg University, 11.2005
Business and Civilizations: The Basic Issues.
The Social Science Journal. Greenwich, CT., 1.1997. Pp. 1-5.
Post-modern Spaces and Cities.
Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 7.1996. Pp. 517-518.
Tolerance: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations.
Democracy and Tolerance. Paris UNESCO, 1995. Pp. 59-78.
The Relative Social Coherence or Connectedness in Europe given by a Preference Indicator of Telecommunication (With Dirk Pereboom).
Communications & Strategies. Montpellier, 1.1995. Pp. 117-130. and Cahiers de sociologie économique et culturelle. Univerité du Havre, 23. 6.1995, 123-134 l.
The Native Right to Speak Hungarian in the Carpathian Basin.
The Hungarian Quarterly. Budapest, 1.1994. Pp. 7-23.
Theses on Migration, on Society Mixed with Natives and Immigrants and on Relation between Societies of Different Civilizations.
Europa-Ethnica.Vienna, 2.1994. Pp. 70-73.
Mother Tongue and Others: The Use of One’s Mother Tongue in a Mixed Society.
Family, Child, Youth. Budapest, 3.1994. Pp. 11-15.
New Orientation for the “Contemporary Sociology”.
ASA Footnotes. Washington, D.C., 3.1994. P. 4.
Computers in African Development. (rev.)
Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 4.1993. Pp. 613-614.
Urbanization Overspeed Reconsidered.
Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 1988. Pp. 727-728.
World Urbanization in Global Perspective. (rev.)
Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 5.1987. Pp. 478-479.
Experimental Sociology of Architecture, no more and no less: A Comment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. New-York, 1986. Pp. 86-87.
Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 2.1985. Pp.150-152.
Traditional Construction and the Immediate Improvement of Tropical Africa’s Housing Conditions in the Urban Sprawls.
Actes de l’Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Brussels, 1984. Pp. 77-99.
Rapid Urbanization in the Third World, with Special Reference to Tropical Africa.
Labour and Society. Geneva ILO, 3.1983. Pp. 277-288.
Politics and Science.
Science. Washington, D.C., 1983. P. 604.
An Antibibliography of Book Titles Listed in Well-known Special Bibliographies and Review Journals: A Research in Applied Epistemology. INUForum. Geneva, 1983. Pp. 1-26.
What Makes the Present Economic Trend Critical and the Economic Policy Open to Criticism in the OECD-Countries? INUForum. Geneva, 1982. Pp. 1-7.
Migration from Rural to Urban Habitat in Tropical Africa.
Mondes en Développement. Paris, 1982. Pp. 511-533.
Scientific Methods in Ethology (With Dirk Pereboom).
Science. Washington, D.C., 1974. Pp. 814-815.
From Intuitive to Formal Book Critique: A Semiotic Approach.
Heuristics. Chicago, 1.1972. Pp. 35-43
Epistemometrics: A Case Study of a Sociological Work.
Computers and Humanities. New-York, 1970. P. 1257.
Criteria for Ensuring Every Child’s Right to the National Welfare by means of the Family Allowance.
World Justive . Louvain, 1964. Pp. 435-451.
EN FRANCAIS :
- Urbanisation rapide en Afrique Tropicale : Faits, conséquences et politiques sociétales. Paris-Abidjan-Dakar-Lomé: Berger-Levrault & Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines, 1987. 180 p.
COMPTES RENDUS :
Population Index, 1988
Jouve, E. :Le Tiers monde. Que sais-je ? pp. 77 et 122, 1988
Afrique Contemporaine, 1987
- Sociologues allemands : Etudes de cas en sociologie historique et non-historique avec le dictionnaire analytique de « L’éthique protestante et l’esprit du capitalisme » de Max Weber. Coll. Langages. Neuchâtel-Paris: La Baconnière-Payot, 1972. 316 p.
COMPTES RENDUS :
Contemporary Sociology, 1976
Gazette Littéraire, 1975
Gazette Littéraire, 1974
Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions, 1973
- Communauté et Société : l’âge écologique et l’âge économique. Carnet bleu. Montréal : Les Presses Universitaires, 1970. 50 p.
- Concept de l’investissement humain comme aspect de la politique de répartition. (Thèse de doctorat). Ed. élargie : L’épanouissement de l’homme dans les perspectives de la politique économique. Coll. Internationale des Sciences Sociales et Politiques. Paris-Köln: Sirey-Westdeutscher Verlag, 1965. 266 p.
COMPTES RENDUS :
Schmollers Jahrbuch, 1969
Revue d’Economie Politique, 1968
La Pensée, 1968
Revue Française de Science Politique, 1968
Année Sociologique, 1967
Revue Economique, 1967
Les Etudes Sociales, 1967
Statistical Review, 1967
Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 1967
Neues Europa, 1967
The Economic Review, 1966
Revue Internationale du Travail, BIT, 1966
Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 1966
Justice dans le monde, 1966
Archives Diplomatiques et Consulaires, 1966
Europäische Begegnung, 1966
Gazette Littéraire, 1966
Bibliographie de Philosophie, 1966
La coexistence des sphères de civilisations. De l’Etat-nation à l’Etat-civilisation.
(Essai de révision conceptuelle)
Mélanges Edmond Jouve. Paris, 2006.
Urbanisation mondiale: Un essai de synthèse des aspects démographiques, politiques, économiques et ethno-civilisationnels.
Cahiers de sociologie économique et culturelle. Le Havre, 12.1990. Pp. 97-130.
Quelques données linguistiques sur la population indienne de l’Amérique ibéro-indienne.
Correo del Sur. Lausanne, 3.1990. Pp. 29-39
Développement occidental, progrès sociétal et solidarité politique pour un pluralisme civilisationnel.
Mélanges. Paris, Berger-Levrault, 1988. Pp. 223-240.
Sururbanisation dans le tiers-monde ? Urbanisation rapide, problèmes et solutions.
Futuribles. Paris, 1.1984. Pp. 25-64.
Rapide urbanisation dans le tiers monde et plus particulièrement en Afrique tropicale. Répercussions sociales et perspectives.
Travail et Société, juillet 1983, 299-310 l.
Sociologie de l’espace, thème de l’architecture : Méthodes et concepts objectifs dans les récentes recherches américaines.
Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité. Paris, 12.1973. Pp. 37-40.
L’environnement total et ses architectes.
Architecture Concept. Montréal, 1.1971. Pp. 24-26.
Face au synchronocentrisme, la sociologie est-elle l’histoire immédiate de l’ère audio-visuelle ?
European Journal of Methodology: Quality and Quantity. Bologne, 9.1971. Pp. 209-223.
Pourquoi et comment la répartition communiste est-elle dissociable de l’abondance et de la gratuité générale?
France Nouvelle. Paris, 10.1969. P. 5.
Les critères pour l’assurance des droits de chaque enfant au bien-être national par l’allocation familiale. (Mémoire de doctorat).
Justice dans le Monde. Louvain, 4.1964. Pp. 439-456.
De l’Etat-nation à l’Etat-civilisation.
La Tribune. Genève, 6.6.2001.
L’unité des régions européennes n’est pas pour demain.
La Tribune. Genève, 4.3.1996.
Une Europe des cantons.
La Suisse. Genève, 17.12.1992.
Et si l’on sortait du schéma gauche-droite?
Journal de Genève. 20.6.1988.
Mythes et réalités.
Fraternité Matin, Abidjan, 26.3.1982, 22-23 l.
La Liberté. Fribourg, 4.10.1957.
Que veut la nouvelle génération ?
La Liberté. Fribourg, 6.9.1957.
Die besondere Bedeutung des Kinderzulagensystem für die persönliche Einkommensverteilungspolitik.
Sozialer Fortschritt. Bonn, 10.1974. Pp.236-238.
Spezifische Faktoren in stadtsoziologischen Analysen : Uberlegungen zur systematischen Analyse der Stadt als einem Netz und Struktur unmittelbarer Kommunikation.
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Köln, 3.1974. Pp. 568-587.
Austausch und Integration.
Europäische Begegnung. Hannover, 3.1967. Pp. 130-132.
Globalizacion y globalismo.
La Provincia. Las Palmas, 1.1995.
Las Consecuencias Sociales del Creciente Poriceso de l’Urbanization.
Acts of the Second Congress of the AMS. Caracas, 1.1983.
American Men and Women of Science. Jacques Cattell Press.
Who’s Who in America, Marquis ed. New Providence, NJ
Who’s Who in the World, Marquis ed. New Providence, NJ
International Who’s Who of Contemporary Achievement. ABI, Raleigh, NC
International Biographical Centre, Men of Achievement, Cambridge, UK
THE FOUNDING DECLARATION
What is INU?
The Interuniversity Institute (INU) advances scientific research according to universal concepts of science, without committing itself to a national school of thought or a particular ideology.
The INU primarily promotes the application and dissemination of exact knowledge in human sciences.
The INU has basically 2 functions: a critical and a creative one.
1. What is its critical function?
By analyzing postulates, premises, and basic concepts of scientific theories, the INU strives to identify and eliminate arguments implicitly or explicitly extrinsic to scientific reasoning.
The INU is independent of any authoritarian argument that might come from political authority, economic organizations, information monopolies, academic institutions, or individuals.
Within the academic community, the INU combats sophism, which by its implicit rhetoric obfuscates creative scientific research. For that purpose the INU develops and applies the methods of epistemology (e.g., practical epistemology for scientific criticism of sociological books), and the sociology of scientific knowledge.
The INU encourages all publications solely for their intrinsic scientific merit. It considers anonymous publications such as Bourbaki's, as a very appropriate way to restore scientific debate and creativity to their true concern, because anonymity prevents ad hominem arguments and the proliferation of self-serving publications.
It is clearly within the scope of the INU to consider critically the exactness of established facts in general. To benefit the everyday praxis of public life, the INU exposes abuses of semantics as well as inaccuracies in information that misrepresent the data of social reality.
2. What is its creative function?
By considering the present state of the human sciences and their position in the scientific community, the INU claims for them the same exacting stature that the others have earned for themselves. The Institute strives to conduct research according to strict scientific standards. Rather than perpetuating the ambiguous distinction between 'hard science' and ' soft science', the INU promotes research especially in those areas of the human sciences, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms, and inductive proofs by falsification procedures (e.g., exchange, communication, and other spatio-temporal collective behaviors).
By insisting on vigorous scientific standards, the INU remains mindful of the societal purpose of knowledge, which is to enlighten and fulfill human aspirations - individual, collective, and social. Moreover, the INU's insistence on an objectivistic and experimental research strategy enhances the internal validity of findings and so prepares the ground for relevant and responsible action.
Experimentally controlled research applied to answering concrete questions also contributes to verifying the effective predictive power of science and so gives new impulses to further research.
Public and private organizations as well as individuals consult with the INU, giving advice and expert opinions based on interdisciplinary and transnational cooperation for solving technical, political or clinical problems. In order to assure the full usefulness of its recommendations, the Institute, with out necessarily agreeing with it, refers ultimately to the preference system expressed by the decision-makers themselves.
However, these preference systems are not completely out of reach of possible scientific scrutiny. The INU not only applies the science of decision-making and assists the decision-makers to reformulate their questions in scientifically operational terms, but it might also suggest categories for a discipline, called private science, in order to explicitly restructure a preference system.
This is an on-line publication. Articles can either be added as a new entry or replace a previous version. Thus each point in time an "up-to-date" version is delivered.
If you write us (email@example.com), we will publish your text
A POLITICAL DIARY :
You learn from the INYT that president Ebessi, a former prime minister of the dictator Bel Ali is a "Copernican revolutionary", the true follower of Arab Spring.- who reversed the elected government of the Islamic party Ennahda. It is an Anti-islamist pro-Zionist restoration of the submissive dictatorship like Sisi's did after Mubarak in Egypt. Ebessi will grant amnesty for Ben Ali. The submission of arabo-Muslim world is re-established.
"In Tunesia, the next Arab Spring" New York Times Oct.2, 1, 9.
In the same issue of INYT (p.9: Devorah Baum: We are all Jew-ish now") you learn even that"We are not all Jewish , but are all becoming Jew-ish." (By what?)
"Asian" triangle. 1.10.2017.
China has interest to respect India as an equal major power, - otherwise the US, makes from India a (subordinated) military allies on the sea (and politically in Afghanistan).(Mattis visite India (Sept.31,2017).
The West will encircle Eurasia, - and reign over the Arabo-Muslim civilizational sphere.
The editorialist of New York Times, Roger Cohen wrote (Sept.30,2017,p.9) that the expression “deutsches Volk” (German peole) should be replaced by deutsche Bevölkerung (German population), because the first expression is nationalist.
It would be interesting to know what he means when he reads in all Zionist publications the expression: Jewish People.
Should also be replaced by Jewish population? Or exceptionalism?
September 16, 2017.
If Kurdistan comes, it will be first recognized by Israel,
; namely it will be its Trojan horse in the Muslim world. (See the declaration of Ajelet Saked, Israeli minister of justice.)
In fact, since the end of the Cold War (and the Soviet-union) Western initiative to enlarge its influence (NATO one's) created tensions and conflicts.
NEW STRATEGIC STEPS OF ZIONISTS AND THEIR INCREASING INFLUENCE
1. At beginning, Israel is provided with arms mainly by help from the Zionist oligarchy in the Diaspora.
(The first credits from US and the West had conditions.)
2. Half century ago the American oligarchy changed strategy: beside financing Israel directly, it discovered that a much more efficient investment would be to finance systematically congressional and presidential candidates who will be - by possible later blackmail - obliged to vote credits for Israel. This investment in the Israeli cause has a multiplied effect. This policy (of AIPAC, etc.) began with the punitive non-reelection of president J. Carter  and George Bush  who made yet American help conditional. Meanwhile the assistance to Israel increased constantly during the past half century.
3. In parallel, the direct engagement of the Israeli army against the Muslim neighbors diminished, and more and more the West becomes a "proxy" for make blood sacrifice for Israeli interests. The war against Iraq (2003) exemplifies this tendency.
4. A second step in the charging others than Israel in its battle against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere - which is not under Zionist influence - is the mobilization of Sunni Muslim countries to combatting (the Shi'i) Iran in the future.
5. This military "reversion" from the Israeli army to other armies is accompanied by a new rhetoric too. In the Zionist political publications, in the press events are no more analyzed openly from viewpoint of Israel. The Israeli interest is only implicitly expressed always as "Western and Israeli" interest. (Of course, it is no possible contraction between Western and Israeli interests, since the Western think tanks - financed largely by the Zionists - defines the Western interest itself by Israel's one.)
30.7.2017. The present situation:
President Trump is encircled by the Zionists. The so-called neoconservatives in the Congress follow AIPAC's instructions, and Trumps' son-in law, the orthodox Zionist, Jared Kushner is now within the internal circle of the U.S. Administration. Both serve primarily Israel's interest defined by Netanyahu. The consequences are: systematic anti-Iran policy, military penetration into Syria, as well as weakening Putin's ("post-Khodorkovsky") Russia.
Iran is U.S's rival? No, it is too small to be. China is U.S.'s competitor. Iran is Israel's rival which has hegemony in the Near East.
Stephen Wertheim (King's College) Cambridge writes (INYT June 25,17, 10):"Trump appears to be evolving into a kind of neoconservative." Like the double citizen Charles Krauthammer..In this case the America First will be replaced by the Israel first and America second).
25.7.2017: The whole Ukraine conflict originates from the Zionist West:
McCain and co reversed in 2013 the elected Yanukovych government in order to extend NATO to the Russian border. Now the McCain follower Volker tries to do that not de jure but de facto with arm delivery etc.
The Zionist inspired U.S. and NATO policy will install permanently military bases in practically all (Dar al-Islam) countries with Muslim majority; they will stay in Afghanistan Iraq, Syria, Libya, Qatar, Turkey - perhaps in Pakistan. And they try to reverse the governments which resist. This generates Islamist resistance and emigration.
The West has also 2 very different problems with the Arabo-Muslim world:
1. The Western aggressive penetration and occupation in Muslim lands;
2. the designation of the place of immigrant Muslims in the Western societies.
The first can be resolved by diminishing Zionist-inspired imperialism, and by this attitude the second will be diminished too. I
As Islamism is a political movement like Zionism, the peace between the West and the Muslim civilizational sphere should be concluded between the the Islamists - like the democratic movement of Muslim Brotherhood - and the NATO countries.
The Muslim immigrants` problem is a question of the application of Western norms and the toleration (limited application) of the Muslim norms in one of the same society.
If we will a global political development, where civilizational pluralism replaces in the world the Zionist controlled American hegemony, it is necessary that China (Russia) and India cooperate - on equal footing - with each other, and either tries to replace the Western hegemony with its own.
Saudi-Arabia as Israel ally against the Islamic Republic of Iran? (2017)
Since the conquest of the White House by the orthodox Zionists - replacing the liberals - they follows in the name of president Trump an even more aggressive strategy to assure and enlarge Israel hegemony in the Near East inspired by Netanyahu as well as by the extremist Moldovan Avigdor Lieberman.
The goal is to accept the illegal (see UNSC decision Dec,2017) West Bank colonization by the Arabs and the whole world. The Palestinian issue should be put in parenthesis on the international agenda, while Israeli colonialist expansion should create the fait accompli.
Under the previous US Administrations the West eliminated already Israel's Arabo-Muslim rivals like Iraq, Libya, and it "works" now on Syria (sending there first time even American military units ["stabilization team"] and bombarding Syria too). The Netanyahu inspired orthodox Jared Kushner - Trump main Near East totumfactum - will now mobilize the Saud-Arabia directed monarchical golf states to create a coalition against Iran, coalition in which eventually can be introduce stealthily Israel. On this way Israel is recognized by the Arabo-Muslim world without creating a Palestinian state.
Saudi Arabia has been already used to demolish the Democratic Egypt in 2013 directed by the movment of the Muslim Brotherhood, - the most important Arabo-Muslim independent Muslimist (N. Cevik) political world-organization. Now the American Zionists use Saudi Arabia to isolate Qatar. Qatar is an important middleman between the yet indepedent Arabo-Muslim states (Iran) and formations (Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Hamas etc.), and the West. (Mehran Kamrava: Qatar. Small State, Big Politics.)
Within the Trump administration the "unorthodox" Rex W. Tillerson ties to maintaining good relation with Qatar. In order to remain independent, Tillerson doesn't nominate Zionist "experts" in the State Departement like Adams or Robert Kagan. He prefers to clean his department. How long time can he resist the Zionist pressure exercised by Kushner and the whole Israeli lobby? (Sager-Harris-Landler: Discord emerges on Middle East Policy (NYT June 28,2017. p. 1,5.)
The American Israel Public Affair Committee (AIPAC) has its annual conference with participation of the Zionist lobby (Israel First!): US vice-president Pence, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, Blair former British prime minister, US deputies Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan etc
March 29,17. U.S. will diminish the UN peacekeeping force, - especially because Israel will suppress the contingent which is on Golan Heights since 1974 and Golan is now incorporated in Israel. (Nikki R. Haley US ambassador to the UN dixit.)
March 18,2017. With the new UN secretary general, the week Antonio Guterres Israel will have more influence in the UN. Israel will not have more UN interference into its population invasion in the West Bank and will have even more voice in the world organization activities in general. Israel is the USA's spoiled child because the overwhelming influence of the Israel lobby in the States.
Since Trump is president, the Orthodox Zionist Jaron Greenblatt is responsible for the USA's Israel policy. Greenblatt reports to the also orthodox Zionist Jared Kushner, and Kushner receives the instructions from the Israeli ambassador Danny Dermer.
Trump's "Iran Policy": "his director of Jewish outreach during the campagn was an Othodox Jewish immigrant from Iran, his friend, David Peyman." (NYT March 25.2017, 4)
"The world (!) fears U.S. again, thankfully" by Mark Moyar (INYT Dec.11,16)
Mr. Moyar says: "America's enemies are right to afraid."
This sound good, however follows a reversed logic.
U.S. as strong nation will be attacked by no country.
If it has enemies, it has mainly for two reasons:
1. U.S. intervened - directly or indirectly - in foreign countries to subvert - often democratically elected - autochthonous governments, e. g. in Ukraine and esp. Muslim counters like Egypt, Libya, Iraq etc.;
2. under pressure of the American Zionist oligarchy it help by military, financial, diplomatic and all other means the Israeli expansion in the West bank, - without condition.
If these circumstances are suppressed the U'S, would be in security even without an army (like Costa Rica).
(11.2016) Trump: America first!
Truly not Israel first anymore?
And in the Senate with Lindsey Graham, John McCain etc. and in spirit of bipartisanship with Chuck Schumer?
A "maximalist" Western offer to the Palestinian poeple.
Past president Carter asks that the U.S. recognizes de jure a Palestinian state; however "measures should include the demilitarization of the Palestininan state" (in face of an Israel armed to the teeth by the U.S.).
For the matter. this is the Western model for the relation with the independent Arabo-Muslim states in general (e.g., Iran).
(INYT Nov.29,2016, 1,17.)
2016/17. In the White House bipartisan Zionism reigns: now is the passage from liberal (David Axelrod etc ) to orthodox Zionism. Trump is “intimately” encircled by his son-in law. Jared Kushner and his layer, Jason Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation league.
Indeed, we repeat the submission to Zionism is "bipartisan".
Kushner can have an official status as US representative in the Palestinian tittle-tattle.
Greenblatt (with Schumer) hopes that all candidates for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party will make clear where they stand on the issue viz,. affirming the unconditional support for Israel. (INYT Thanksgiving 2016, 7 and 15).
RECENT IMPORTANT EVENTS IN THE ARABO-MUSLIM GEOPOLITICAL SPHERE (2016)
1. July 3, 2013 the democratically elected Morsi - of the Muslim Brotherhood - as president of Egypt is reversed by a putsch orchestrated by his defense minister Sisi. US, and Israel recognize in tree days the putschist president.
Consequently the Salafists find justification for violent political actions worldwide. (ISIS etc.)
2. Following Western interventions the large Arabo-Muslim states like Iraq, Libya, perhaps Syria are dislocated , dismembered.
- for the West:
chaos, loss of independent partners for dialogue (remain yet Turkey, Iran as independent Muslim states)
great advantage to ridding of their regional rivals.
Indeed, this evaluation meets meets Israeli Oded Yinon's strategical script (written after the war with Lebanon in 1982):
Balkanization of Near East by dismemberment of the great Muslim states into small ethno-sectarian enclaves.
Concretely Yinon will divide
- Lebanon into 5 parts,
- Syria into 3 (Alawi Shiites, Sunnite Aleppo, Druze and Kurd)
- Iraq into 3 post-Ottoman department (Basra, Bagdad, Mosul) and Kurdistan
- Libya into 3: Tripolitania (Tripoli), Cyrenaic (Benghazi), the petroleum-rich Fezzan (Sabha).
Israel Shahask: Stratégie pour Israel dans les années 80.
In: Orientation (Kivim) no 14,February 1982
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon revanche? A panoramic of chaos in the Arab World.
In: Strategic Culture Foundation. 25.8.2013.
Oded Yinon: A strategy for Israel in the Niteen Eities. Arab-American University Graduates Inc. Delmont , Mass. 1982. Special Document no .1. ISBN 0-937694-56-8.
Yinon idea quoted by Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times. (24.6.2013. and 6.4.2017,9; “partition of Syria and the creation of a primarily Sunni protected area -. protected by international force, including USA troops.”)
World power equilibrium yesterday and today.
Yesterday: Soviet Union was much stronger than Russia is today, but at this time Soviet Union and China were in conflict not like today.
2016 In foreign policy the two US presidential candidates have only one question to answer:
Who does serve better Zionist interest?
Dynamiques contemporainses de l'Islam politique au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique du Nord
Contribution de Guy Ankerl
Evénements géopolitiques fondamentaux dans le monde arabo-musulman:
1. renversement putschiste du président islamiste Morsi, démocratiquement élu de l'Egypte.
avec comme conséquence le renforcement des mouvements violents salafistes,
2. démembrements, dislocation des grands Etats
comme l'Iraq, l'Lybie et la Syrie.
- pour l'Occident: chaos, perte de partenaire de dialogue (encore actuellement Turquie, Iran)
- grand avantage pour Israël: débarrasser de ses grands rivaux.
Ceci corresponds au script du plan stratégique de Oded Yinon (guerre du Leban 1982):
Balkanisation du Proche-Orient par démembrement des grands Etats Musulmans
en entité ethno-sectaire.
La proposition concrète d?Oded Yinon:
-Liban en 5 parties,
- Syrie en 3 : Alawi shiite, Alep sunnite, (druze ou kurde)
-Irak en 3 départements "post-ottomans" (Basra, Bagdad, Mosul) et Kurdistan
-Libye en 3 régions: Tripolitaine (Tripoli), Cyrénaïque (Benghazi) et pétrolifère Fezzan (Sabha).
Israël Shahak: Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 80. In: Orientations (Kivnim) no 14,
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon revanche? A panoramique of chaos in the Arab World.
In: Strategic Culture Foundation 25.8.9013.
(L'idée est repris par Thomas L. Friedman 24.6.13.. NYT.)
(New) NEW YORK TIMES Oct.2016
Roger Cohen is the smartest Zionist in the NYT:
he fight now ( before he was for [J-Street and 2 states solution] for one-state Palestine (=Israel) and looks for politically submissive Arabs like Reem Younis. ("Why Israel refuse to choose" (NYT Oct 29,16 cf From suicide bomber to fighter for peace NYT Nov.1,16).
Roger Cohen quote Moshe Dayan:
Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms and we decline the advice
Yet it's uncertain (?) if the U.S. is prepared to calibrate its ironclad support in order to pressure Israel into change."
Roger Cohen knows why: because the ironclad blackmail of the Zionist oligarchy.
Curious Zionist control within (!) the US administration: (INYT Sept.6,16, p.8): "51 state Department employees (!) .. signed a 'dissent channel' memo on Syria, have pressed privately (!) for the US for carry out airstrike to hit Mr. Assad's plans..."
The INYT ( Aug29,16) based on the Russian Renegade's, Gleb Pavlovsky's declarations blames the Margarita Simonyan directed station Russia Today (RT) with systematic disinformation.
Anyway, if you will have balanced information, it is better to follow CNN AND RT and not only CNN
not only CNN.
(2016) The putch against Erdogan has Zionist origin like the Putch against Morsi in Egypt had.
VULNERABILITY in international politics.
Nuclear vulnerability of both(!) sides guaranteed peace until 2000.
If NATO looks for one-sided invulnerability, it does since it looks for hegemony.
Cf., International Newe York Times (June 17,2916): .."NATO looks vulnerable.." by D E Sanger.
THE REASON OF ISLAMIC VIOLANCE
- Muslim countries like to be independent from the West and other civilizational areas (like China).
- If there are free election, in most - if not all – Muslim countries the majority vote for Islamic parties.
- This was the case in Algeria (90s), in Egypt, in Tunisia, Libya etc.
- However, the West hindered these democratic processes by military coup (e.g., in the key coutry Egypt) and other - indirect – maneuvers or illegal interventions.
- This is the main reason that the Muslims use violence for reestablishing their sphere’s independence.
"Why terrorists commit terrorism?" Peter Bergen INYT (=International New York Times) June 16,16. p8.
No Muslim is born as "terrorist". The situation creates terrorism, people are radicalized. Why?
Muslims in general became open to Salafist violent tactic after (!) the Western governments under Zionist pressure overthrow the elected Islamist government of Egypt.
Peter Bergen also recognizes in his article that the raison of terrorist acts is:
"dislike of American foreign policy",
"oppositon to the American foreign policy" and
"objection to the American foreign policy".
Therefore the solution of terrorism problem in the West is not an issue of police but a policy, namely the liberation of the Western policy from one-sided Zionist influence.
Indeed, Islamism is the political Islam, while Zionism the political Judaism, Both concepts include more then one (strategical) tendencies, namely democratic as well violent one.
(See also Muslamism in Turkey and Beyond. Religion in Modern World. By Neslihan Cevik New York; mcMillan, 2015 Jeffrey Guhin in Contemporaty Sociology May 2017,297-8.)
TUNESIA's “new revolution” is - according to H. Ibish of the Washington's Arab Gulf States Institute, - post-Islamist. (INYT June 3,2016, p.6) This so-called “post-islamist new revolution" is as Sisi's in Egypt rather a restauration of Western hegemony. The West intimidated the old Ghannouchi to distance himself from the political and democratic islamist Muslim Brotherhood.
The West dreams about an emasculated Islamism subordinated to Zionism like Sisi in Egypt.
But in fact, the Christian Europeans' dream is post-Zionism!
We can foresee (!) the handling of each country by the Western mass media:
If the influence of Zionist plutocracy increases there, the handling will be better; in other cases worse.
Indeed, in Jun 2016 Brazil's, Argentina's image became better because the regime change.
Turkey's, Venezuela's, Equator's, Bolivia's, Iran's. Russia's are the worst.
since their goverments are presently not directly under Zionist influence.
The Zionists don't accept an independent Muslim state in Israel's neighborhood. After annihilating by US assistance Iraq, Libya - and by military coup Egypt - they try Syria too.
And Netanyahu's Zionists didn't arrive to prevent the Iran-West agreement, now they try to make its realization impossible by maintaining U.S. sanctions.
(E. A. Cohen, E.S. Edelman and R. Trakeyh: Time to get tough on Iran. In: Foreign Affairs, Febr.2016. Roger Cohen: U.S. policy puts Iran deal at risk. INYT May 7,16, 9)
"Turkish model' under fire" by Mustafa Akyol (INYT May6,16, 9).
The Western image of Erdogan was until 2010 positive.
Why did it change?
In this year Erdogan had a conflict with Netanyahu about the Gaza help action.
According to Akyol Rachid Ghannouchi and its Islamist Ennahda Party is the example how the Islamists should cooperate with the West.
Ghannouchi subordinated himself and his party to Western instructions. The West doesn't accept that an Islamist movement with its majority leads even a Muslim country (cf Morsi).
Defense against invasion by soft power:
INYT April 29 and 30: "China places strict control on groups from abroad. U.S. faults Chinese law on NGOs from aboard"
Is this an expression of the dictatorship of an authoritarian non-democratic state?
No, "powerful natons, including Russia and even India (! the world largest democracy) are cracking down on (foreign!) nongovernmental organizations." (INYT May 2,16,8)
There aren't in the U.S. itself laws which prescribe registration for foreign nongovernmental organizations? (Double standard!)
11.2016 The new U.S. president, Trump represents a passage from the neo-liberal Zionist influence to an orthodox-conservative Zionist by the Orthodox son in-law Jared Kushner and Trump's layer, Jason Greenblatt. Ambassador for Israel David M. Friedman.
Mr. Trump is urging Kushner, his-son-law (since 2009 when Kushner converted Ivanka to Judaism) to join him in the White House. Trump's sentiment is shared by Stephen K. Bannon; therefore Ron Dermer - speaking with Trump - could absolve Bannon from the deadly label to be an anti-Semite. (INYT Nov.18,2016).
(Stephen Castle, INYT April 29,2016, p.3 )
British Zionist supervision of Labour Party:
Since Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of British Labour Party the party is no more unanimously subordinated to the Zionist cause. Its big sponsor, David Abrahmans, Executive in the Channel Four - and former founder (with the BBC World and Virgin) of the UKTV - complaint in the Jewish News that the deputy Naseem Shah "endorsed a Facebook post displaying a graphic that showed Israel's outline superposed on a map of the U.S."
Jeremy Corbyn is not a Zionist like the Biliband brothers, he is facing revolt (INYT June27,2016,1)
The INYT (May 2,16,3) announces that the Labor candidate in the mayoral race in London, Mr. Khan former transport minister is an observant Muslim, however the other candidate, Mr. Goldsmith's religious belonging is not indicated in the article. Why?
The expansion of American military engagement is for hindering the enlargement of the Syrian government's influence, and not in relation with the Islamic State. The pro-Zionist lobby tries for a long period of time to involve the US against Syria as it did in the case of Israel's all rivals like Iraq and Libya. It also will the prolongation of the occupation of Golan highs. Indeed, Syria has now a chance to win the internationalized civil war with Russian assistance. By this American involvement the number of victims in Syria will increase.
Apropos: Impeachment in Brasilia 18.4.2016
“Members of Congress explained their decisions as they voted for impeachment: They voted 'for peace in Jerusalem for the truckers 'for the FreeMasons of Brazil'”.. (INYT, April 21,2016).
March 29.23016. The Zionists try to reverse the Brazilian government, since it doesn't agreed to the nomination of DANI DAYAN as Israel's ambassador who were chef of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization of the West Bank settlers. (al Jazeera).
If all individuals born from Jewish mother are
(a) Israelites, now as well as
(b) automatically potential Citizen of the State of Israel, and
(c) if they also have an other citizenship,
they have a problem of double (divided) loyalty.
If in case of conflict of interest, they opt for Israeli priority as the Zionism dictates,
and they don't immigrate to Israel (Aliyah) but remain in diaspora,
they are exposed to anti-Zionist campaign, what will be called falsely by Israel apologists (see Anti-Defamation League) as anti Semitism used for penal prosecution (inquisition in the West). However, it is self-inflicted anti-Semitism.
Consequently, If in 2016 the Anti-Defamation League or other organization will diminish the antisemitism,
(a) they should protest by the Israeli Government against the West Bank settlement policy or
(b) request the Diaspora to be first loyal to his birth-country's interest.
"U.S. offers $ 38 billion in military aid to Israel"
by Peter Baker and Julie Hirschfeld Davis (INYT Sept.15,16).
(Meanwhile) U.S. was effectively subsidizing regularly criticized
Israeli settlements operation in the West Bank.
INU condemns all forms of anti-Semitism, but it discusses often Zionism, the political Judaism (cf. the Islamism as the political Islam).
Indeed, the Zionism became - esp. since the non reelection of President Carter (1981) - a prevailing factor in the Western foreign policy; and on the other hand the subject became in the mainstream thought (Think tanks) and mass media a taboo protected by censorship (e.g. France).
1. It finances the main think tanks in order to substitute Israeli interest for Western one (e.g. WINEP).
2 It finances the (re)election of the political decision makers (also by AIPAC), and finally,
3. by financing and controlling the mass media it exercises a censorship on the communication between the decision makers and the people.
Therefore, it is not a hazard that the USA worked to overthrow the Brazilian president who refused to accept Dani Dayan - who comes from the Occupied Territories - as Israeli ambassador;
it also is not a hazard that Venezuela has a bad image in the press, Israel has not an ambassador in Caracas any more;
it is not a hazard that Erdogan has a bad press too, since he has a bad relation with Netanyahu.
The only question remain open in 2016:
why doesn't Obama - without possibility to be reelected - force an independent US policy, and accepts personal and national humiliation from Israel.
And in 2016, of course, all the US presidential candidates are Zionist.
Only Sanders refused to go for audition of the AIPAC.
A hero? No, he is Jew and doesn^t need a declaration of loyalty to Zionism
Basic dilemma of Europe:
The Western civilization
- either will pretend to be universal one and therefore must admit the Muslim and other costums in public life,
- or it will stay as a particular civilisational sphere with mainly Christian tradition, and in this case it can ask immigrants to accommodate.
"The next chapter for Ukraine” after the Zionist putsch (of Yatsenyuk, Proshenko, Groysman). See the global Zionist front:
"The Ukrainians who demonstrated against corruption remain an active force through civic organizations. One of their is, Mikhail Saakashvili, the former president of Georgia (!), who was brought in by Porosheno as governor of Odessa.."
INYT April 16,16, p.8.
New York Times' Zionist prpaganda. Title of an article:
"A Brussels mentor who spread 'gangstar Islam'"
INYT April 12,2016, p.4
INYT April 9-10 and 11. 2016: Muslim Radicalization
The democratically elected Islamist president of Egypt had been overthrow by a military putsch accepted – and even assisted – by the Zionist USA. Now the Salafists find justification for their violent policy.
"Faulting Belgium, not Islam."Yves Goldstein, chef of staff for the minister-president of Brussels Capital Region will explain on the German Marshall Funds meeting in Brussels why the young Muslims can't find their identity in "our society". INYT Apr.8,2016 p.2)
Why? Indeed, the Belgian government as the other Western government accepts de facto the expansion of Israel and participates in the bombing of various territories with Muslim majority (by an obscure international coalition), like Israel did in Gaza.
Typical imperialism is to control relation among other countries.
Indeed, the policy institution of China and Latin America program at Inter-American Dialogue is in Washington (!) directed by Margaret Myers. (INYT April 5,2016,p10.)
The Zionist campaign against (Erdogan's - Morsi's friend) Turkey's NATO membership goes on, - as did the camaign against Morsi in January 2013, - meanwhile the the Palestinian-Israeli “peace process” should be oblitered.
In the campaign against Erdogan the apostat clerk, Fethullah Gulen (living in the U.S.) does participate too. (INYT , March 31, 9 Thomas L. Friedman and INYT March 9.16. INYT March 30,2016).
Indeed, the Zionists' objective is to throw out Turkey from the NATO, (INYT March30,2016,7 [“Does Turkey still belong in NATO?” INYT March30,16]. Turkey hinders that, in long view, Israel enters the NATO.
Meanwhile, as we said already, the campaign against Erdogan goes on since 2010, when Israel attaqued the Turkish Ship sent to Gaza.
* * *
In the US the Zionist control is stronger in the Treasury and Defense Departments than in the State departement, - because the financial and military blackmails are more effective means than the rhetorical and diplomatico-legal.
RESEARCH WORKSHOP :
New Studies 2017.
The West, and the confrontation between Islamism, the political Islam and the Zionism, the political Judaism.
The financing of (so-called) independent think-tanks and the distinction between US and Israeli interest.
June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at INSS think-tank in Tel Aviv told:
“Obama should find(!) one(!) think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA and Israeli interests.”
Per definitionem, American and Israeli interests can't clash, sdince US interest is defined by WINEP and other Zionist think tanks
Indeed, there are Zionist control of the US foreign policy on 3 levels:
1. The epistemological: by financing the prominent think tanks advising the government, in order that the definition of American interest follows Israel’s.
2. The real political: the Zionist oligarchy finances the candidates’ campaign for (re)election.
3. The same plutocracy controll the media and therefore all the communication between the poltical decisionmakers and the people.
Ad 1.Literature about the financing of US think tanks:
Thomas Medvetz wrote a book about Think Tanks in America (324 pp .Chicago UP, 2010; CS July 2014,558). He criticizes their financing which according to him comes from the Right and brings biased views. He doesn’t show however that for the mainstream foreign policy think tanks the main variable is not Right or Left, Republican or Democrat. Largely the bipartisan Zionist – or called also neoconservative - lobby supports them (Cf. in the USA well known so-called [neo]conservative institutions; WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense of Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at Brookings Institution; for the personal interconnectedness and the media connection “These institutions are funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.” (Cf. Mearsheimer-Walt 131 .) However, in the current literature about think tanks the Zionist connection is rarely identified. Mearsheimer and Walt’s work is a rare exception, but their work is not specially concentrated to the issue of think tanks (175-6, 131, 117). This statement is valid roughly for the whole special literature because the most authors themselves are engaged Zionists.
Abelson, D. E. 2002. Do think tanks matter? Montreal Ithaca, N.Y.: McGill-Queen's University Press.
---. 2004. The business of Ideas: the think tank industry in the USA. In Think Tank Traditions, Policy research
and the politics of ideas., eds. D. Stone & A. Denham. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
---. 2006. A capitol idea: think tanks and US foreign policy. Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Adler, E. & P. M. Haas (1992) Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a
reflective research program. International Organisation, 46, 367-390.
Bentham, J. (2006) The IPPR and Demos: Think Tanks of the New Social Democracy. The Political Quarterly, 77, 166-174.
BEPA. 2012. European think tanks and the EU. In Berlaymont Papers, eds. A. Misiroli & I. Ioannides.
Bertelli, A. M. & J. B. Wenger (2009) Demanding Information: Think Tanks and the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 225-242.
Braml, J. (2006) U.S. and German Think Tanks in Comparative Perspective. German Policy Studies, 3, 222-267.
Dickson, P. 1972. Think tanks. New York: Ballatine.
Fischer, F. 1990. Technology and the Politics of Expertise. United States: Sage.
---. 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaffney, J. (1991) The political think-tanks in the UK and the ministerial cabinets in France. West European Politics, 1, 1-17.
Haas, P. M. (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.
Hajer, M. A. 1993. Discourse Coalitions. The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In The Argumentative Turn in
Policy and Planning, eds. F. Fischer & J. Forester, 43-76. London: University College Press.
Jochem, S. & A. Vatter (2006) Introduction: Think Tanks in Austria, Switzerland and Germany - A
Recalibration of Corporatist Policy Making? German Policy Studies, 3, 139-152.
Kelstrop Jesper Dahl : Four Think Tank Perspectives. (Doctioral thesis.)
McGann et al., J. G. 2012. Global Go-To Think Tank Index 2011. University of Pennsylvania: Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania.
McGann, J. G. (2010) The Fifth Estate: Think Tanks and American Foreign Policy. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 11, 35-42.
Mcgann, J. G. & R. Sabatini. 2011. Global think tanks: policy networks and governance. New York:
McGann, J. G. & R. K. Weaver. 2000. Think tanks and civil societies: catalysts for ideas and action. 617 s.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
---. 2002. Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
---. 2005. Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Medvetz, T. 2008. Think Tanks as an Emergent Field. The Social Science Research Council.
--- (2010) 'Public Policy is Like Having a Vaudeville Act': Languages of Duty and Difference among Think Tank-Affiliated Experts. Qual Sociol.
Osborne, T. (2004) On Mediators: Intellectuals and the Ideas Trade in the Knowledge Society. Economy and Society, 430-447.
Pautz, H. (2010) Think Tanks in the United Kingdom and Germany: Actors in the Modernisation of Social
Democracy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12, 274-294.
--- (2011) Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon. Public Policy and Administration, 26, 419-435.
---. 2012. Think-Tanks, Social Democracy and Social Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.
Plehwe, D. 2008. Forging a neoliberal knowledge elite (perspective) and restricted pluralism: The history of the Mont Pèlerin Society networks of intellectuals and think tanks. New York: Social Science Research Council.10
---. 2010. Paying the Piper - think tanks and lobbying. In Bursting the Brussels Bubble.The battle to expose corporate lobbying at the heart of the EU. Brussels: ALTER-EU.
Rich, A. 2004. Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sabatier, P. & H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy change and learning. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Schmidt, V. 2011. Discursive institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics and Philosophical Underpinnings. In The Argumentative Turn Revised: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, eds. F. Fischer & J. Forester.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Shoup L.: Wall Street's Think Tank. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics. 1976-2014. Monthly Review Press, New York, 2015.
Smith, J. A. 1991. The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York: The Free Press.
Stone, D. 1996. Capturing the Political Imagination. Think Tanks and the Policy Process. London: Frank Cass.
--- (2001) Think Tanks, Global Lesson-Drawing and Networking Social Policy Ideas. Global Social Policy, 1, 338-360.
--- (2007) Recycling Bins, Garbage Cans or Think Tanks? Three Myths Regarding Policy Analysis Institutes. Public Administration, 85, 259-278.
Stone, D., Denham & Garnet. 1998. Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Stone, D. & A. Denham. 2004. Think Tank Traditions - Policy research and the politics of ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Thunert, M. W. (2000) Players Beyond Borders? Think Tanks as Catalysts of Internationalisation. Global Society, 14, 191-212.
--- (2004) Think tanks in Germany. Society Abroad, 41, 66-69.
--- (2006) The Development and Significance of Think Tanks in Germany. German Policy Studies, 3, 185-221.
Ullrich, H. 2004. European Union think tanks: generating ideas, analysis and debate. In Think tank
traditions. Policy research and the politics of ideas., eds. D. Stone & A. Denham. Manchester and
New York: Manchester University Press.
Weaver, K. R. (1989) The Changing World of Think Tanks. PS: Political Science and Politics, 563-78.
Wells, P. (2011) Prescriptions for Regional Economic Dilemmas: Understanding the Role of Think Tanks in the Governance of Regional Policy. Public Administration, 90, 211-229.
Xufeng, Z. (2009) The Influence of Think Tanks in the Chinese Policy Process: Different Ways and
Mechanisms. Asian Survey, 49, 333-357
Soehnchen Stefan: Politikberatungistitute in Israel und deren Einfluss uaf die Nahostpolitik. In Orinet 41(2000)1, 39-63 (Uber Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Begin-Sadat Cneter for Strategic Studies; Harry S Truman Research Insitute for Advancement of Peace; Mosghe Dayan enter for Middle Eastern nad African Studies; Leonard Davis Insitute for Internationa relations .
W. Reinicke: Lotsendienste für Politik: Think Tanks..Güterloh: Bertelsmann, 1996.
W. Gellner: Ideenagenturen für Politik und Öffentlichkeit: Opladen, Westdeutscher Vlg. 1995.
THE WEST FOLLOWS ZIONIST POLICY
The West’s, the “NATO-world's" agenda is subordinated to the Israeli interest (especially the US’s)
The Western politics is formulated by think tanks financed by the Zionist oligarchy which defines US interest itself in function of Israel’s. (In the USA the most well known [neo]conservative institutions are the folloing: WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense of Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at Brookings Institution. (For the personal interconnectedness and the media connection see Mearsheimer and Walt .)
On this basis the American interest coincides with Israel’s eo ipso, since the American interest is defined by American Zionists.
Foreign governments - democratically elected or not - are backed, legitimized by the USA as far as the Zionist influence is strong in them. Others are even exposed to subversion, to the “regime change agenda”. (That concerns today among others Russia, Belarus,Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia. For subversive strategy see e.g. Michael McFaul; colonel Robert Helvey, Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy; A Conceptual Framwork for Liberation; Profil Books, London, 2012. for historics Stephen Kinzer. )
[The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 (against Cuba) show in general how the USA (using USAID too) tries to reverse goverments which don’t follow its instructions. (INYT Nov.11,14, 6)]
Because the geographical situation of expansive Israel, the West can’t cooperate and even accept sovereign Islamist states. The Zionist paradigm for the cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere is the submission of the occupied Palestine.
In the Arabic core state, Egypt, following Western inspiration (2012/13) Sisi subverted the democratically elected Morsi regime (2013) because its independent anti-Zionist tendency.
In general, according to the Zionist policy no truly independent Arabic state should be stronger in Middle East than the nuclear power Israel. Syria, Iraq should be break up in micro-states (Oded Yinon Plan of 1982; Jeffrey Goldberg).
As a rule, the West tries to disqualify as chaotic, disordered and even illegitimate all countries, geopolitical regions which are outside the Zionist influence, - without distinction such as China, Russia. (Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion expressed in the New York Times [Order vs. Disorder 1-4. July 15,2014, etc] is Israel centric worldview.)
PAX ET IUSTITIA
2014 (YEAR OF GAZA INVASION)
Plus de 2000 morts à Gaza! Conséquence pour Israël: 0.)
Les attentats islamistes ne peuvent être éliminés qu'en supprimant les motifs.
Or, les motifs sont géopolitiques.
La politique occidentale est sousmise à l'intérêt sioniste.
Elle a démoli tous les Etats concurrents de l' hégémonie d'Israël:
Iraq, Syrie, Lybie, Egypte démocratique de Morsi.
L'Occident veut une relation de soumission avec le monde arabo-musulman, à l'exemple de la relation entre Israël et les palestiniens.
Sans justice il n'y aura jamais de paix.
2016 Geopolitics today in short:
The global influence of the US is overwhelming but not without limit (China).
However, thanks to the influence of the Zionist oligarchy in the West, the “American and Western interests” follow the Zionist one (called by code Neocon, hawks, etc).
Every country has positive or negative image in the global media according to its degree of submission to Zionist influence (Negative for example: Turkey, Russia).
Therefore without deep understanding of the international Zionist factor, geopolitical analysis can’t have validity.
(Remark for the Vatican:) The opposition between the arabo-muslim world and the Western one - largely under Zionist influence - is not an issue
--of blind violence and hate
but of power and (in)justice.
Explanation of the present chaos in the arab-muslim geopolitical sphere
It is a fact that any democratic election in the Muslim world brings an Islamist majority (Algeria , Egypt, Libya, Tunisia).
Yet the West can’t support, acquiesce this historical fact.
Therefore it tries to reverse the political situation by coup d’Etat (Egypt).
As a result, the Muslim world learns that it can’t have independent power by democratic means.
This is the reason for present violence.
Meanwhile, the West remains without legitimate Muslim political representation to solve the conflict with dialogue.
Consequence is that by the – neo-colonialist, neo-crusadist, neo-conservative - anti-Islamist mobilization of the West, it looses its energy in endless battle for Israel’s regional hegemony instead of concentration for a competition with China.
Basic world problem:
The American Zionist oligarchy by financing the prominent American think tanks assures that the US interest is defined by Israel’s one, and on the other hand by financing – and helping by the media – their candidates in election campaign, it assures that anyway in political action US interest can’t prevail over Israel’s
The destruction and dissolution of stable non-Zionist countries like Syria, Libya, Libya and Iraq - as well as Sisi's anti-democratic putch in Egypt - serves the interest of Zionists.
CURRENT CONCERNS (FACTS AND STANDARDS)
Dictionary for Western newsmen:
La démocratie occidentale:
-L'éligibilité est de facto déterminée financièrement par l'oligarchie.
-Donc les votants ont un choix restreint. Et car d'être élu ne nécessite pas un minimum de nombre de votant (quorum), ça arrange les réélection pour les candidats de l'oligarchie. Ainsi certaines opinions ne peuvent pas arriver à un expression politique.
-En plus, grâce au remplacement des votes populaires par "l'opinion publique" des sondages payés (sur les questions arbitrairement choisies) par les media - qui financent, - la démocratie oligarchique est "bouclée".
Neither the G7 nor NATO (nor Obama+Merkel+Hollande) could be called “the international community”.
The international Community is the UN General Assemble or its Security Council.
A new US world policy tries to extend its jurisdiction beyond its national borders
Instead of using the principles of international public law, - e.g., declaration of war - the USA tries to obtain satisfaction for its goals by targeting individuals, targeting by drone attack (in Pakistan), or by blacklisting (concerning Russia). Beside the CIA, the FBI itself becomes an important instrument of foreign policy.
This new perspective (used again Russia and Muslim states) implies that the USA considers the whole world under its jurisdiction.
(However, in term of efficacy, this strategy overestimates the (targeted) individuals' influence in international policy.)
Dimensions and terminology for analysis of the Middle East conflicts and other intercivilizational conflicts:
Xenophobia is not identical with racism or supremacism.
Anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or anti-Islam propaganda can be condemned as blasphemy, or hate speech, but Islamism ( the political Islam) and Zionism (the political Judaism) are ideologically inspired political movement and the right to their criticism belong to the right to freedom of speech.
Understood that Zionism and Islamism are political movements. Concerning the means, in both are democrats and violent tendencies.
The coexistence between the autochthonous Westerns population and the Muslim immigrants is a problem, ans should eb solved by the acceptance of the life style and norms of the autochthon ous Western population.
But the imposition of Western power and norms on countries with Muslim majority (Dar el-Islam) is an aggression.
The islamophobic Zionist propaganda tries to confuse two different problems:
- (1) the desirability the immigration of large Muslim population into the West and
- (2) the respectful coexistence between the Western countries and the independent Dar al-Islam.
However, you can agree with the second without agreeing with the first.
..The West is today politically subordinated to Zionism, while in case of free election, in Muslim countries the majority vote for Islamis
Translate mainstream press:
"populist" means "population", "political elite" means "establishment submitted to Zionist oligarchy".
WHAT IS DOUBLE STANDART IN GENERAL?
1.If a country condemns a military coup which doesn’t
serve its interest, and in contrary it doesn’t condemn another
which serves its geopolitical interest (e.g. USA in relation to the
coup in Egypt or Ukraine);
2. if an international organization like UNSC condemns a country’s action but doesn’t prescribe sanction (e.g. counter Israel) and again in other similar cases they prescribe sanctions (e.g. Iran).
(See the issue of nuclear arms in Near East.)
Double standard on terrorist organizations
The EU and USA dressed an official list of terrorist organizations:
Most Muslim organizations, even charitable ones are listed. But often violent - extremist organizations - like the Israeli Honenu and Price Tag - didn’t figure on this list. In the Western media the term “terrorism” became a synonym to Islamism. (See Anshel Pfeiffer’s articles in Haaretz and S. Erlander: Extremism leads Israelis to look within INYT July 11,2014)
In the core country of the
Arabic geopolitical sphere, Egypt, the democratically elected
president Morsi has been overthrow in 2013. This
has been prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick
David D. attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT
Domino-effect follows (Tunisia, Libya), since – as already nted - it is for the Western world unacceptable that the majority choice an Islamist government.
Israel isn't perturbed by “The Middle East meltdown” (cf. R. Dothat INYT, June 16,14) since it will create “micro-states” (Jeffrey Goldberg), smaller than Israel (David D. Kirkpatrick INYT June 19,14; ).
Th US is‘profoundly troubled’ by brutal beating of Palestine teen who turned out to be American ? No problem, Israel doesn’t risk American sanction like Muslim countries. Obama hasn’t the sufficient independence from the American Israeli lobby and the Zionist oligarchy for that. This the basic world problem!
June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at Tel Aviv INSS think-tank told:
“Obama should find(!) one(!) think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA and Israeli interest.”
(Per definitionem, in Washington the WINEP can’t, since it defines American interest by Israel’s.)
See again WINEP follows Netanyahu’s position on Kurdish independence too. (INYT July 5, 14, p.5)
The international Organization of Islamic Conference changed its name in 2011 into ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION (OIC). It is "the collective voice of the Muslim World" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.”
What did the Organization fo Islamic Cooperation concretely (!) to solve the bloody conflict in Iraq (and Syria) and to establish within the “Umma” - if not a effective cooperation but at least - a peaceful coexistence?
The idea of Brothers Defence Alliance between Turkey, Pakistan and Iran (2014) goes back to former Turkish prime minister Necmettim Erbakan’s proposal for a pan-Islamic NATO of 8 countries in 1995 (with reference to Jama al-Din-Afgani (1838-97).
INTERNATIONAl LEGAL ORDER. The Soviet power was accused of subversive activities. Now the situation is reversed: the so-called «Western democratic nations» reverting all regimes of which don't follow its dictate. Indeed, the West helped to overthrow representative (!) democratic regimes like Egypt, Ukraine. They also try to do in Venezuela, Libya (and even in Russia). They use the social media based in USA for inducing crowding. They follows Nye’s soft power theory.
Indeed even Pew and other so-called “non-partisan data tanks” try to “eclipse “ democratic vote results by - so-called global and other - public opinion polls based on dubious samplings and ambiguous questionaries in order to legitimate coup d’Etat (in Ukraine [2013-4], Egypt .
In order to prevent the (re)election of non popular candidates, they should introduce a quorum, a minimal number of votes to be elected.
The Neocon – and neocolonialists - will have – or maintain (?) – world hegemony. The only hope to preserve civilizational pluralism by geopolitical equilibrium, comes from an active and effective cooperation between Russia and China (and the BRIC).
(Guy Ankerl: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations. ISBN 2881550045).
The Soviet Union and Bolshevik danger are finished. Against which geopolitical enemy is necessary to have a special North-Atlantic Alliances? Russia or the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere? No one of them threaten any NATO member-state.
Interestigly, the US refused to Germany – and other non-Anglo-Saxon allies – to be integrated into the so-called “Five Eyes” convention of the Anglo-Saxon powers. (See Atlantic Charter of August 1941) (INYT July 12,2014)
D.E. Sanger: Nuclear deal is elusive as (local?) opposition at home (!) ties(!) negotiators’ hand INYT July 14,14).
Does come the opposition from the American opposition party, the Republican?
No expressly, the opposition is bipartisan. The party affiliation is not a main parameter in issues concerning Israel interest.
“Many member s of the Congress in Washington would like to see this whole effort collapse.”
Is this perhaps Netanyahu’s position?
No, no, it is the position of the American Democrat senator Robert Mendendez and American Republican senator Lindsey Graham (who are by chance near to the American-Israel lobby AIPAC)
In the "pluralistic" U.S. the bipartisan choice means:
you can choice Demacrate or Republican
both financed by the Zionist oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson from Las Vegas
There is a competition : to determine which one serves better Zionism.
On the marge:
Important fact about the distinction between the "gay right" and the publicity for gays.
"..anti-gay violence has never been about individual acts against individuals (!),but. Against the very idea that L.G:B.T. people should be free to express .. themselves in public."
Jim Downs A History of anti-gay violence . (In International New York Times, June 13,2016, p.13.)
If you hear in the synagogue that you as Jew should support Israel without condition, the criticism of Zionism becomes - as a result – Anti-Semitism. Israel can’t have regional military hegemony without the efficient pressure of the American Israeli lobby upon the US Administration and Congress. This the basic world problem!
Until the American Administration isn’t enough independent from the sponsoring Zionist oligarchy - in order to penalize Israel for the expansion on the West Bank, - the West can’t have normal friendly, cooperative relation with the Arabo-Muslim world.
The West doesn’t will democracy in countries with Muslim majority, since the Islamist parties will win the democratic election. Now it equates terrorist groups with Islamism, however the true causality is reverse: since the West doesn’t accept democratically elected Islamist government, the terrorist movement expands.(From Muslim Brothers to Salafism).
The US accepted
and promoted the overthrow of democratically elected
Morsi – since he was the ancient president of anti-Zionist
group in California. The military coup d’Etat has been
prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick David D.
attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT
Now the US will tacitly accept the subversion against the Libyan government by the American General Khalifa Haftar (their puppet like Sisi.
Vandewalle-N Jahr: Libya’s unexpected Strength INYTMay 9,15: “A system was adopted after the war to prevent certain political parties, particularly Islamist (!) ones from dominating the system.” (See also F. Wehrey: Taking side in Libya. INYT July 8,14; INYT July 29,14, p.4)
Turkey's government defends itself against Fehhulah Gulen, an apostate Muslim clerk who live now in Pennsylvania and serves Zionist interest (see INYT March 5, 2016).
Reaction to Roger Cohen's An Anti-Semitism of the left (INYT March 8,2016):
THE WEST'S SUBMISSION TO THE ZIONISM (4.2017).
ZIONISM: AN AVOIDED - COVERT, CONCEALED - MAIN FACTOR OF GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ANALYSES.
THE WEST'S PROPER INTERESTS AND THE INCREASING ZIONIST INFLUENCE IN THE GLOBAL SCENE
ACTOR OF THE WORLD POLITICAL CONCERNS:
The identification of the Zionist world movement as a player in the world politics, presenting itself as representative institution of the global political Judaism and the necessity to define independently the interest of the Western-(Christian) civilizational sphere.
THE OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD POLITICAL SITUATION
THE NECESSITY OF A ZIONISM OBSERVATORY (Z.O.) FOR ASSERTING THEWEST’S OWN STRATEGICAL INTERESTS
THE TASK OF A Z.O.: DEFYING THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT AND ITS UNBIASED OBSERVATION
THE IDENTITY OF JEWISH PEOPLE, ITS POLITICAL INTEREST AND REPRESENTATION. INSTITUTIONAL INCARNATION OF THE ZIONIST WORLD BODY: ISRAEL’S DEMOCRACY AND THE OLIGARCHICAL ORGANIZATIONS OF THE DIASPORA
THE OBSERVANT ZIONIST: COSMOPOLITAN IN HIS NATIVE COUNTRY AND PATRIOT IN ISRAEL
THE GEOPOLITICAL AMBITION OF THE ZIONISM
THE EXCLUSIVIST TENDENCY TO REIGN (the world Zionism as globalism)
THE PRESENT POLITICAL AGENDA DICTATED BY THE ZIONIST POWER CONFIGURATION (Z.P.C.)
EXCURSUS ABOUT THE SO-CALLED NEO-CONSERVATISM
THE SOPHISM OF THE SPONTANEOUS COINCIDENCE OF WESTERN AND ISRAELI INTERESTS:
THE PARALYZING AND BLURRING OF WESTERN OWN INTERESTS THROUGH ITS DEFINITION BY THE ZIONIST THINK-TANKS
I. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ZIONIST POLITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY:
1.THE MONOPOLY OF ZIONIST RESEARCH AND THE INTERDICTIONS OF POSING SOME QUESTIONS
(The special literature of Zionism: its institutions, its authors;
the objectivity of well-informed Israeli insider authors free from “anti-Semitism” inquisition)
2. THE APPROACHES OF REPUTABLE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT, NONPARTISAN ACADEMIC THINK-TANKS: THE CONTROL OF WORLD POLITOLOGICAL THINKING
3.THE SO-CALLED “FORBIDDEN FRUITS”
PARTISAN ORGANIZATIONS: ZIONIST WATCHDOGS
(AND THE NEW C.I.A.)
THE ZIONIST INQUISITOR ORGANIZATIONS AS EXCLUSIVE TENANTS OF “ANTI-SEMITIST” STIGMATIZATION.
(C.F.C.A.: G.O.G.N. for Israel’s apologetics)
EXCURSUS : I.N.G.Os AND G.O.N.G.O.s FOR SUBVERTING NON-ZIONIST DOMINATED STATES IN GENERAL /Russia etc./
The Western political elite and its financial dependence from the Zionist oligarchy for election candidacy
II. WAYS AND MEANS TO STOP THE ZIONIST GLOBALISM
Since the Zionist movement in 1948 arrived to create “the state of Jews” (Abraham Burg), the movement succeed even more and more to submit the long-term interest of the Christian based geopolitical, mainly Western sphere to the Zionist one.
(The ideological bias is such that through the so-called Judeo-Christian construction the Christianity will be reduced to a messianic Judaic sect. (E.g., Pat Robertson and the Jewish Jay Sekulow teaching.) They constitute the so-called Christian Zionists by the dispensationalism [Mearsheimer 132, 128-140], and in the American political life by the neoconservatives, who are instrumentalized to serve Zionist interest. In 1974 the Lausanne Covenant reunited 2.300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries . The Baptist press see the Zionist intervention in the Near East open the an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Charles Marsh: Wayward Christian Soldiers in IHT, 21.1.2003.)
Under Zionism[i] – in parallel with Islamism, which expresses the political Islam – we understand the political Judaism. It includes all these political movements which have the intention to represent politically the interest what it calls the "Jewish people".
(For example, in the USA the "neoconservatives" constitutes a group which - like Wolfowitz, E, Adams, Perle - pushes the U.S. to intervene worldwide in Israel's geopolitical interests. The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPI) viewpoint is all-Jewish and long term, and a cornerstone of its work is the premise that Israel is the core of the Jewish people.") Its think tank systematically and professionally examines the challenges, threats and opportunities that the Jewish people are coping with, and develops principles for policies and strategic alternatives. In addition, it may recommend on immediate steps needed to be taken in order to secure the continuity and prosperity of the Jewish people. JPPI was founded in 2002 by the Jewish Agency for Israel, and is run as an independent body. It is headed by a board of directors that is now chaired by Dennis Ross, the special advisor (!) for the Persian Gulf Southwest Asia in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration. Its current President is Avinoam Bar-Yosef.) Shmuel Rosen, editor of The Jewish Journal of JPPI wrote (8.8.2014, INYT): If all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli (!)Jewish kin. .If they still want to root for a Jewish state, there's no substitute for Israel."
/1./An “epistemological” specificity of our epoch of free speech is that if somebody will be free from the accusation of anti-Semitism, he should not write critically about Israel or the Talmudic tradition, except if he self is Jewish origin. In the later case he is exempt from accusation to violate a taboo. However for instance. criticizing the Muslim umma could be freely done by not-Muslim, Zionist authors[iii].
The basic problem with the Zionism as doctrine for the West is that
(a) it proclaims as premise the complete coincidence of the Western and Zionist interests. (The Zionist newsman of South African African origin wrote in the IHT [7.9.2001]:"Israel really is an European outpost in the Arab world." He forgets that the majority has not European Ashkenazi origin.)
(b) In a second conceptual step this common interest will be defined by Israeli one; i.e., the Zionist interest substitutes simply the Western proper interest.
On this manner the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere which can limit Israel expansion and regional hegemony became ipso facto an adversary to the (whole) West as such.
If this substitution is not working automatically, the Zionist plutocracy undertakes a “intellectual corruption”[iv]. It exercises a rough blackmail either by financial means or even by legal censorship (penal inquisition) pretexting anti-Semitic inspiration. The Anti-Defamation League is the most important specialized organization which tries to exclude from the mainstream intellectual life tendencies which define and follow proper interest of the West, - independently from Zionist one. This is the basic "epistemological" foundation of the expansive Zionist policy.
The installation of the doctrine "Zionist interest defines the Western one" together with the financing of (re)election of the political elite by the Zionist oligarchy makes possible that the burden of the expansionist Israeli policy is transferred from Zionist community to the western Christian taxpayers. (The clearest proof for this affirmation is, that when the American president expresses opposition to the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and nerveless the Israeli government follows its expansionist policy, the American government doesn’t reconsider the more than three billion assistance for Israel, - and even, if necessary it scarifies American blood in wars against Muslim countries rival to Israel. A typical fait accompli accepted by the USA legislation in 2015: the innocent sounding Customs Bill implies that "American officials will be obliged to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations. Eyal Press: When Made in Israel is right abuse. 27.1,2015, )
Furthermore, in the present version of the Zionist doctrine beyond the service of Israel's expansion and the defense of particular interest of the Jewish people worldwide, a broader aspiration could be read, namely to construct a "wandering" mobile globalist world civilization replacing, eclipsing the other existing ones (Ankerl 2000), especially the Western.
(The World Jewish Congress declared in 2001:" "JEWISH EXISTENCE THE DIASPORA - OF FAR-FLUNG COMMUNITIES - HAS BEEN BASED FOR HUNDRED YEARS ON GLOBALIZATION." GILAD ATZMAN SAID: FROM PROMISED LAND TO PROMISED PLANET.)
In fact, the infiltration of Zionism – based on the Talmud – into originally Christian Western civilizational sphere is deeper than appear at first glance.[v] Since the gradual secularization of the Western states – practically since the Renaissance – the legal order lost progressively its Christian moral foundation, the Christian Zionists opened the door largely to the Talmud - to the legal doctrine, Halakha which is offered to replace the Christian taught.[vi]
Concerning the Western applicability of the Talmud H. Patrick Glenn, professor at McGill University arrives to surprising suggestion. He wrote in the chapter entitled “An universal Talmud?” (129ff) that the Western philosophy of law lost its moral basis and the Talmudic law could serve as an alternative “model or example”. You can’t speak more explicitly[vii].
Politically, the gradual subordination of the interests of the Western great powers to Israel’s is an enigma. To reveal the Zionist strategy, the means and ways of its realization would be the task of think-tanks not corrupted by Zionist blackmail. We can emits the hypothesis that in democratic systems (1) beyond the financing of think-tanks, (2) the financing by the Zionist oligarchy the always more expensive (re)election campaigns of pro-Zionist candidates of both major parties is a crucial political operation. Finally (3) in prolongation of the financing of the think-tanks and other similar academic institutions , the Zionist oligarchy invest in mass media and creates what we can call the Zionist establishment. This is used, of course, for publicity in general but have a important political dimension. The screening control of mainstream mass media censures the communication between the elected power elite and the people. It is especially effective in countries where the state itself is not in possession of significant public media like the U.S.A.
To complete the image the frequent surveys deform the so-called public opinion. The Zionist pollsters try even replace the legal election results by their arbitrary questionings. Polls are often used also to mobilize the people against the opponents to the Zionist expansion. In this undertaking the Islamic counterpart of Zionism, the Islamism which promote the independence of the Muslim countries became in a patchy manner a synonym of bloodthirsty terrorism. The deformed image of the Muslim movement also encloses the democratic Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. (As noted, it elected government for example has been reversed in 2013 in Egypt by Western consent.)
The conquest of Zionism goes on the way to promote hostility between Christian and Muslim peoples; envenoms their relation by suspicion and inspiring the NATO with the image of Crusade. (It is to note that the reticence of the Western public in relation to the Muslim geopolitical sphere is secondarily facilitated by the massive Muslim immigration to Europe (especially from the ancient European colonies).
The recruiting of the Western powers for the Israeli battle against the Arabo-muslim civilization sphere is the most perverse effect of the Zionist dominance in the West.
It is to explain to the Muslim world that the Western world doesn't is based on Christian values anymore: in the European Union’s Constitution it is intentionally avoided any reference to Christianity. Consequently, in Europe not only Muslim symbols could be freely radicalized, blasphemed, but also Christian ones. Characteristically, institution as hetero-sexual character of the institution of wedding or the respect for Christ are no more taboos[viii]. On the other hand, the new laws against anti-Semitism protect the Zionist symbols. Indeed, the main task of the European Christianity remains the sacrifice as historical expiation. The peregrination of new generations to Auschwitz is obligatory as that the Muslims' to Mecca. Serving the Zionism 's cause became a day-to-day activity of Western officials, especially by combative acts. (Military assistance to the state of Israel). Lip service is not enough. The Muslim states, the Dar al-Islam also should realize that the Christian West is more and more hostage of the Zionist Power Constellation (ZPC) and consequently the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) doesn't have reason to have conflict with the Christian world as such.
The general goal of the ZPC is to weaken all states by any means which can limit Israel’s expansive hegemony. This touches, of course, first Palestine, and Israel other neighboring countries but also (Christian and other) states where the Zionist lost influence like Russia.
Of course, the destruction of Arab states which are around Israel (Iraq, Syria, Libya) and are not submitted to Zionist influence (like Egypt and Jordan are) and breaking them into small ethno-sectarian enclaves is the first objective as Oded Yinon exposed already in 1982 (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon revanche? An panoramic chaos in the Arab World. Strategic Culture Foundation 25.8.2013. Israël Shahak: Stratégie pour Israel dans les années 80. Orientation[Kivnim] no 14, 2.1982.)
A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD POLITICAL SITUATION
Since the end of the Cold War the world is no more divided in two parts, however it is not also under the unique power of the West any more. The West as geopolitical entity is represented by the North-Atlantic Alliance Organization. Since the European Union didn’t succeed to form a state the Anglo-American United States dominates it[ix]. The world largest state, the Russian Federation tries to reestablish its independence.
Two other civilizations arrived to construct states, which we can call civilization-states, China and India. They unsurpassed political achievement is to establish and maintain more than one milliard people in a sovereign state. They can't be constraint any more to serve foreign interests. Worldwide decisions can't be done violating their vial interest, even if - on institutional level - the U.N.'s Security Council ignores yet India's world power status.
The crescent-shaped Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere also includes more than one milliard believers, which is called by Shahid Alam Islamacate (139, 217). "The term ‘Islamdom’ will be immediately intelligible by analogy with ‘Christendom’. ‘Islamdom’ is, then, the society in which the Muslims and their faith are recognized as prevalent and socially dominant,"( (Michel G. S. Hodgson: The Venture of Islam. Volume 1. The Classical Age of Islam. 1977. Pages 58-59.).
However, the (Arabo-)Muslim dominated sphere as such didn’t yet find a proper international representation. Even if its public presence become more and more visible, its cohesion is fragile and fractured.
The Western presentation of the Islamacate and its political expression, the Islamism is deformed. The fundamental international political fact is that centuries no Islamacate countries attacked Western state, but the Western powers initiate repeatedly wars with dubious motives against one or other of these countries, as well as for years occupied them. However, these wars intending durable subjugation of the arabo-Musim civilizational sphere can't be won. The war against Iraq and Afghanistan produced big economic lost, and meanwhile the North Atlantic Treaty Organization lost its virgin image, reputation to be a regional defense organization. The CIA – as well as the US defense department – received from president Obama (however initiated in Islam) the mandate to follow the war against the independent Arabo-Muslim sphere which are not subordinated to the West to conduct a hidden war against Muslim countries by armed drones, as well as by overturning – even democratically elected governments like Egypt's in 2013.. The West operates this war in the only Muslim in Somalia, Syria and so on, over the local government’s head, - even in the only Muslim land with nuclear power, Pakistan. (For example, in Western powers installed in February 2017 Faramjo as president who lived in the last 30 years in the U.S. and being double citizen travels with American passport.)
For the originally anti-Soviet NATO, tacitly, the main enemy became the non subordinated Arab-Muslim world, despite the fact that no objective analysis confirmed existing projects attacking Western countries.
Iran for example even if it tries to develop nuclear arms never made declaration and manifested intention or made preparation to invade Western countries. Iran is only opposed against the expansion of Israel in occupied Palestine.
We can conclude that the Western saber-rattling against the Arab-Muslim world doesn’t originate from recognized Western interest. The Western world is not separated from the Muslim by irreconcilable antagonistic interest. For this very reason it would be fatal to concentrate the North Atlantic power to holding the Muslim world at bay instead of developing with it a fructuous good neighborly relation. Also it should be looked for the power configuration which hinders the West to develop a policy which would promote this peaceful cooperation based on equality. Which is this power center which has an interest to mobilize Western force to intimidate the Muslim world, and has . as well, the necessary influence to compel the Western power to execute this policy?
Since the everyday observation shows that the nuclear-armed Zionist state of Israel - in the hearth of the Arabo-Muslim world - follows a hegemonic and expansive policy, disproportionate with it size, it has obviously a visceral interest to mobilize the West against the Muslim world. On the other side, if the West help militarily, economically, diplomatically Israel in this undertaken without reserves, it could be expected that spontaneous militant Muslim movement emerge against the West. Indeed, without the Western submission to particular Israeli interest, the Muslim world would not be eo ipso the West's enemy. The so-called Muslim terrorism against the West is the West's self-inflected wound.
In the West we can recognize the Zionist power configuration (Patras)[x] as the Power center which presses the West to neglect its own best interest, respectively subordinated it to Israel’s - and to the World Zionism’s, even if it is called by a code-name “neoconservative”[xi].
The present-day mobilization of the West against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere originates in the fact that this sphere - if it forms an united front - could be the biggest hindrance to Israel’s expansionism and regional hegemony. Meanwhile the West losses its force in this battle (Alam 139) and by so doing becomes weaker in the Chinese-Western competition.
It also is necessary to define western interest independently from that of Israel and lay bare all maneuvers which deform the Western interest in order to submit it to Israel's political actions.
It is a plausible hypothesis that the overwhelming and growing Zionist influence in the Western geopolitical sphere come mainly by the fact that the Zionist Diaspora gives primary to Israel’s interest and on the other hand, the Christian part of the political elite is existentially exposed to the blackmail of the Zionist oligarchy. For verifying these explications and to oppose this illegitimate Zionist influence it is necessary to systematically observe its functioning.
IN ORDER TO ASSERT THE WESTERN OWN STRATEGICAL INTEREST IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE A ZIONISM OBSERVATORY (ZO)
We can state that the declared objective of the world Zionist movement is to create the state of Israel, and subsequently to serve the interest of its government as well as broadly the Diaspora’s interest (Herszlikowicz op. cit. 48ff). The general experience show that since the second world war the Western powers – even if they criticize in declarations the Israeli expansionary policy – more and more help Israel diplomatically, militarily and economically, even if this policy is not in accordance with the West’s interest or even with its declared policy (e.g., against the colonization of the West Bank)
If the political anomaly, absurdity is true that a people of a dozen millions - represented by the Zionism - enjoys a quasi-veto-right in relation to world most influential state, the US and the NATO, the most powerful alliance, this need an explication.
(Example in the other text H 2 pages..)
It became a fact that the world’s political situation –e specially in the West could not be studied, evaluated without studying the world Zionist movement as an important political factor.
In contrast to this necessity the Zionism as such became a kind of taboo in the contemporary political studies. If somebody in elite circle touch the Zionist influence, the cold silence appears, like if somebody speaks about pornography. (The elephant is in the room, but the censorship interdicts to realize this fact.) The various methods of silencing, muzzling we will discuss later.
Indeed, it is essential for the West to study the Zionist movement as factor in present-day politics. We also find in the West already numerous think-tanks, academic institutions which studies the relation of various actors of world politics. But by examining these studies we can observe an omerta in the widely published and read studies of standing, they neglect the issue to discuss the difference and eventual contradiction between Israel’s and the West’s interests. This issue is never studies in deep, if evoked it is in a cursory manner. In fact, the Zionist premises in tacitly accepted, that this contradiction is not possible. Indeed, the contradiction between Western and Israeli interest is - politically institutionally - inconceivable, since the Western interest itself is defined by the influential think tank financed by the Zionist oligarchy in the diaspora, while the Israeli interest could be defined freely by the Israeli government. (The multidimensional influence of the Zionist Diaspora guarantee the epistemological censorship in key political research institutions as well as on public forums.) The Zionist oligarch, Naim Saban's ("a vocal supporter of Israel" [Maureen Down in INYT 6.12.2912]) in 1985 founded Center for Middle East Policy related to Brookings Institution is a good example, as well as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy founded in 2002.
(Example one page)
Lets enumerate some fundamental facts which make necessary a Zionism Observatory for non-Zionist “research”.
The West puts Israel into a privileged position as representative of world Jewish people:
- the secularist Western concept require that Christian and Muslim religious symbols to be forced back into the private sphere, while the Jewish symbols are protected by laws against Anti-Semitism, and Israel itself can remain an explicitly Jewish state.
- It is accepted implicitly that Israel be the unique nuclear power is the Middle East. We see that in the handle of the Iranian case (See also Mearsheimer  for the memorandum of 6.5.2009 between Nixon and Golda Meir and Kissinger’s note in 2007.)
- The UN declares illegitimate and condemns the Israeli settlement policy in Jerusalem and the other occupied territories. Israel doesn’t respect these determinations (UNSC decision no 446 March22,1979 and no 2334 Dec.30, 2016), while the West continue to back Israel diplomatically, militarily and economically.
-Israel arrived to involve the Western powers into an endless war against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere like Iraq, Afghanistan. Despite the fact that
Western countries took the initiative to occupy islamacate, Muslim countries, while no Muslim power occupies Western country, the Zionist propaganda arrived to produce an image where the self-defensive Muslim world appears as the aggressive part in the conflict.
It should be explored which are the cause of this staunch Western attitude to serve first of all Israeli interest. Among the hypotheses figures the supposition that the double citizens - especially the Zionist oligarchy - infiltrated the Western political, media and academic elite as well as blackmail the remaining non-Zionist part of it.
THE TASK OF ZIONISM OBSERVATORY (ZO):
THE OBJECTIVE STUDY OF ZIONIST MOVEMENT IN THE WORLD
The task of Zionism Observatory (ZO) is to follow worldwide the activities of the organizations, institutions, networks which will represent the interest of the chosen people. ZO observes systematically the coordinated[xii] actions of the Zionist inspired movements in interest of the state of Israel and its potential citizens in the diaspora. How they work, operate in various part of the world and in various levels of collective organization (international ,state, NGO) for promoting its influence.
The ZO studies the Zionism not as a spiritual movement as such but as a political one. The historical past (e.g., holocaust) or the religiousness in so far is considered that they contribute to the present and further political influence of the Zionist movements. The object of the study is the strategy, the power play of them worldwide. Its subject is the self defined Jewish people.[xiii] By this representation of this particular interest the Zionist movement became active factor of contemporary history. In this perspective Israel itself is the central symbol to define the Jewish political identity as well a mean for increasing the Jewish People's worldwide influence. For the Zionism as political Judaism – avoiding the maze of ethnic and religious definitions -- article 437 of Israel citizen law from 1952 define the belonging to the Jewish people and nation. In short, Jews are all these individuals who by entering in Israel and declaring the intention to reside permanently in Israel and proving his Jewish origin can receive the Israeli citizenship directly.[xiv]
In the line to enforcing the biblical continuity of the Jewry among others, the Zionist Hassidim Isaac Perlman, called Eliezer Ben-Yehuda who migrated to Palestine in 1881, "reinvented" the Hebrew which was an non-spoken language during 1700 years. It became the official language of Israel. (The "renaissance" of the spoken Hebrew is also inspired by the Haskasa movement of XVIII and XIX centuries. (IHT 6.8.2008)
In order to study the movements for promoting the interest of the community of the Jewish people we find many sources. For scientific investigations numerous ones can be considered only as secondary source. Even by simulating a balanced presentations the most sources are either engaged Zionists’ work or Anti-Semitic pamphlet. All these authors mix knowledge with propaganda. We find there selective enumeration of facts, arbitrarily construed narratives. Is not a exception that false facts are asserted, therefore these publications loss their epistemological value.
The Western academic political science is one-sidedly under Zionist oligarchical influence by its gatekeepers, or at least under (self-)censorship. However, this doesn’t mean that the studies of Western think-tanks are monotonous. They cover all shades of Zionist strategical thinking. Some argue about the opportunity for enlarging Israel’s territory on biblical ground (Settler colonies as part of a divine plan leading to the coming of the Messiah: "Tzipi Hotovely, deputy foreign minister told the Israeli diplomatic corps that they should use the Bible as a tool for telling the world that the entire land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belong to the Jews INYT 26.5.2015.); others more globalist Diaspora authors are only preoccupied by the worldwide influence of the Zionism. (Tradition of Ahad Ha-am; Franck 85-6). Some accept completely the principle that the purpose justifies the means, again others advise to operate within the framework of international legal order.
(The Begin-Sadat Center Strategic Studies of Ben-Ilan University published a paper written by Steven R. David, a former adviser of CIA and US Defense Department. David justifies legally and morally the targeted killing by Mossad and the Shin Bet services by the Bible (undiscoverable in the classical edition [Exodus 12:1]), by "the Jewish history and the history of the state". Indeed during the British Mandate and also later Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ehud Barak, Golda Meir ordered targeted killing. Ha'aretz/IHT 9.12.2002.)
The variety of strategies proposed for the Zionism gives the impression that all variants of possible policies in a given situation have been discussed. In reality, all these institutions are financed, operated and popularized by the Zionists, therefore although numerous policies came under consideration but only from one viewpoint: which is the better solution for Israel.
(The forced research of biblical reference is also used for colonial conquest of East Jerusalem. The Elad - Ir David Foundation - as well as the archeologist Eilat Mazar of Shaslom Foundation try to "discover" King David Palace of 10th century BC which is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. The Ea. Ire David Foundation, commonly known as Lead [Lead] (Hebrew: אלע"ד, an acronym for "אל עיר דוד", meaning "to the City of David") is a Jerusalem-based, Israeli association which aims is openly to strengthen the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, create a Jewish majority (!) in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and renew the Jewish community in the City of David, which is also part of the neighborhood of Silwan. The foundation works to achieve its goals by tourism, education, archaeological excavations and obtaining homes in the area to establish a Jewish presence.[Wikipedia. S. Erlanger: King David's fabled palace : Is this it? IHT 5.8.2005.][3
It is to note that, of course, Zionist researcher has the full right to develop Zionist strategy, if he states explicitly his approach. However, the ZO doesn’t’ follow this interest and is not concerned the internal debate of Zionists. ZO is concerned to detach Western interest from Zionist ones. It will fulfill this narrow free research space what remains between mainstream think-tanks engaged for Zionism and racist Anti-Semitic workshops.
Concerning this later Learned Elders of Zion (World Conquest Through World Jewish Government) an objectless debate developed. This text has been conceived in Russian. In 1921 Henry Ford financed its English translation and Dearborn Independent published it and sold half million copies. It describes an so-called Jewish world conspiracy. The debate around this text is mainly historical. It questions its origin. The ZO is devoted to the politics of present time and doesn’t participate in this discussion. (In a certain sense the Zionists themselves maintain the Protocols in the actuality since they argue longum et latum against its authenticity. Professor Pierre-André Taguieff - of Russian-polish origin, - director in the French FNRS group around the so-called The Protocols of the engages himself in a preface to the Protocols French edition (Berg Fayard, 2004) to prove its forgery. In order to assure about its impartiality, he negates his Jewish origin. On the other hand, Taguieff is the front-line flightier of the tendency to assimilate to anti-Semitism all anti-Zionist critics of Israel in order to silence them even by means of penal procedures. The same « idea » inspires Robert E. Wistrich [Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. Jewish Political Studies Review. 2004.6, 3-4]. For the ZO it is useless to debate that the Protocols is an authentic document or an apocryphal one: the relevant question is either the observable actions of Zionist movement in present time meets the description of found in the Protocols. Henry Ford declared in February 1921 in the New York World : « The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on ». (Henry Ford : The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem 1920-27, This is published by Theodore Fritch . )
On the other hand, a similar debate developed for years until today about the "authenticity", official nature of Oded Yinon plan of 1982 (Kivnim [Orientations] no 14, February 1982) concerning the Zionist policy to parcel the large Arab state in Israel's neighborhood into small ethno-sectarian protectorates. Were the Yinon-document an official one or not, the Zionists' inspired US policy by destroying Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, now the state of Syria - and by its hostility to Iran - shows that the plan is in process of implementation.
Independently from the Protocols Herzl defined the objective of the World Zionist Movement in 1897 in Basle to increase the influence of the Jewish people world-wide. Never denied this any Zionist movement since.
(Laqueur Walter: A History of fg. MJF books, New York, 1972. Hertzberg Arthur ed.:
The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader.)
Thus the ZO concentrates on the present functioning of the Zionist movement in all its aspects (objectives, way and means, results). Presently it doesn’t seem that there are a “Jewish conspiracy” in the world. Indeed, the Zionist movement is absolutely open to the public it is rather very loud in the mass media. However, the extremely influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) doesn’t publish its list of directors, -as doesn’t do the Freemason movement.
(/Wikipedia 14/ Michael Massing: The Israel Lobby. The Nation. June 10,2002. Blackout about Zionist blackmail. Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker (Real Insidness. July 4, 2005.: “ a lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”)
The AIPAC will for any price avoid that it should be registered by the Department of Justice in conformity with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. In fact the organization avoid that since it is financed by the American Zionist oligarchy.
As we already noted the Zionist world movement tries to prevent and hinder, silence by all mains any work which tries to define the Western interest independently or even in contradiction with the Israel’s. This censorship is fundamental since it hinders Western opinion to follow and recognize its own interest. The Zionist censorship is mainly realized by the self-censorship of the most influential Western institutions. The researchers use quasi exclusively sources which are agreed as “respected” by the Zionists (Mearsheimer 113-5, 139). The publication of Mearsheimer and S. M. Walt's famous manuscript about he "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy has been hindered 5 years (VII-IX) (Unfortunately, this work has no new edition with new data and consideration since 2005.) Institutions which doesn’t follow the line are brand marked as “anti-Semitic” with reference to the Nazism. This censorship also has a brutal form, since works which are qualified an anti-Semitic can cause penal pursuit.
(A very good example is Roger Garaudy’s – who died in 2012. He wrote the book Les mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne. [1996, Samiszdat Paris, ISBN 2-951-000-5] and was penalty persecuted.) Near all European legislations have an article which allows this persecution. In Switzerland it is the article 261bis in the penal code.
The Zionist censorship uses mostly more refined means than the Christian Middle Ages and the Soviet regime used. One of this is that only ethnically engaged Jews can criticize Israel’s policy or handling Western interest independently from Israel’s one. without risking the blame to be an anti-Semite. If this loyalty control is not working, the Zionist press speaks about “irrational Israel hatred, or self-hatred Jews”. (C. Franck mentions Karl Marx. 62.) But the critics behave mostly as the conservative Jew, Richard Goldstone, South-Africa judge did: In 2011 under the pressure of his coreligionists he recanted large part of his UNO report about Israel misdeeds in Gaza in 2008-2009. (E. Bronner and Israel Kershner: Inquiry chief retracts key finding of Gaza report. IHT 4.4.2011.)
His crime against his tribe became venial. And as the prodigal son has been forgiven by the Zionists.
Before we can develop the issue how the Zionist movement make good its interest
-in the Western political sphere – namely in the U.S. legislation mainly by the AIPAC and in the executive branch by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO) – as well as
-in the public opinion by the predominance in the mass media,
we should show succinctly which obstacle hinders the simple recognition of the Western interest independently from the Israeli’s.
The Zionist censorship in the intellectual life exercises by 3 means:
1. It hinders the financing of think-tank which operate exclusively by non-Israelis;
2. if these think-tanks exist from Arab financial source, the Zionist movement hinder the diffusion of the research results calling them "biased",
3. all approaches which are critical to the Zionism receive the anti-Semitic or even the Nazism anathema,
4. if all these means seem insufficient thanks to the new post-war legislation the authors could be persecuted as anti-Semite by the penal code, viz., the modern inquisition.
The censorship concerns fundamentally the interdiction of evoking the basic issue:
The unconditional support for Israel is for the Western geopolitical sphere a major burden which hinders a peaceful and fructuous cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim civilization.
The material which should be studied by the CO are 2 sorts:
-declaration of influential politicians,
-material facts: measures, financial, military and diplomatic actions (e.g., exercise of veto right in the UNSC).
The comparison of these two levels of data is one of the method applied by the ZO because this show clearly the behind the scene machinations of the Zionist movement.
The Zionist inspired arbitrary presentation, narrative of the international series of event should be lay bar in order to show the proper Western strategical interest independently from Israel’s.
THE POLITICAL DEFINITION OF THE IDENTITY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THE REPRESENTATION OF ITS INTEREST:
(THE WORLD CORPORATION OF ZIONIST APPARATUS: The Israeli democracy and the diaspora’s established oligarchic organizations)
Recall that the Zionism Observatory (ZO) will not study, analyze, dissect the Zionism for its own sake. Our concern (ZO) is to handle the Zionism as an actor in the world policy, to reply the questions: in which respect, in which directions and in which measures can the Zionist movement influence the West’s own interest recognition, its implementation and subordinate them to the Zionist own interest (Alam 192-3). Indeed, ZO has an interest in the Israeli policy only insofar that Israel realizes its Chauvinistic policy in so fare that the oligarchic Zionist diaspora can subordinate the Western powers' action to the Zionist goals. Orlando Patterson of Harvard wrote about Ethnic Chauvinism (NYC, Stein and Day, 1977) and political parochialism.
As a matter of fact, in the Western political life there are political actors which have not public legal status but these “civil” organizations can efficiently act without that. Among these today the Zionist movement appears eminently to be the most successful. This organization realized to constitute a national state for the Chosen People in West Asian, in the middle of the Arabo-Muslim world (Alam 9, 223 [25-6]).
With the realization of Israel on the Promised Land[xv] the Zionist movement accomplished its declared historical mission. The land is secured by the most modern arms delivered by the U.S.A.
The state of Israel is the determinant for belonging to the Jewish people. The Israeli law of citizenship of 1952 (437/576) defines the criteria. As political actor, this definition is more fundamental and comprehensive than to be an observant or nonobservant Jew. On the other side, this definition of the Jewish people by a fundamental
public law saves the ZO from the trouble to lose itself in the daedal of the ethnic and religious definition of the Chosen People.
Avraham Burg past president of the Knesset, - and past provisory president of the state itself , - of the Jewish Agency and of the World Zionist Organization (which didn't hinder to receive also in 2004 the French citizenship) in his book (The Holocaust is Over: We must Rise from its Ashes. MacMillan, New York, 2008; IHT, August 6, 2012,,8) said that “today, the meaning of ‘ Jewish’ in Israel is mainly ethnic and religious” and he follows: “we never tried to separate the synagogue and the state”. In issues of personal rights – like wedding – the Orthodox Jewish tribunal has competence. However, Burg would prefer to call Israel “the State of Jews” than Jewish state (Burg 2.o.Wikipedia). His definition is in full coincidence with our position to define the Jewish people represented by the Zionists as the set of people having the potential (the possibility) to be automatically a citizen of Israel (the law of return from 5 July 1950).[xvi] For and by the Zionists the state of Israel became the determinant of the Jewish People as political entity which they will represent as well as its all-inclusive symbol. According the Israeli law you are Jews by birth, viz. by matrilineal lineage or by a rigorous Orthodox conversion process. ("'Israeliness' is the new collective sense of Jewishness. Samuel Rosner of The Jewish People Policy Institute quotes the orthodox president of Israel, Reuven Rivlin. NYT June 12.2015.) On the other side, according to the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel 50 laws discriminate against Arabs. This exclusion completes the large inclusiveness of Israel for the Jewish people on the whole world.
Incontestably the basic aim of the Zionist movement was the Aliyah, the migration to the Eretz Israel, the colonization of Palestine. (Today, there are a strong expatriation movement from Israel. Only in Nevada - esp. in Las Vegas - live 10.000 Israeli expatriates.)
From the beginning the state of Israel defined by the UN in 1948 and 1967 and accepted by the world community doesn't correspond with Israel delimited by Zionists. Zionism as the national movement of the Jewish people supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as so-called historic Land of Israel, including the whole Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land. This implies already an expansive regional policy which is not agreed by the world community (as confirmed implicitly the UNCI decision of December 2016.)
After the creation of Israel the goals of Zionism had been reformulated but the maintenance in the center of Jewish conscience the state of Israel remains a foundation of this movement. The sort of the Jewish people left in the Diaspore also remains essential preoccupation (Franck 85). The prophetic vision of a triumphal Israel should help the Jewish education and culture. The Zionist movement flights for the rights of the Jews everywhere, but also requires to promote in their homeland to influence the respective government in favor of Israel. The post-Israel Zionist movement, on one side, extends the protection of the all co-religionists - the Diaspora had originally a provisory status in the Zionism! - in the world, and on the other side, it mobilizes this population as Israeli patriots.
The fundamental trouble of the Zionist movement is the fact that this movement attributes to these double citizens in their native land a “plant” role who serves Israel’s interest. The Zionism by not distinguishing between Jews in Israel and elsewhere, by representing the latters too, it expect, consequently that the Diaspora behave like potential Israeli citizen.[xvii] This Zionist requirement becomes especially unacceptable if members of the Diaspora reach situation where they become representative or public functionary of their home countries. On one side, loyalty breach could be produced in the homelands, and on the other side anti-Semitic tendencies can spread.
By representing all Jews as potential Israeli citizen the Zionist movements bring the wandering Jew in a contradictory situation which are demonstrated by the American spying cases (Jonathan Pollard etc.).
(Adams Elliott: Faith or Fear in a Christian America. New York, Simon, 1997, 181: “Jews… are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is a very nature of being Jewish to be part- except in Israel (!) – from the rest of the population.” [Mearsheimer 167]
The Zionist association federates the Jewish interest in the world. See since 1978 Jerusalem Center for Public Affair’s Center for Jewish Community Studies and the Jerusalem Institute for Federal Studies.)
According to Glenn (120) the modern rationalist reformist and the Concentration of conservative Talmudist Jews opposing to the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel, could put in danger the unity of the Jewish people. Indeed, the Hadassah and Halakha are god-fearing people.
After the foundation of Israel in West-Asia in 1948 the Zionist movements are living on borrowed time (like the NATO after 1990, when with the dissolution of the Soviet Union survived its defensive mission). Israel territorial integrity was assured, but as unique nuclear power in the region, its donating intention made the conflicts in the region permanent.
(Mearsheimer exposes the Zionist Martin Indyk's ideas [228-32, 234 257-8]. See also Alam 48, 228 and Laqueur W. : A History of Zionism. New York, MJF Books 1972, 85.
Indeed, on the annexation of Golan high is the model for the West Bank. Israel expulsed 800.000 Druze and Bedouin from the High and installed 34 Israeli colonies and created a city too. In December 1981 Golan has also been legally incorporated in Israel. (Mearsheimer 267 and Alam 195, 218.) Israel will have the occupied territories without its autochthon population.
Unfortunately for the Christians because the disproportion between the disproportion between the Arabo-Muslim and Jewish populations for realizing its hegemonic policy the Zionists should ask the Christian population's help. (All unilateral and unprecedented sacrifices for Israel are by the neo-conservative "crusaders".)
The main strategical ideas of Zionist to provide this unilateral help is on one side
(a) to present Israel's expansion as service for the Christians, and on the other side,
(b) the Zionists try to divide the Arabo-Muslim sphere utmost, (Sunnites against Sheets, Arabs against non-Arab-Muslims, converted against inborn).
The Zionists try to convince the Christians about this coincidence of interests or they engage them by blackmail to involve them in a conflict with the arabo-muslim geopolitical sphere. For realizing this strategy it is important that the Zionist double citizens are not exposed as a traitor in his homeland.
This strategy is elaborated by institutions which function as communication vessels
between Israel and Western institutions. One of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Shalom Center in Israel. (Mearsheimer 50,371) A typical agent of these bridge think tank is Andrew J. Tobler who studied on the American University in Cairo and work now parallel in WINEP, International Crisis Group and the Oxford Business Group (OBG).
The International Center for Study of Radicalization was founded in 2008 is related to the King's College of London University but also to the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya near to Tel Aviv. (Of course, this centers don't study Avigdor Lieberman's radicalization.)
The "communicating tubes" relate not only the institutes devoted to strategic studies but the whole establishment - elite and oligarchy - of the Zionist world movement. (in the media for example is not seldom to find the name in the Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post. E.g. Bret Stephen.
"Stanley Fischer ...U.S. banker received Israeli citizenship in the morning and was sworn in as the governor of Israel's Central Bank several hours later." IHT 2.5.2005.)
(c) Since the foundation of Israel in 1948 the Zionists enlarged their mission not only to (re)create the great biblical Israel, but to follow a goal what we can call globalist pan-Zionist movement in service of the world potential Israeli citizen, the world Jewish people.
This new strategy accept that a large part of the diaspora will not settle in Israel, but the World Zionist Organization and its associate institutions expect that this permanent diaspora doesn't loose its banter to Israel.
(Goldberg 350-1. U. Rebhun and L. Levy Ari : American Israelis : Migration, Transnationalism, and Diaspora Identity. Brill, Boston, 2010 /CS nov.2011, 740/)).
The Zionist strategists accepted even that some diaspora serve better Israel in his home country than as a settler in Israel. (Besides presently for Russia more Jews migrate to the "odious" Germany than to Israel.)
The representation of the Jewish people in Israel they are normal democratic channels - including the settlers outside Israel - the representation of the diaspora there are myriad competing organizations. In the USA there are more than 80 (Mearsheimer 116), Legally only the Halakha of the Talmud could unify them. The representation of global Jewish interest based on the individual right is not happened. Often the polls replace it. (Mearsheimer 189). Peter Beinard men's that the democracy is lacking in the Zionist organizations [P. Beinard: The Crisis of Zionism. MacMillan, New York, 2012, IHT 14.2.2012 Roger Cohen]. Roger Cohen and other liberal Zionist claims that other Zionist organizations which speak in name of the Jewish People like Abraham Foxman's Anti-Defamation League, - following the combative Jabotinsky line - the Zionist Organization of America, the AIPAC, the Jewish Committee neglect Arnold Jacob Wolf J-Street line or the Union of Concerned Zionists (Mearsheimer 113,352-3).
The Zionist organizations are activist. According to Goldberg (162) since 1967 in these organizations the principles of equality, tolerance and social justice are replaced by the culture of loyalty to Israel and the engagement against the enemy of Israel. The degree of engagement became the criteria for membership in committee etc. This meets well the requirement of efficiency in the Zionist worldview.
The power delegation emanate from Israel's government, the member's influence and his generosity.
George Soros is one of this oligarch who used 8 billion dollars to influence public and cultural life in 60 countries by his single donor enterprise, the Open Society Foundation. He finances for his son, Alex Soros Foundation which finances Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. [Alex Williams: Trial and errors of living with the family name. IHT 2012.7.24.]
Soros original name was Schwartz (Kaufman Michael T.: Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire. Knopf, IHT 2002.3.27.). in 1947 he emigrated from Hungary to England. Tina Rosenberg calls him to be :“a devoted provocateur and accidental humanitarian”. (Tina Rosenberg: Some U.S. Charities Build Little State Department. IHT, 2001.8.14.) Soros monopolizes the term Open for himself. I could be associated with the word Society, Institute or Foundation. The director are Israelites. (The president of Open Society Institute - since 2001.8.14 - is Aryeh Neier.)
Thomas L. Friedman describes the Zionist influence by money: “Add on top that, the increasing role of money in U.S. politics and the importance of single donors who can write mega checks to ‘super PAC’ – and the fact that the main Israel lobby AIPAC, has made itself the feared(!) arbiter of which lawmakers are ‘pro’ and which are ‘anti-Israel’, and, therefore, who should or not be financed“)
Mearsheimer 171-173] The editor of WSJ R. Bartley wrote: “Shamir, Sharon, Bibi - whatever those guy want is pretty much fine with me.” Martin Peretz the editor of New Republic admits: “I am in love with the state of Israel.”
It is the American Zionist oligarchy which pushed the second Iraqi war and it will since 12013 to bombard Syria and Iran, Israel's rivals.( [Mearsheimer 243]. )
In order to follow the Zionist oligarchy general Wesley Clark declared: “there is so much pressure being channeled from New York money people to the office seekers.” M. Iglesias wrote that Everything Clark said is true. What’s more, everybody knows it’s true.” (Mearsheimer 302, 232 352-3.)
The only democratic procedure existing within the diaspora in America it is within the Conference of Presidents of Majors American Jewish Organizations (CPMJO) where the organization with more than five hundred members has one vote. In fact, in the decision procedure the most wealthy and engaged organizations have more weight. (Mearsheimer 127,397/58) as well as Goldberg (60, 201, 102, 103) underlined how the oligarchical part of the American Jewish population has more and more the upper hand. (According to Goldberg [102, 103] between 1916 and 1917 on the Paris peace conference the American Jewish Congress' Committee "deputized themselves" to order to make a democratic image.
While the AIPAC is concentrated on the presence of the Zionists in the elected part of the state body, the CPMJO is to place Zionists in the key position of the executive branch.
A typical case of the infiltration on level of international organization is the American delegation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
On the UN Racism conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001, the Us delegation Elliott Abrams the US National Council senor director for democracy and human rights, and(!) the White House contact for Jewish groups and David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee (IHT, 6-9-2001, 6).
In 2014 after the the invasion of Gaza by Israel increased the anti-Zionism in Europe. The American delegation in Berlin (14.11.2014 NYT) included behind Samantha Power Abraham H. Foxman director of ADL and Rabbi Andrew Baker "personal representative for combating anti-Semitism" (?)- Israel boycott and criticism is immediately assimilated and punished as anti-Semitism. Meanwhile the EU asked Palestine to not brig the case of Gaza-invasion before the International Criminal Court as Navi Pillay ancient Un High Commissioner for Human Rights (11.2014 NYT), what means doing notion to hinder Israel's barbaric behavior.
The CPMJO as the great coalition of the Zionist organizations will
- represent the interest of the organized American Jewish people, meanwhile
- defend the enforce the safety and dignity of the Jewish people in the whole world
- occupy on issues which cause indignation for the American Jewish community.
- CPMJO also looks for that the interest of Israel find a hearing in the circle of the decision makers, opinion former and within the public at large.
- The means for realizing these goals to forming and reinforcing a special relation between Israel and the USA.
According the chart of the CPMJO is word by word
“strengthening and fostering the special US-Israel relationship;
ensuring that Israel’s interests are heard and understood by policy makers, opinion molders and the American public;
“addressing critical foreign policy issues that impact the American Jewish community; representing the interests of organized (!) American Jewry; protecting and enhancing the security and dignity of Jews around the world.”
It is clear as crystal day the circle of defended people, the defended interest as well as the means used even if the detail influencing procedure is not exposed. But it is well-known to hidden the "influence-peddling" the financial contribution to decision-maker doesn't come from AIPAC or CPMJO directly but these organizations incite their wealthy member to act individually (e.g. Naim Saban for Mrs. Clinton, Adelson for Trump). Indeed, AIPAC can't be a "Pac" and can't do "linked donation" (Mearshaimer 155, 404[17, 20]-
The actions od this organizations are often inspired directly by the Israeli ambassador. During the Johnson administration, for example, the Israeli ambassador encouraged these organizations that their members write numerous protest letters to the president in styles. (Mearsheimer 121-2).
They have also so-called emergency actions. In 2010 Adelson's Shalom Center in Jerusalem founded the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) in order to counterbalance Obama tendency to condemn the settlement policy on the West Bank. Among the responsible we find Daniel Loeb, William Kristol, Rachel and Elliott Adams. They try to recruit neoconservative Christians like Garr Bauer who was a Republican presidential candidate financed by the Zionists.
In these maneuvers it is necessary to see that the discussion not around peace or justice but, what is better to increase Israel's influence, i.e. to see in this beauty contest which is the pro-Israeli wing of the pro-Israeli community. In the competion between Republicans and Democrats in foreign policy. In this respect, not strictly the Israel as state is on stake but as we see in the CPMAJO objectives this prioritizing for Israel extend to the relations with all countries in the world. They will be judged which relation has to Israel and the country's Zionist organizations. Not only Muslim countries came on this manner on the black list. It is among them Venezuela as well Russia since the elimination of the Hrokovsky-Gusman click.
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is a "normative" organization to show what are the (political) obligations of the American Jews. It is simply the support of Israel's policy. It is Israel's ambassador who determines that cause and the strategy to follow. (Mearsheimer 121-2, 123-4),
In the spirit of first loyalty the American Jews should not criticize Israel in public. Organizations which have the tendency to criticize Israel's policy before their home country's organ can't be member organization of the CPOMAJO. Mearsheimer mentions the case of Edgar Bronfman Sr.'s World Jewish Congress (124). See also Maersheimer 115-6. Robert H Trice: Domestic Interest Groups and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In: E. Saïd: Ethnicity and U.S. Foreign Policy. 121-.2.)
The leaders of Zionist organizations criticizing Israel are often exposed to personal attack in pamphlets etc. Under pressure of ostracism some organization retract themselves, go to Canossa or simply are obliged to dissolve themselves.(Maersheimer 125, 397 ).
The most actors of international public life have a standardized organizational and institutional system. In the case of Zionist organizations as nongovernmental organization - called by James Petras (J. Petras: Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power. Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2008) Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) we can't see a central organ. These under various national flags masked organizations have not interest to exhibit its structure. According to strategic interest they also change often their denomination. The main directives comes from the Israeli government; however because the rich American diaspora the power distribution is diffuse. Indeed, Tel Aviv should share the power with the Zionist oligarch of New York - Washington axe (even BosWash including the intellectually influential Charles River Zionists).
According to Goldberg (403, 207, XIII-XIV) in the USA 3 organizations are the top. The American Jewish Committee with 30.000 mostly wealthy members, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Committee has been founded in 1906 by a self-appointed German Jewish social elite. Goldberg 101-3). The It has been founded in 1913 and is nominally affiliated to the B'nai B'rth (Children of Covenant). It is in fact an association of reformist rabbis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center today is occupied with tracing of Nazi graybeards. These two last organizations are the Zionism inquisition police. It look in fact for organizations which criticize Israel.
Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum (founded in 1990) directed Campus Watch is typically an aggressive Zionist censorship organization.
By the censorship the criticism of Israel's policy diminished on the American campuses (Mearsheimer 183, 232, 302).
As mentioned the non transparence of the various Zionist organization also artificially created using the chaos of western non-government organizations as a Golden Eden. Within the Zionist Power Configuration, we find organization which are related to the Israeli army, the department of finance as well as various rabbinic organization. These later by supporting Israel's policy expose themselves to attack on the Jewish faith. This engagement of the Israelite religion is also shown by the oration of Israeli prime minister in synagogues. Dove Lipmann, previously American citizen became member of Knesset told that “the prayer for Israeli soldiers is commonly said in synagogues worldwide..(!)” (Jodi Rudoren: A rabbi’s quest to ‘equalize the burden”. IHT 2013.2.9). This attitude of Israelite religious authority is a cause that the anti-Zionism becomes an anti-Semitic color. It is to recall that in Israel the Orthodox Jews and their religion have a special status inscribed in various laws. Rituals such as marriage and burial must (!) be performed under Orthodox regulation. /Contemporary Sociology, March 12, 180/. (Nachman Ben-Yehuda: Theocratic Democracy: The Social Construction of Religious and Secular Extremism. Oxford UP, 2010.)
As exposed the various Zionist organizations have specific targets to increase their influence. The AIPAC "checks" the elective process, the CPMAJO target is the executive power. In the executive power the Defiance department for its assistance to Israel and the foreign Affairs Department for the diplomatic cover of Israel action, - e.g. US representative in the UNSC. Since 2001, the so-called war against terrorism the Zionists show for an increased influence in the Department of Treasury. They tries to control the respect of Iran's boycott but practically all money movement in the dollar zone with Muslim countries. In 2013 under David S Cohen's the Office of Terrorism and Finance Intelligence control with 700 collaborators the international financial flows. There are also an Office of Foreign Assets Control. They exert regularly influence on western banks. These office is practically under Zionist control with access to information for MOSAD. If the Zionists are not satisfied by the control Robert Einhorn from Brookings Institution exerts a pressure on the US authorities.
(The financial controller of New York, Benjamin Lawsky also exerts a pressure on the US Department of Treasury See "The money flows to Iran: New York’s bank regulator takes the lead in investigating the practices of a British bank IHT 2012.8.15. and U.S. looking into banks’ lapses in tracking cash. IHT 2012.9.17.)
In the worldwide (!) secrete "anti-terrorist" killings by drone the cooperation between CIA and Mossad is high. MOSAD is here the teacher. These US activities are only controlled by the Senate Intelligence Committee. In 2013 Dianna Feinstein was its president (IHT 8.2.2013, p. 5,6. 2013.2.7 p.5).
In an overview, we can say that the seed of the Zionist Power Constellation was the Rothschild oligarchy, the Belfour declaration of 1917 promising the constitution of Israel is addressed to Walter Rothschild, the president of the Zionist Federation. In present time the mentioned oligarchical American Zionist structure is the model for the worldwide Zionist organizations. (The Zionist Organization of America exists since 1897.) Beyond their proper internal organization they align, adhere to the political world structure. There are Zionist organizations on all levels; local, national and even for example especially for the European Union. (E.g.: CRIF, Conseil representaif des institutions juives de France is a copy of the American CPMAJO.) It is to note that in its globalist universal aspiration since 2013 the ZPC tries to find influence with the ONU. This is facilitated by the fact that Israel is in the "West European and others" geographical group.
It is clear that all alignment of Zionist organizations with the national denomination is a tactical concession to the existing world since - except the Jewish identity - the Zionist mission is a cosmopolitan world organization without borders accessible for intrusion (Alam 103, 222, 229, 238-9.
The ZPC also sticks to various political parties as well as all kind of specialized organization on one side to learn how they can serve Zionist interest, and other side, how can present Zionist aspiration under the name of these organizations. In order to present Zionist interest under cover-name educational, human watch (Freedom House in New York) and especially non-Israelite religious institutions are very useful (Goldberg 50, Mearsheimer 116). The so-called UN Watch organization is directed since 2000 by the Jewish-Canadian Hillil C. Neuer. Israel’s Ma’ariv newspaper named him to its list of the “Top 100 Most Influential Jewish People in the World". Neuer also cooperates with Adelson' Shalom Center which tries to limit the right of non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel. The so called Freedom House in New York presided by David J. Kramer and partly financed by Soros tried to promote the Zionist candidate for Russian presidency Mikhail B, Khodorkovsky assisted by the Zionist Leon Aron an Russian émigré in the American Enterprise Institute (3.10.2014 NYT).
Since the interest for the persecution of Jews during the Second World War diminished, the Zionist movements look for universal denomination for maintaining interest for this cause. In 1993 in Los Angeles a Museum of Tolerance opened. We learn that it "is operated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center" which calls itself a "global human right organization whose research focuses on the Holocaust narrative". In order to use it for the promotion of Zionism in general, the Center will opened a second one in 2003 in New York City. Since there are already the Yad Vashein, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center it will "focus on the 3.500 year history of the Jewish people". It will be interesting to see will integrate this museum the tolerance concerning the state of Palestine.
Since 2000 there exists the so-called Honest Reporting organization which is registered as a charity organization in Skokie, ill. As such it is a tax-free organization, In fact, its editorial board is in Jerusalem. It is a witch-hunter Zionist institution in order to silencing all criticism of Israel ( M. Suchov: Values Identity, and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis. 7. 2011, 372).
For influencing the Christian public opinion it is much more efficient if the mass media present the Israeli interest in name of Christian Council on Palestine - founded by Christian Tillich already in 1942 -. then by a overtly Zionist organization. (Alam 134-5). One of these organization is the Christian United for Israel of John Hagee (Mearsheimer 180, 132ff. Michel Massing: the Israeli Lobby., June 2002, The Nation) and other protestant movements aliments the illusion that they will convert the Israelite to the "judoe-christianism". In reality, these organizations often have not adherents, it is a syndicate of orators who preach for the West Bank settlers.
For identifying the true nature of the pro-Zionist organizations it is necessary to identify the names figuring in the directorate and the financing source (as well as number of contributing members). It is not an exception that the same Zionist group appear under different denomination. That allows that a petition is underwrote by more than one organization. These societies make demonstration on different days in order that the same person can participates in many. This "masked ball" is a preferred method of the mass media to promote various causes. The founder of Zionist World Organization Benjamin Zelev (Theodor) Herzl as himself journalist.
THE ZIONIST SUBJECTIVE IDENTITY:
"COSMOPOLITAN IN HIS (NATIVE) HOMELAND AND PATRIOT IN ISRAEL"
In the modern times the Jewish people lived either dispersed or in enclaves - having also often the tendency to migration- and an image developed according to which it hold more on the transnational solidarity within its own ranks than to be a patriot. It is called this problematic the "Jewish issue" or by the apologetic of Zionism the anti-Semitic prejudice. Our concern is a new one, corresponding to the situation after 1948. Indeed, in this year the Zionist movement reached its goal, the Jewish state - or as the former president reformulated "the State of Jews" (June 2007 in Haaretz) - has been established, and therefore the issue of patriotism appears in a new context. We study which attitude the Zionism requires now from the Jewish people. We doesn't study in which proportion of of the Jewish people follows the Zionist consign, only in the rank of its prominent representatives within the Western societies.
We can evoke as a paradigmatic case how the religious identity and the adherence to Israel's cause could be confused across young and sportive associations. The movement Maccabi has been founded in 1929. Today it exists in London the Maccabi Lions football-club. Only Jew can play in this club and its jersey bears the star of David present in Israel's flag. And the Israeli military operation in 1948 had also as name Maccabi.
(Sam Barrden: Jewish Soccer Team Reflects Mix of Cultural Identity. INYT 29.4.2013.)
The Zionism defines the members of the Jewish people as eo ipso potential citizens of Israel. Indeed, the first expectation of Zionism was the immigration of all Jews to Israel at short run. The natural consequence would be that the potential immigrant look first for Israel interest and the Jews loose the blame to be unpatriotic cosmopolitan: only their new patriotism would concern Israel and not their native land.
The new problem is produced, namely the integral migration is not produced and now the diaspora is not only unpatriotic cosmopolitan in his native land but manifest solidarity with an other state, the state of Israel. Of course, if this person will continue to represent politically his homeland, it could be censured without anti-Semitic prejudice.
(G. Sheffer: Diaspora Politics. At Home Aboard. Cambridge UP, New York, 2003.)
The paradox expressed in the title of this chapter find its curious resolution if New York's coryphaeus of cosmopolitanism are not systematically against all kinds of nationalism. Indeed, according the Zionism, the Jewish People is unique and has an exceptional universal mission. For this reason it can give full vent to the expression of its national identity defined by the Zionism (Roger Cohen in IHT 16.10.2009. S. Alam: Israeli Exceptionalism. op cit, p.47). In practical term the Israeli authors reveal only their deep conviction about nationalism, if they express their opinion about the irredentism of the settlers of the West Bank in Palestine. part of the Promised Land.
The problem became critical if the diaspora in general will not emigrate to Israel - with reverse migration - and stay in the homeland as double citizen, since the Zionism requires that first loyalty goes to Israel and the Jewish people in general (Mearsheimer 146, 402). During the last decades in the Western representative democracies the problem deepened by the fact that the People of Zionist orientation increased its participation in the decision making political elite in all three political branches (namely legislative, executive and judiciary) with strong support of the media. Indeed, the Zionist Observatory has the task to check the consequence of this situation in relation to the representation of the Western interest.
We already mentioned how the judge Richard Goldstone respected the obligation which he freely accepted from the United Nations as an universal mandate. Indeed, the U.N. mandated him to lead an committee of investigation of five concerning the civil victims of the Israeli military action called Plumb Durci between 2008-2009 in Gaza. The report of the committee is deeply compromising for Israel. But at April 1, 2011 Goldstone surprisingly desolidarized himself from a large part of the report in opposition to the other four members of the committee; namely he as orthodox Jew from South Africa followed in Israel the pressure of the same communion he belongs. Thus, the Zionist prescription for double citizen has been followed.
Also interestingly Jean-Paul Sartre consequently defended the Algiers cause against France on the base of universal human right, however he never engaged for the Palestinian cause against the Israeli occupation. (C. Schindler: The European left and its trouble with Jews. IHT 29.10.2012.)
Numerous cases could be presented. From autobiographies of the Western diaspora we can learn how the socialization process of the diaspora installs a primary national solidarity with Israel. Mearsheimer cites many cases (148-9, 170). Take now Eric Altman, a critical journalist. His grandparents and parents send him in a Hebrew school and "my rabbi" made from him "a teenager leader" and conducted him into AIPEC. He tell "Imagine a hypothetical clash between American and Israeli interest. Here, I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once a while. I’m going to go with what’s best for Israel.“ (Can we talk Nation, 21.4.2003.)
The organized "tourist tours" to Israel program consequently by its content should be increase the feeling of belonging to Israel. These are pilgrimages.
(Tours that Bind: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and Israeli Birthright Tourism. New York UP, 2010 261 pp. Contemporary Sociology, May 2011,317 Alam 99, Maersheimer 149-.)
The goal is to increase the chauvinistic solidarity, the synergy between the immigrants, the double citizen living in their native land and the immigrants, the Yishuv, in included the settlers in the West Bank.
(“Sheldon Adelson the American casino magnate who backs Mr. Netanyahu and who owns Israel Hayom (free) daily "ensures that the the Israeli government continue this action and he will continue his matching grant it of about $40 million to Birthright,(!) a program that brings young Jews to Israel”. (J. Rudoren: Political Neophyte, Yahir Lapid confronts harsh realities. IHT May 21,2013. J. R.: The day a mogul came to lunch IHT May 30,13.)
In the perspective of the Zionist movement the Jewish people can't be seen separately from the State of Israel. The "Israel critic" Noam Chomsky were voluntary workers in Kibuc, Rahm Emanuel, president Obama's first chief of staff and later Chicago's major served previously in the Israeli army as voluntary. Eric Altman and Charles Krauthammer are American and Israeli double citizens, they don't have state function. As newsmen they can be partial for Israel but they should declare clearly in which perspective and interest are his analyses the situation.
Henry Kissinger (Years of Upheaval. Little, Boston, 1982, 203)with a tortuous way of thinking presents the problem of double loyalty. By chance (?) the Israeli leaders were his personal friend and he had difficulty to master his affections. This affection dictated him to sign the memorandum of 1975 in the name of USA which obliges Egypt to provide Israel with oil. ( It is to be noted that in October 1973 Kissinger allowed to Dayan to break the UNSC ordered armistice agreement during critical 48 hours.) Even more prejudicial for USA, which he represented, was the memorandum of 1972. It obliges the United States to never present a peace plan for Palestine without the previous contentment of Israel; meanwhile the U.S. provided and provide Israel with the up-to-date military arsenal Kissinger initiated the policy which provided Israel military superiority in the region. The USA engaged itself to never obliged Israel with sanctions or other pressure, - only by positive motivation, namely by further gifts, subventions and new credits. Abba Eban called this time the golden age for the Israeli military supply. (Under the pressure of the Israeli lobby President Obama enlarged even the US generosity. He amplified further the US-Israel Enhanced Cooperation Act of 2012 in 2016.)
Among others, Washington Institute for Near East (WINEP) - following Israeli instructions - provides the American presidents arguments as pretexts that the service for Israel is good for the USA too.
Following the inspiration from WINEP Obama in a speech in the AIPAC and in its interview in the Atlantic to Jeffrey Goldberg concerning Iran nuclear limitation told: “preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just(!) in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interest of the U.S. It is right if Th. L. Friedman writes in the IHT (Israel's best friend, 8.3.2012):.."Every Israeli .. should be thankful to the president for framing(!) the Iran issue this way.” (Th. L. Friedman: Israel’s best friend. Friends with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America. See also M. Eisenstadt and D. Pollack: Friends with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America in. Foreign Affairs (7.11.2012.)
In reality, the US-Israeli cooperation helps Israel but hurts US-Arab relation. For example, how sees Uri Savir, the director Peres Center for Peace the desired out come of the so-called Oslo peace process: “the US and Israel should negotiate a defense pact guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military advantage..” (IHT 11.9.2013. U. Savir: Oslo, 20 years later.)
The Western one-sided and unconditional support for Israel results, on one side from the new definition of the belonging to the Jewish people (Mark Oppenheimer: Reclaiming 'Jews' NYT 24.4.217), and on the other side the submission of the non Zionist decision-makers to the Israeli lobby as described by Mearsheimer and partly by J.J. Goldberg (246).
Since 1948, in the post-Israeli perspective the members of the Jewish people are defined as potential Israeli citizens independently that they are faithful Jews or free-thinkers. The basic criteria is to be loyal to Israel. This ambiguity in the (transitive Israel centric) definition of Jewishness and Israelitness allows to stigmatize any critic of the state of Israel as anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile Israel follows its own interest independently from others. The Israeli minister Ephraim Sneh exposed already in 1990: “ We were against US-Iran dialogue because the interest of the U.S. did not coincide with ours.” The American- Israeli lobby followed Israel’s lead.” (Mearsheimer 291).
The diaspora Zionists serving in their native country's administration should insist for all price (!) that Israeli and US interest coincides spontaneously as the specialists of WINEP expose; otherwise they would appear as traitors.
Jason Vest affirms that the coincidence between US and Israeli interests is an opportunistic fiction.
(“The Men from Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Center for Security Policy “underwritten by far-right American Zionists” and “both effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national interests, and the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both (!) countries is though hegemony (!) in the Middle East – a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientelism and covert action”. (Jason Vest: The men from NSA and CSP. The Nation. June 10, 20). William B. Quandt a former loyal US representative in the UNSC describes concretely how the subordination of the USA interest to Israel's works (Decade of Decisions: American Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967-76. U of California Press, 1977. ).
The Zionist movement uses different methods that the coincidence of US and Israeli interests become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It tries to place Zionists in the various administration that they have the power to define, simply replace US interest by the Israeli one. On this manner the coincidence is "tautological".
The end goal is to replace the Christian background od Western policy by the Zionist one. (We quoted already Glenn in this respect.)
The joint Program Plan and the National (!) Jewish Community Relations Adversary Council (NJCRAC) stated already in 1957 casually : “The American public accepted the American Jewish concern about Israel.. as a natural(!), normal(!) manifestation of interest based on sympathies and emotional attachments of a sort that are common to many Americans.” (Mearsheimer 394, 116.)
The Zionist media follow also the line that Christianity mention always Judeo-Christian as the Israeli interest always together with the Western one. Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post and William Kristol in the National Interest insist that the war of Israel are ours, meaning the West one's. (Krauthammer as double citizen received for its apologetic works in 10 June 2002 the Zion Award from the Ben-Ilan University [Mearsheimer 240]).
In order to cover up the contradiction between Zionist engagement and state loyalty of the diaspora many authors speak of "variety of attachment " of man. (Measheimer 147. U. Schoen: Bi-Identität. [Walter, Zürich, 1996 ] p.177: "Kein Recht, double loyal zu sein. " A.-M. Thiesse: La création des identités nationales. Seuil, Paris 1999.) The most used sophism enumerates among the numbersome loyalties, e.g., that to working place or family. However, these various loyalty concern institutions on different levels and doesn't hurt national loyalty and don't require a political choice as the loyalty to the home state and (the newly created) Israel in critical situations does.
Since the creation of Israel the general admission of double citizenship in the West was a wishes of Zionists, even if they strive for the immigration to Israel. the double citizenship facilitates that Zionists if they are accused for state treason - or for any less noble reason - find refuge in Israel. An eminent case was the Russian Yukos case, when Gusinov, the Russian representative of WJO, Navzlin, Dubov and Bridno find refuge in Israel against Russian persecution.
Israel has also an interest to have in administrations of foreign countries - esp. USA - Zionists who keep a "low profiled" (Measheimer 18, 118). Since the belonging to the Jewish people is defined simply since 1948 by Israel centric attitude the formal double citizenship is not necessary and advisable, - anyway is obtainable by Jews immediately at Tel-Aviv Ben Gurion airport. In Hebrew they are named as sayanim, helpers. In the USA administration Bern-Ami Kadish made spying work between 1979 and 1985, Jonathan J Pollard and Steward David Nozette did in the Department of Defense. (Boston Globe , 20.10.2009. In general see James Petras publications: Bended Knees - Zionist Power in American Politics. Site rense/com: J. P.: Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power. Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2008.)
As we already noted the double loyalty implied in the double citizenship is not a important problem for the ordinary migrants (except if conscription exists), but if somebody has some political charges, the clearing his primary loyalty seems necessary. Zionists protests against tendency to exclude double citizens from politically representative function or at least made the existence of double citizenship public, pretending to be a discrimination. But even the Zionist norm to serve anywhere first Israel interest makes this checking of background necessary.
Dan Eden exposes clearly (Dual Citizenship. Loyal to whom? (www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html 2012.11.8) that the American Nationality Act of 1940 forbids (art. 401[e]) that somebody votes in a foreign country. However, in 1967 the Supreme Court under Zionist influence made an exception in the case of Byes Afroyim; even that he voted in Israel, he doesn't lost his American Citizenship.
Even more chocking is to learn the Zionist double standard in this very issue. According to the rules of Israeli Knesset (art 16A) nobody can be making the oath, if he also have a foreign citizenship and has the possibility to renounce of it.
We have no statistics which proportion of the Jewish people - believer (dati) and nonbeliever (hiloni) - worldwide follows the Israel centrism Zionist requirement. Of course, the Zionist representation among the financers of think-tanks and in the ranges of the researchers which makes the design of geopolitical narratives, the deduced proposed strategy for complaisant political deciders as well as in the media which comments the decisions for the ordinary citizen is the most important question.
Concerning the Zionist street movements in the West against anti-Semitism, we can observe that more and more the Star of David appears on flags between two blue lines which is the flag of the State of Israel. On this way the defense of the adherent to the Jewish religion involved implicitly and immediately support of the Zionist policy of a state, the State of Israel(See Mira Sucharov: Values, Identity, and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis ,7. 2011, 366: G. Gorenberg: Think Again; Israel. In: Foreign Policy. 5.2008. Alan Dershowitz: The Case for Israel. John Wiley, Hoboken, 2003. Dershowitz at Harvard Law School is the typical representative of "Israel über alles ".)
The CPMAJO and other Zionist organizations see that there is a hitch somewhere with the double loyalty and Zionist apologists try to hide the problem.
(Tivnan Edward ( The Lobby. Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1987. S. T. Rosenthal: Long Distance Nationalism. American Jews, Zionists and Israel. In: D. E. Kaplan ed.: The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism. Cambridge UP, 2005, 209. Critical position we find in Measheimer 13, 115, 118, 146-50, 393. )
Roger Cohen, a journalist the New York Times - born in South Africa - shows how the evaluation of a political parties - in the case of British Labour Party - by the media depends from the participation of Zionists in their direction. Since the Zionist Miliband brothers - Ralph and David - lost the power to Jeremy Corny who is not unilaterally engaged for Israel it is constantly attacked by the press. The title of Cohen's article is clear: "A Jew not quite English enough" (IHT 8.10.2013). Cohen describes the two brothers as "trembling Israelites, since the state of Israel exists and their national loyalty is questioned. The Daily Mail (A man who hated Britain) stated that the Milibands' father, a Polish immigrant hated Britain. Cohen concludes his reasoning with the sentence: "David Mili tweeted that his father loved Britain. He now lives in New York, a city of "full-throated Jewishness."
In general terms, the Zionists created basic problems for the West by relating the definition of "World Jewry" objectively to the state of Israel and subjectively requiring the loyalty to it.
(Mark Openeimer in Reclaiming 'Jew' [NYT 24.4.2017,11] wrote: "The Founding of the State of Israel has given the word "Israelite" new connotation.")
As already mentioned, the Agency for Israel created in 2002 the Jewish People Institute . It describes its mission with precision: (a) serving the interest of the "World Jewry" with research and action ("alert to emerging opportunity and threats") and (b); in the defense of these interests the state of Israel creates the "core". Significantly under the founders and leaders we find personalities who largely influenced the U.S. policy as insiders like Dennis Ross and Stuart Eizenstadt.
If those belong to the Jewish People who can obtain automatically the citizenship of the State of Israel - allowed by the (orthodox) rabbinate, - this large definition permits to englobe in the Jewish People observant religious Jews and also secular non observant ones. But by accepting the dependence to the Jewishness from a political concept, - namely the State of Israel, - the members of the world Jewry's capacity to represent politically other states become necessarily questionable. On one side, the problematic of double loyalty emerges, and on the other side, the reserves against engagement of Zionist Jew as civil servant could not (!) be systematically assimilated to old Christian biblical anti-Semitism anymore.
After situating the Zionism as major political factor in relation to the West, we look on the Zionism global aspiration.
[i] The expression Zionism originates from the Viennese newsman, Nathan Birnbaum (1880). S. Monoz wrote about Naissance politique (Gallimard, Paris, 1981.) Claude Franck and Michel Herszlikowicz (Le sionisme. PUF, 1980, 6) state that the Zionism is the national religion of the Israeli people. Therefore the Zionism is a political movement.
[ii] Patrick Glenn : Legal Tradition of the World. Oxford UP, 2010, 109-111, 104-5.
[iii] Weiss B. (Interpretation in Islamic Law, Am J. Comp. Law 1978). See also Glenn 216-7.
[iv] The general strategy of Zionist movement to make existentially dependent of the society’s influential circles. Glenn (28-30) distinguishes correctly « pecuniary, institutional and intellectual corruptions ». In the later case “authority would replace justification, invocation of heresy or treason would replace exchange.”
[v] The Harvard Law School is practically occupied by the Zionist. See the activist professor Alan Dershowitz censuring activities.
For the situation an the American elite institution it is characteristically the Yale historian Paul Kennedy’s remark: ( Which Catholic Church? Feb. 27,13, IHT): “being about the only (!) professor at liberal, tolerant, cosmopolitan Western university who is known to be a practicing catholic – baptized (!) .. – I have been asked …”
[vi] Shahid Alam : Israeli Exceptionalism : The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism McMillan, 2009.He call the Zionism a secular messianism. (47ff).
According to Glenn (101, 109): Talmud + Torah = Halakha + Haggadah.
The terminology concerning Torah is not unanimous. The same term also is used to designate The Pentateuch, Moses five books on the beginning of the Old Testament as a written version of the oral Torah. Some times the Torah designates all the Old Testament. The acronym Tanakh incudes Torah, Moses five books, Nebiim, the book of prophets Ketuvim and other sacred writings. Anyway the designation of Hebrew Bible for the Old testament is false because it excludes the part written in Aramaic. (William Safire in IHT, 26.5.1997.)
Anyway the present Judaism is Talmudic. The Talmud itself has two versions the Jerusalem or Palestine (conceived between 230 and 500 A.D.) and the Babylonian (500 AD). Judah wrote the Mishna (repetition) as a commentary to Torah. Probably it originates from 150 A.D. – surly between 70 and 200. We find in this work the law-book Halakhah and the Haggadah containing legends. The Hebrew Mishna and the Aramaic Gemara constitutes together the Talmud. The various Talmuds are text coming from the oral Torah. These collections of Rabbinical interpretation of the Bible as well as theological controversies originated between 70 and 200 A.D.
Contrary to the Judaism’s reformist and conservative tendencies of New York the orthodox Judaism “is in charge of the (Israeli) state religious bodies like the chief rabbinate” (IHT Sept. 6,13, p.2).
[vii] Glenn: “This must be done, if more generally, talmudic law is to serve in the future as a model or example (!) for western law.” (See yet in the chapter “Talmudic Example?” : “How can such an ancient and religious tradition continue to provide a model, however in contemporary states which see themselves as secular?” “More generally, it [talmudic tradition] is enriching western thinking on how law can be conceived (!).” (128) “Again in the U.S.A., it is said that the academy is suffering a loss of confidence in the moral and intellectual basis of authoritative and supposedly neutral legal interpretation and in liberal political theory generally and would now be seeking ‘alternative model’.”
The advance made by the Talmudic tradition to the Western lawmakers see also
Stone S. L. : In Pursuit of the Counter-Ext: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model in Contemporary American Legal Theory. Harvard Law Review, 1993, 106, 813. :“So talmudic law in the U.S.A. would be being reinterpreted to provide (!) a requisite ‘counter-model for U.S. law, while its incorporation (!) into the U.S. legal thinking would also redefining U.S. legal theory.”
Yet Stone about Maimonides in late 20th c. U.S. Case Law. (Glenn 129): “..notion of legal acculturation and a unitary Judea American legal tradition.” .
See also Broyde M. J.: A Jewish Tradition for a Modern Society. In: Witte J. Jr. et al. Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996, 203. Litmus Test, (IHT 2013.2.4. )
J. Auerbach: Rabbis and Lawyer: The journey from Torah to Constitution. Indiana UP, Bloomington, 1990: “and for ‘increasing (!) prominence of Jewish law in U.S. law schools and legal scholarship.”
S. Levine: Emerging Applications of Jewish Law in American Legal Scholarship. Law and Rel. 43.” (Glenn 129. “Of course, it does all this… so it might not work in a state considered secular.”
See Glenn’s 4th chapter “A Talmudic legal tradition: the perfect author”” (99 ff. )
Smuley Boteach rabbi, founder of Jewish Value Network stated: "sowely but surely, Jewish values are sculpting and molding the mainstream culture." (Mira Sucharov: Values, Identity, and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis ,7. 2011,365-)
[viii] Cf. Edward Saïd : America’s Last Taboo. New Left Review. November 2000.
[ix]The Zionist newsman Robert Kagan and other so-called neoconservatives wrote an in September 2000. an open letter to president Bush (Project for the New American Century) denominating Israel as „America’s best ally against international terrorism“ and requires to stationing American military in Near East. Kegan R.: America Made. A.A.Knopf, New York, 2012. Mearsheimer J.J. and S. M. Walt: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Penguin, London, 2007. 206, 437, 258)
[x] John Mearsheimer op. cit. 128-32. James Petras: Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics. Clarity press Christchurch NZ, 2012. J. P.: The Power of Israel in the U.S. Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2006.
[xi] See also Alex Strick van Linschoten: An Enemy We Created“ (Mearsheimer 131). According to the conservative Russel Kirk: “what really animates the neoconservatives .. is the preservation of Israel, that lies in back of everything.” 193, 416. Goldberg J. J. ( Jewish Power: Inside the American Establishment. Reading, MA, 1997, 159) cites the truly traditional conservatives and says: “Neoconservatives are a ”sort of Jewish Trojan Horse invading the American right”. (See also Alam: 219, 250[53,54])
The pre-millenistic form of the dispensionist theology of XIX. c. (Louis Way, Darby) is the Christian neoconservatives doctrinal reference. They believe that the Jews will convert at the return of Jesus, therefore the constitution of Israel in Palestine is a first step. This current influenced Belfour, even Wilson and perhaps Trumant too, whwn he recognized the state of Israel. The present American Christian Zionists such as John Hugue movement the Christian United for Israel or the Christian Friends of Israel are simply „Junior Partners” of the Zionists (Mearsheimer 115, 132, 330, 398-99. Alam 129, 211, 152, 241.) Woodrow Wilson brought into the mainstream of American public life the Zionist newsman Walter Lippmann and the judge Louis D. Brandies. (Kevin Baker: Woodrow Wilson, the professor in chief. IHT, Sept.21,13)
[xii] According to Alam (198) Chomsky deny the existence of a Zionist collusion.
[xiii] “Jewish World People” Jewish Observer of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, 6/25, March 2002/5762 Nisan. According to Alam’s terminology (207, 29): “global Jewish community.”.
[xiv] Roger Cohen quotes the Israeli prime minister Netanyahu : “Israel as a Jewish State and the homeland for the Jewish People.” The Bafour Declaration as well as the UN decision 181, use the term "Jewish People".
A main problem with the definition of Jewish people is that the Israeli rabbinate defines the Jewishness in Orthodox terms, while the American one in Reformist and Conservative one. (Israelis grow distant from American Jewry. IHT 18.11.1997). The definition of Jewishness results from the interpretation of halakha.
[xv] The Biblical references used are: The Deuteronomy 7:1-3: 24, Joshua 1: 4 and Genesis 15:18 in the Torah. This Canaan includes Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi-Arabia too.
[xvi] The Zionist national anthem, Hatikva wrote by Naphtali Herz Imber in 1878 says: “yearning of the Jewish Soul” to be “a free nation in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem” (IHT March 6, 2912,, 4).
C. Franck 48-50, 85. Alam 66, 58. David Robinson: Penguin Dictionary of Politics. London, 1993, 494-5.
[xvii] Adams Elliott: Faith or Fear in a Christian America. New York, Simon, 1997, 181: “Jews… are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is a very nature of being Jewish to be part - except in Israel (!) – from the rest of the population.” [Mearsheimer 167])
« ************************************************************************** ***
Connie Bruck (“Friends of Israel, The New Yorker cf Roger Cohen: War of Choice in Gaza INYT Sept 9,14) quotes Brian Baird former Democratic congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independendetly waelthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that. Connie Bruck quotes also the congressman, John Yarmuth : “We all took an oath of office. And AIPAC in many instances, is asking us to ignore it.”
LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 |
John Mearsheimer and
The Israel Lobby
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel
and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has
inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but
that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in
American political history. 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? One might assume that the bond between the two
countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral
imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level
of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely
from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel
Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy,
but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national
interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US
interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level
of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest
annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976,
and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of
well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion
in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid
budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is
especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a
per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel
receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and
can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military
purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed
to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence
industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how
the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money
from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements
on the West Bank. 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.
Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since
1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of
Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other
Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put
Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue
in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon
administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and
resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in
the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy
‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the
negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each
case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but
the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American
participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we
functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s
ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at
improving Israel’s strategic situation.
This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a
vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US
backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that
Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy
after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted
humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It
occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan)
and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own
client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet
Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s
relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2
billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec
oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For
all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US
interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel
when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of
oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.
The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a
strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the
anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile
batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance
against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel
was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without
triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.
Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been
justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups
originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back
these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean
not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with
the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all
Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go
after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally
in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact,
Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal
with rogue states.
‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide
array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten
Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes
against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is
not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a
response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza
More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared
terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a
terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with
Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only
source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it
makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that
many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by
Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.
Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally
popular support and to attract recruits.
As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire
threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to
Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously
undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the
blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming
retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally
remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go
undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The
relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with
these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its
neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change
merely increases that desire.
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’. In addition to the case of
Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material
in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in
return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in
2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry
Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel
is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to
spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.
Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that
it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by
enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past
crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has
been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection,
none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for
supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed
objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for
privileging it over the Palestinians.
Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse
is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had
larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of
Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories
against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of
this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the
strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are
far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the
region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties
with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet
patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is
hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police
force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to
a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic
Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has
continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability
and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the
underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting
That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships
cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies
around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has
overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when
this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a
number of dictatorships today.
Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values.
Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights
irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded
as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood
kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are
treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government
commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’
manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its
refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full
A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian
West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for
centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now
believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The
country’s creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long
record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes
against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.
This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told
Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:
If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is
natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two
thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been
anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why
should they accept that?
Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the
Palestinians’ national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir
famously remarked that ‘there is no such thing as a Palestinian.’ Pressure
from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced
subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider
other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to
offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous
offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of
Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the
Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what
Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at
every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by
contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground,
Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents.
Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent
towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is
hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own
state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48
involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and
rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal,
belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for
example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab
infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered
hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars,
while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from
the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan
During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops
and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The
Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900
children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the
first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or
under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent,
leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing
machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired
one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for
every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of
whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli
children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind
that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from
Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime
minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can
disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’
The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The
Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions.
As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ‘would
have joined a terrorist organisation’.
So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s
support for Israel, how are we to explain it?
The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the
Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and
organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel
direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified
movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not
disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the
Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004
survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were
either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.
Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key
organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud
Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace
process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make
concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice
for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences,
moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.
Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials,
to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist
from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say:
“This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the
Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong
prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on
Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the
World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to
President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb
construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that
‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish
Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies
being promoted by the government of Israel.’
Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich,
advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a
critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as
‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the
Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related
policies . . . of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced
that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.
Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to
influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and
best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their
staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked
second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the
AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in
March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place
(tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.
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 fulfilment of biblical prophecy and
support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be
contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton;
Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett,
the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN
ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast
The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the
policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and
members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in
elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate
amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk
of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate
those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident
that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.
In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm
lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is
nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting
to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort
depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most
part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what
other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By
contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are
weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.
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. This in itself is
remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues.
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
Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional
staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there
are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who
happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in
terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position
to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get
an awful lot done just at the staff level.’
AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in
Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and
congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who
challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the
lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure
that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel
political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can
be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her
political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and
encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.
There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one
example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy
from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed
insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head
of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America,
from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians
– those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the
AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas
Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of
Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need
information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional
Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More
important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work
on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors
and marshal votes’.
The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government,
has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards
Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important
consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main
branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As
one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office,
‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around
here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask
me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’
Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential
elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive
branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population,
they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The
Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates
‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the
money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are
concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York
and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to
Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that
critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter
wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that
Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the
appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become
an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli
policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy
When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more ‘even-handed
role’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him
of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was
‘irresponsible’. Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a
letter criticising Dean’s remarks, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported
that ‘anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the email inboxes of Jewish
leaders around the country, warning – without much evidence – that Dean
would somehow be bad for Israel.’
This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his
campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own
views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than those
of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely suggested that
to ‘bring the sides together’, Washington should act as an honest broker.
This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn’t tolerate
During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely
shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel
organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of
research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving
government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often
visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the
Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo
peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did
so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The
American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its
negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer
independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators
complained that they were ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams – one
displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag’.
The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose
ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot
Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard
Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials
have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by
organisations in the Lobby.
The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead
Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly,
pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do
most to shape popular opinion.
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 criticising Israel’. He lists 61 ‘columnists and
commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and
without qualification’. Conversely, he found just five pundits who
consistently criticise Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions.
Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy,
but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to
imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a
piece like this one.
‘Shamir, Sharon, Bibi – whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by
me,’ Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his newspaper, the
Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers like the Chicago
Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs editorials that
strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and
the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.
Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which
occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the
Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In his
memoirs the paper’s former executive editor Max Frankel acknowledges the
impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: ‘I was much more
deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my
knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our
Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I
wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.’
News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be
objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the
Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel’s actions on the ground.
To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing
campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it
considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets
6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May
2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in
America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio
stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold
support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic
to Israel. Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1
million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on
NPR has come from Israel’s friends in Congress, who have asked for an
internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.
The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important
role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created
its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP.
Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide
a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded
and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.
The Lobby’s influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25
years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the
American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for
Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy
Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.
Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the
Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved
reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings’s coverage is conducted
through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by
Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The
centre’s director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a
non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.
Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on
university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was
underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger
with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite
vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and
employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.
The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses’. New groups sprang
up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US
colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs
and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was
formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now sought to put Israel’s
case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on programmes to
monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to
‘vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the
national pro-Israel effort’.
The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September
2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel
neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted
dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or
behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent
attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and
Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites
students to report ‘anti-Israel’ activity.
Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and
universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the
presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. ‘One can be sure that any
public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent
literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and
journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either
sanction or fire him,’ Jonathan Cole, its former provost, reported. When
Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from Chicago, the same
thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced a few years later
when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.
A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred towards
the end of 2004, when the David Project produced a film alleging that
faculty members of Columbia’s Middle East Studies programme were
anti-semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who stood up for
Israel. Columbia was hauled over the coals, but a faculty committee which
was assigned to investigate the charges found no evidence of anti-semitism
and the only incident possibly worth noting was that one professor had
‘responded heatedly’ to a student’s question. The committee also
discovered that the academics in question had themselves been the target
of an overt campaign of intimidation.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish
groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor
what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities
judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their
efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the
importance placed on controlling debate.
A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel
Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies
programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of
Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the
establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes
have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic administrators
emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that they are intended
in large part to promote Israel’s image. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub
Foundation, makes it clear that his foundation funded the NYU centre to
help counter the ‘Arabic [sic] point of view’ that he thinks is prevalent
in NYU’s Middle East programmes.
No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one
of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who
criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have
significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC
celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite.
Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the
risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media
refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts
of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a
very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be
Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticise Israeli
policy, which some people attribute to a resurgence of anti-semitism in
Europe. We are ‘getting to a point’, the US ambassador to the EU said in
early 2004, ‘where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s’. Measuring
anti-semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points
in the opposite direction. In the spring of 2004, when accusations of
European anti-semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of
European public opinion conducted by the US-based Anti-Defamation League
and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that it was
in fact declining. In the 1930s, by contrast, anti-semitism was not only
widespread among Europeans of all classes but considered quite acceptable.
The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic
country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community
said that ‘France is not more anti-semitic than America.’ According to a
recent article in Ha’aretz, the French police have reported that
anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this
even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European
country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by a
Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets to
condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin both
attended the victim’s memorial service to show their solidarity.
No one would deny that there is anti-semitism among European Muslims, some
of it provoked by Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians and some of it
straightforwardly racist. But this is a separate matter with little
bearing on whether or not Europe today is like Europe in the 1930s. Nor
would anyone deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous
anti-semites in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their
numbers are small and their views are rejected by the vast majority of
Israel’s advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that
there is a ‘new anti-semitism’, which they equate with criticism of
Israel. In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition
an anti-semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to
divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the
bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief
Rabbi complained that this would ‘have the most adverse repercussions on .
. . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain’, while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the
head of the Reform movement, said: ‘There is a clear problem of
anti-Zionist – verging on anti-semitic – attitudes emerging in the
grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.’ But the Church
was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy.
Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or
questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western
critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question
its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is
Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians
elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of
human rights, to international law and to the principle of national
self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp
criticism on these grounds.
In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush
administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world
and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by halting
Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating
the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very significant means of
persuasion at his disposal. He could have threatened to reduce economic
and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American people would almost
certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60
per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US
pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among
the ‘politically active’. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States
should not favour either side.
Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington
ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel’s
own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic
Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised
the situation: ‘Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.’ The
main reason for this switch was the Lobby.
The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon to
show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to allow
Israel’s foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser Arafat, even
though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat’s leadership. Bush even
said publicly that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state.
Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying ‘to appease the Arabs at our
expense’, warning that Israel ‘will not be Czechoslovakia’.
Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the
White House press secretary called Sharon’s remarks ‘unacceptable’. Sharon
offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to
persuade the administration and the American people that the United States
and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and
Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between
Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said,
should isolate the Palestinians’ elected leader and have nothing to do
The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent
Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also
demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the
Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it
stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter ‘stemmed’
from a meeting two weeks before between ‘leaders of the American Jewish
community and key senators’, adding that AIPAC was ‘particularly active in
providing advice on the letter’.
By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved
considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby’s efforts, but also to
America’s initial victory in Afghanistan, which reduced the perceived need
for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida. Sharon visited the White House
in early December and had a friendly meeting with Bush.
In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation
Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major
Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would
damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on
terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin
withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted
Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then
Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means
without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the
Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.
Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the
vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative
pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell.
They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction
between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being
pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick
Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and
DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House
and warned Bush to back off.
The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he
told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary
said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush
repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive
mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to
his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such
thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.
Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode
the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming
support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of
Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the
United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two
countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common
struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing
support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed
as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up
with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional
delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should
resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House
appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200
million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby
backed it and Powell lost.
In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States
and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv,
reported that Sharon’s aides ‘could not hide their satisfaction in view of
Powell’s failure. Sharon saw the whites of President Bush’s eyes, they
bragged, and the president blinked first.’ But it was Israel’s champions
in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in
The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration
refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it
embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little to
help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a unilateral
settlement on the Palestinians, based on ‘disengagement’ from Gaza coupled
with continued expansion on the West Bank. By refusing to negotiate with
Abbas and making it impossible for him to deliver tangible benefits to the
Palestinian people, Sharon’s strategy contributed directly to Hamas’s
electoral victory. With Hamas in power, however, Israel has another excuse
not to negotiate. The US administration has supported Sharon’s actions
(and those of his successor, Ehud Olmert). Bush has even endorsed
unilateral Israeli annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the
stated policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.
US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but
have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has
Bush ‘wrapped around his little finger’, the former national security
adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to distance
the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the Occupied
Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its
supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates understand that
these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry went to great
lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004, and why Hillary
Clinton is doing the same thing today.
Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is
essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop
there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional
power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States
have worked together to shape the administration’s policy towards Iraq,
Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the
decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans
believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct
evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good
part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow,
a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,
the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to
Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the
United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’,
Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002.
‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it
rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for
war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington
Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military
strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon,
strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached
‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given
Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As
one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full
partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence
regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security
Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to
let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a
must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and
inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome
easily inspections and inspectors.’
At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that
‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime
minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street
Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less
than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for
the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike
against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the
military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’
As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to
Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel
was the only country in the world where both politicians and public
favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel
is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly
and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so
gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their
rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of
neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s
major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush
attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s
most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In
statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the
world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The
editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully
factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade
Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war
started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide
opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less
supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62
per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish
influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence,
especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.
The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before
Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two
open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The
signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA
or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith,
William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to
adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a
war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate
enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush
administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived
with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to
reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.
At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz
advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no
evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden
was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go
after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious
possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners
with developing concrete plans for an invasion.
Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power.
We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of
Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important
roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though
neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter
Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in
the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had
persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.
Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in
making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on
terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on
Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the
government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and
their allies published another open letter: ‘Even if evidence does not
link Iraq directly to the attack,’ it read, ‘any strategy aiming at the
eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort
to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.’ The letter also reminded
Bush that ‘Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against
international terrorism.’ In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard,
Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon
as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in
the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria
should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: ‘The war on terrorism will
conclude in Baghdad,’ when we finish off ‘the most dangerous terrorist
regime in the world’.
This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win
support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the
manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam
posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to
find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin
Powell’s now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the
Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with
finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community
had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core
neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese-American with close ties
to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans,
was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the
war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long-standing
ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think
tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported
directly to Douglas Feith.
Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to
Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the
1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the
Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he
wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had
just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that
Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called
for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did
not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the
Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist
Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between
their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.
Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him
as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration’, and
selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who ‘have consciously
pursued Jewish activism’. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its
Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong
partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post,
describing him as ‘devoutly pro-Israel’, named him ‘Man of the Year’ in
Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives’ prewar
support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the
Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established
close ties with Jewish-American groups and had pledged to foster good
relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what
pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid
out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: ‘The INC saw
improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and
Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part,
the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations
between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing
Saddam Hussein’s regime.’
Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with
Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising
that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli
interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee
acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had
conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the
intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of
those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James
Moran – were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in
late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . .
. is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance
to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.
There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the
decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less
likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to
be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal
shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not
Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has
Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’
Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the US military
more directly involved in the Middle East. But they had limited success
during the Cold War, because America acted as an ‘off-shore balancer’ in
the region. Most forces designated for the Middle East, like the Rapid
Deployment Force, were kept ‘over the horizon’ and out of harm’s way. The
idea was to play local powers off against each other – which is why the
Reagan administration supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran during
the Iran-Iraq War – in order to maintain a balance favourable to the US.
This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton
administration adopted a strategy of ‘dual containment’. Substantial US
forces would be stationed in the region in order to contain both Iran and
Iraq, instead of one being used to check the other. The father of dual
containment was none other than Martin Indyk, who first outlined the
strategy in May 1993 at WINEP and then implemented it as director for Near
East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.
By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual
containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two
countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the burden
of containing both. But it was a strategy the Lobby favoured and worked
actively in Congress to preserve. Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel
forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing
an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others wanted more. The
result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions
on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop
petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze’ev Schiff, the military
correspondent of Ha’aretz, noted at the time, ‘Israel is but a tiny
element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot
influence those within the Beltway.’
By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual
containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential.
By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued,
the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the
Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the ‘Clean Break’
study the neo-conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion
of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of
faith in neo-conservative circles.
Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan
Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that
toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf
Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):
Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such
as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the
wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino
effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other
enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons
of mass destruction.
Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began
urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed in
Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put ‘very heavy’
pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister, interviewed in
Ma’ariv, said: ‘We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of
demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done
through the Americans.’ Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP audience that it was
now important for the US to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post
reported that Israel was ‘fuelling the campaign’ against Syria by feeding
the US intelligence reports about the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian
Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz declared
that ‘there has got to be regime change in Syria,’ and Richard Perle told
a journalist that ‘a short message, a two-worded message’ could be
delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: ‘You’re next.’ In
early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria ‘should
not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless,
irresponsible and defiant behaviour could end up sharing his fate’. On 15
April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled
‘Next, Turn the Screws on Syria’, while the following day Zev Chafets
wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled ‘Terror-Friendly
Syria Needs a Change, Too’. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in
the New Republic on 21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America.
Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel had reintroduced the Syria
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. It threatened
sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its
WMD and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and
Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation
was strongly endorsed by the Lobby – by AIPAC especially – and ‘framed’,
according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, ‘by some of Israel’s best
friends in Congress’. The Bush administration had little enthusiasm for
it, but the anti-Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398 to 4 in the House;
89 to 4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on 12 December 2003.
The administration itself was still divided about the wisdom of targeting
Syria. Although the neo-conservatives were eager to pick a fight with
Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed to the idea. And
even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasised that he would go slowly
in implementing it. His ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian
government had not only been providing important intelligence about
al-Qaida since 9/11: it had also warned Washington about a planned
terrorist attack in the Gulf and given CIA interrogators access to
Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers.
Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardise these valuable connections,
and thereby undermine the larger war on terrorism.
Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq
war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat
to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like
a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third,
putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to
cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it
made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on
putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from
Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there
would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards
Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.
Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is
widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to
acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country
in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence.
‘Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today
Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin
Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.
Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an
interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’,
and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush
administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it
conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli
ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The
overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America
‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude
coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’
The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime
change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on
Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson
Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly
pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with
a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives
made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first
great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great
battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William
Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.
The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working
overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme. But Washington has had
little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As
a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other
articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against
any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive
action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the
Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli
officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue
down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s
attention on the issue.
One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on
policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran
from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear
ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live
with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North
Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must
keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the
US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would
be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.
It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US
to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to
shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown,
Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most
of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to
transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an
increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up
protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome
from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to
Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to
make peace with the Palestinians.
Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the
Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and
Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US
government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and
the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to
press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there
are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and
adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In
particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel
and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the
But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies
(including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying
world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today,
and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities.
Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign
contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media
outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.
The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the
terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European
allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases
the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to
Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.
Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria
could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous
effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility
towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist
them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where
their help is badly needed.
There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United
States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the
Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated
against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to
promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses
other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear
proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept
Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a
Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy
for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts –
or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of
open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to
conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire
process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to
make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts
to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.
Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to
persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged
Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria
and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have
saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists.
Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has
not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise
a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like
Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing
to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would
probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more
There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful
force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to
hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time,
but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid
discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US
interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those
interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader
regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the
strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to
a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the
interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term
interests as well.
An unedited version of this article is available at
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011, or at
John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at
Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International
Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His most recent
book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.
copyright © LRB Ltd, 1997-2006HOME | SUBSCRIBE | LOGIN | CONTACTS | SEARCH
* * *
L'OTAN et Israël : Instruments des guerres de l'Amérique au Moyen-Orient
Article original en anglais, « NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East », publié le 29 janvier 2008.
Copyright Global Research/Mondialisation.
Traduction Mireille Delamarre pour www.planetenonviolence.org
Le rôle de l'OTAN sur le Théâtre de Guerre au Moyen Orient
L'Organisation du Traité Nord Atlantique (OTAN) est devenue un instrument pour soutenir les objectifs étrangers et sécuritaires anglo-américains et franco-allemands. Bien qu'il existe des différences internes au sein de l'OTAN, les intérêts des US, de l'UE et d'Israël – qui depuis 2005 est traité comme un membre de facto de l'OTAN – sont intimement liés dans l'alliance militaire atlantique.
Deux zones au Moyen Orient ont été militarisées par des puissances étrangères : le Golfe Persique et le Levant.
Pour cela, il y a eu deux phases distinctes de militarisation au Moyen Orient depuis la fin des années 70, la première étant distinctement anglo-américaine, et remontant à la guerre Irak-Iran et la suivante étant un effort unifié de l'OTAN impliquant la France et l'Allemagne comme acteurs clés.
Bien que le processus de militarisation au Levant ait commencé après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale avec la création d'Israël, le rôle distinct de l'OTAN dans ce processus a pris forme depuis le lancement de la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme » en 2001.
Paris et Berlin révèlent leurs fonctions dans la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme »
L'UE menée par la France et l'Allemagne, a effectivement soutenu la politique étrangère anglo-américaine depuis le lancement de la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme ». La conséquence c'est l'expansion illimitée de l'OTAN au Moyen Orient et en Asie Centrale.
Il est prévu qu'à la fois l'OTAN et Israël prennent des responsabilités majeures dans les conflits régionaux à venir avec l'Iran et la Syrie, s'ils devaient éclater. C'est évident quand on observe les positionnements des troupes de l'OTAN et des navires de guerre au Moyen Orient, Afghanistan, et aux frontières à la fois de l'Iran et de la Syrie.
L'initiative de paix Arabe de 2002 : enfermer les Palestiniens à la Mecque et via une séparation entre Gaza la Cisjordanie
En ce qui concerne la Palestine, la chaîne des évènements qui seront discutés mènera finalement à Annapolis. Ces évènements ont commencé avec l'initiative Arabe de 2002 qui a été proposée par l'Arabie Saoudite à Beyrouth pendant la conférence de la Ligue Arabe au Liban. La conférence d'Annapolis a seulement été une réponse extravagante à la proposition saoudienne prudemment élaborée, qui en fait a été fournie par Londres et Washington en 2002 aux Saoudiens comme faisant partie de leur feuille de route pour le Moyen Orient.
Pour comprendre où la voie tracée à Annapolis conduit les Palestiniens et le Levant, on doit aussi comprendre ce qui s'est passé en Palestine depuis 2001. Pour aboutir à Annapolis on doit reconnaître ce qui s'est passé entre le Hamas et le Fatah, la tromperie calculée du rôle de l'Arabie Saoudite dans l'Accord de la Mecque, et les objectifs à long terme de l'Amérique et de ses alliés au Moyen Orient et sur le littoral Méditerranéen.
D'abord, l'Amérique et l'UE ont réalisé que le Fatah ne représentait pas la volonté populaire de la nation palestinienne et que les autres partis politiques pourraient prendre le pouvoir d'entre les mains du Fatah. C'était un problème pour Israël, l'UE et l'Amérique car ils avaient besoin des dirigeants corrompus du Fatah pour appliquer leurs objectifs à long terme dans les territoires occupés palestiniens, l'Est Méditerranéen et le Moyen Orient.
En 2005, le Département d'Etat US, la Maison Blanche, et Israël ont commencé à se préparer à la victoire du Hamas lors des élections générales palestiniennes. Alors une stratégie a été mise au point pour neutraliser non seulement le Hamas, mais toutes les formes légitimes de résistance palestinienne aux agendas étrangers qui ont maintenu en otage les palestiniens depuis la « Nakba. »
Israël, l'Amérique, et leurs alliés, qui incluaient l'UE, avaient bien conscience que le Hamas ne serait jamais partie prenante de ce que Washington programmait pour les Palestiniens et le Moyen Orient. Simplement dit, le Hamas s'opposerait au projet du « Nouveau Moyen Orient » et ce qui devrait être l'une de ses conséquences au Levant, l'Union Méditerranéenne. Pendant tout ce temps, l'initiative de Paix Arabe de 2002 a été le portail pour la matérialisation à la fois du Nouveau Moyen Orient et de l'Union Méditerranéenne.
Tandis que les Saoudiens ont joué leur part dans l'initiative de l'Amérique du « Nouveau Moyen Orient », le Fatah a été manipulé, pour ne pas employer d'autres mots, afin de combattre le Hamas de sorte qu'un accord serait requis entre le Hamas et le Fatah. Cela a été fait sachant que la première réaction du Hamas en tant que parti palestinien gouvernant, serait de maintenir l'intégrité de l'unité palestinienne. C'est là que l'Arabie Saoudite entre de nouveau en scène, à travers son rôle dans l'arrangement de l'Accord de la Mecque. L'Arabie Saoudite n'a pas reconnu diplomatiquement le Hamas avant l'accord de la Mecque.
L'Accord de la Mecque était un traquenard pour prendre le Hamas au piège. La trêve entre le Hamas et le Fatah, et par la suite le gouvernement d'unité palestinien établi, n'a jamais été conçu pour durer, dés le jour ou le Hamas a été trompé pour signer l'Accord de la Mecque. L'Accord de la Mecque avait été conçu à l'avance pour légitimer ce qui allait se passer ensuite, une mini guerre civile palestinienne à Gaza.
C'est après la signature de l'Accord de la Mecque que des éléments au sein du Fatah et dirigés par Mohammed Dahlan (supervisé par le lieutenant général US Keith Dayton) ont reçu l'ordre des US et d'Israël de renverser le gouvernement palestinien dirigé par le Hamas.
Il existait probablement deux plans en réserve, l'un dans le cas d'une victoire possible du Fatah et l'autre plan en réserve (le plus probable des deux) dans le cas d'un échec du Fatah. Ce dernier plan était une préparation de deux gouvernements palestiniens parallèles, l'un à Gaza dirigé par le premier ministre Haniyeh et le Hamas, et l'autre en Cisjordanie contrôlé par Mahmoud Abbas et le Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas et ses associés ont également appelé à la création d'un parlement palestinien parallèle en Cisjordanie, sans substance et n'en ayant que le nom. (1)
L'Accord de la Mecque autorisait effectivement le Fatah à diriger la Cisjordanie en deux coups. Puisque le gouvernement a été formé à la suite de l'Accord de la Mecque, un retrait du Fatah du gouvernement a été utilisé par le Fatah pour décrire le gouvernement dirigé par le Hamas comme illégitime. Ceci se passait alors qu'un regain de luttes à Gaza rendait de nouvelles élections palestiniennes non envisageables. Mahmoud Abbas a aussi été mis en position de pouvoir affirmer la légitimité de former sa propre administration en Cisjordanie, ce qui aurait été perçu mondialement comme ce que c'est vraiment, un régime illégal sans l'Accord. Ce n'est pas non plus une coïncidence si l'homme choisi pour diriger le gouvernement de Mahmoud Abbas le Dc Salam Fayyad, est un ancien employé de la Banque Mondiale.
Le Hamas étant effectivement neutralisé, et coupé du pouvoir en Cisjordanie, la scène était dressée pour deux choses ; des propositions pour une force militaire internationale dans les territoires palestiniens et la Conférence d'Annapolis. (2)
Le sommet de Paix d'Annapolis : annonce d'évènements encore à venir
Selon Al Jazeera, avant la conférence d'Annapolis, des accords rédigés par Mahmoud Abbas et Israël appelés Accord de Principes, garantissaient que les palestiniens n'auront pas de force militaire quand il sera octroyé à la Cisjordanie une certaine forme d'auto détermination
Les accords appellent également à l'intégration des économies du monde Arabe avec Israël, et le positionnement d'une force internationale, similaire à celle qu'il y a en Bosnie et au Kosovo, pour superviser l'application de ces accords dans les territoires Palestiniens. Cela devient aussi plus clair avec la révélation de cette information, pourquoi il fallait neutraliser le Hamas et légitimer Mahmoud Abbas.
C'est là ou la France et la création de l'Union Méditerranéenne re-rentre en scène. Pendant des années, bien avant la « guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme » Paris avait appelé au déploiement d'un contingent de soldats soit de l'UE soit de l'OTAN au Liban et dans les territoires occupés palestiniens. Les gens au Moyen Orient doivent ouvrir les yeux sur ce qui a été planifié pour leurs terres.
Le 19 février 2004, Dominique de Villepin a déclaré qu'une fois que les israéliens auront quitté la bande de Gaza, des troupes étrangères pourraient être envoyées là bas et une conférence internationale pourrait légitimer leur présence comme faisant partie de la deuxième phase de la feuille de route israélo palestinienne et comme faisant partie d'une initiative pour « Le Plus Grand Moyen Orient » ou le « Nouveau Moyen Orient ». (3) Cette déclaration a été faite avant que le Hamas arrive au gouvernement et avant l'Accord de Principes de Mahmoud Abbas. Cependant cela a suivi l'initiative Arabe proposée par les Saoudiens.
Considérant les choses sous cet aspect, c'est clair que les évènements qui se passent au Moyen Orient font partie d'une feuille de route militaire avant la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme ».
Cela nous amène aux propositions de Nicolas Sarkozy pour une Union Méditerranéenne. L'intégration économique de l'économie israélienne avec les économies du Monde Arabe développerait le réseau de relations mondiales qui sont étroitement tissés par les agents mondiaux du Consensus de Washington. L'initiative de paix Arabe proposée par les Saoudiens, l'Accord de Principes, et Annapolis sont toutes des étapes de la création d'une intégration économique Monde Arabe Israël, via le projet pour le « Nouveau Moyen Orient » et l'intégration de tout le pourtour Méditerranéen dans l'Union Européenne via l'Union Méditerranéenne. La présence de troupes à la fois de l'OTAN et de pays de l'UE au Liban fait aussi partie de cet objectif.
Déjà vu au Liban : Internationalisation de la Bande de Gaza par l'OTAN ?
Il y a suffisamment de preuves que la guerre israélienne de 2006 contre le Liban a été planifiée par Israël, les US et l'OTAN. (4)
Après son déploiement à l'intérieur du Liban en 2006 sous la bannière de l'UNIFIL, il était aussi prévu que l'OTAN entre dans la Bande de Gaza à un moment donné dans le futur proche. Coïncidant avec la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban, Israël devait également lancer une importante campagne contre les Palestiniens dans la Bande de Gaza. Les responsables israéliens disaient qu'après les combats entre l'armée israélienne et les palestiniens, l'OTAN serait désignée pour rentrer dans la Bande de Gaza. La Bande de Gaza était vue comme la nouvelle destination pour les « opérations de maintien de la paix » de l'OTAN par Avigdor Lieberman, l'ancien ministre des affaires stratégiques israélien (à la tête du parti d'extrême droite sioniste Israël Beitenou ndlt). Avigdor Lieberman était aussi le vice premier ministre d'Israël à cette époque.
Avigdor Lieberman a même insisté, en présence de Condoleezza Rice, et de responsables US, qu'une opération militaire contre les Palestiniens dans la Bande de Gaza était « inévitable » et que « les résultats d'une telle action devraient être l'entrée de 30 000 forces (soldats) de l'OTAN pour se déployer à Gaza » pour empêcher plus de concentration armée (palestinienne). (5) Amir Peretz, alors qu'il occupait le poste de ministre de la défense israélien, a aussi déclaré en mars 2007, que l'armée israélienne avait l'autorisation de mener de nouvelles opérations militaires dans la Bande de Gaza. (6)
Les combats prédits par les responsables israéliens et les commandants militaires ont eu lieu, mais, pas en premier entre les israéliens et les palestiniens. Les affrontements ont eu lieu entre les Palestiniens dans Gaza et puis les Israéliens ont commencé leurs opérations. Les Israéliens ont simplement fait sous traiter leur sale boulot par des collaborateurs palestiniens dans Gaza, tels que Mohammed Dahlan. Même les Israéliens ont appelé à l'internationalisation de la situation à Gaza, comme la situation au Liban. Mahmoud Abbas, le dirigeant du Fatah, s'est compromis en suivant le script US, israélien à la lettre.
Israël : De Facto un Bras Armé de l'OTAN
« L'objectif diplomatique et sécuritaire d'Israël…doit être clair : rejoindre l'OTAN et entrer dans l'Union Européenne. » Avigdor Lieberman, (ex ndlt) ministre des affaires stratégiques d'Israël.
Israël a établi un accord de coopération militaire de haut niveau avec l'OTAN. Avigdor Lieberman a déclaré qu'Israël est destiné à devenir un avant poste de l'UE et un membre effectif de l'OTAN. (7) L'ancien ministre israélien a aussi dirigé les contacts israéliens de haut niveau avec l'OTAN et le dossier de guerre contre l'Iran. Il a été impliqué avec les US et l'OTAN en ce qui concerne les préparations coordonnées contre la Syrie et l'Iran.
Depuis la création de l'état juif, Israël a été perçu comme un avant poste de ce que l'on appelle « l'Occident » et de ses intérêts au Moyen Orient et dans le Monde Arabe. Israël est un membre actif de l' »Operation Active Endeavour in the Eastern Mediterranean” (Opération Effort Actif dans l'Est Méditerranéen) de l'OTAN. Bien qu'Israël ne soit pas un membre de l'OTAN, Israël ensemble avec la Turquie, constitue l'épine dorsale de la force de l'OTAN au Moyen Orient. La Turquie et Israël sont tous deux destinés dans le futur à jouer un rôle militaire de premier plan dans la région Méditerranéenne.
A la fin de 2007, Israël a commencé à affirmer qu'il avait reçu le « feu vert » des US, de l'UE, et de leur corps militaire mutuel, l'OTAN, pour lancer une attaque contre l'Iran. Cela provoquerait l'embrasement du Moyen Orient. L'armée israélienne s'est entraînée en continu et leurs supérieurs ont dit aux soldats israéliens de se préparer pour une « guerre totale ».
Créer des Barrières dans les territoires de Palestine : avancées calculées pour le futur ?
La Bande de Gaza a été comparée par beaucoup en Palestine et Israël à un vaste centre de détention ou prison. Les mouvements y sont restreints, les droits à la mobilité violés, et toute la zone est entourée de barrières et barbelés. Des morceaux sont également toujours occupées par l'armée israélienne et utilisés comme zones tampon.
La Cisjordanie est une immense zone comparée à la Bande de Gaza. Celle-ci est aussi en taille uneraction de celle de la Cisjordanie. Elle fait environ 360 km2 au total et partage avec Israël une frontière de 51 km. La Cisjordanie d'un autre côté à une superficie totale officielle de 5.949 Km2. C'est beaucoup plus facile pour l'armée israélienne de contrôler et fermer hermétiquement la plus petite frontière de Gaza que celle de la Cisjordanie. Du point de vue du nombre de soldats israéliens et ressources humaines israéliennes, c'est la même chose. Des deux zones, c'est donc Gaza qui est la plus facile à boucler hermétiquement et à gérer.
En Cisjordanie, ce sera le Fatah avec l'aide des armées étrangères qui sera utilisé pour contenir les combattants palestiniens au cas ou une guerre plus étendue éclaterait au Moyen Orient. Le projet d'internationaliser la situation dans la Bande de Gaza et la Cisjordanie avec la présence de troupes étrangères de l'OTAN et de pays Arabes, peut aussi être vu comme faisant partie de l'effort pour créer une barrière militaire pour protéger Israël.
Gabi Ashkenazi, un général israélien, d'origine mixte bulgare et syrienne, avec une expérience de terrain au Liban où il y a supervisé la SLA, South Lebanon Army (Armée du Sud Liban) a succédé à Daniel Halutz à la tête de l'armée israélienne. Ashkénazi a été chargé de construire la barrière qu'on appelle communément le « Mur de l'Apartheid », entre la Cisjordanie et Israël. Bien qu'il ne soit pas terminé, le mur de l'Apartheid, en cas de guerre régionale, servirait à empêcher les combattants palestiniens à passer de Cisjordanie en Israël pour combattre les forces israéliennes.
Créer des barrières supplémentaires entre le Liban et Israël
L'UNIFIL post 2006 qui s'est déployée au Sud Liban après le bombardement du Liban n'est pas la même que l'UNIFIL pré 2006. C'est une entité plus robuste et prête au combat, et elle aussi peut être utilisée pour protéger Israël contre les Libanais en cas de guerre régionale lancée par Israël.
Un autre point important, c'est le largage de 3 millions (voire plus) par l'armée israélienne de bombes à fragmentations, fournies par les US, dans le Sud Liban pendant la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban. Ce qui s'est révélé comme extrêmement sinistre c'est la précipitation israélienne pour saturer le Sud Liban de ces bombes à fragmentation alors que les attaques israéliennes contre le Liban tiraient à leur fin. La géographie du Sud Liban en donne une explication partielle ; c'est la région du Liban qui a des frontières avec Israël.
Ce largage massif des bombes à fragmentation au Sud Liban était une action délibérée pour créer une autre barrière israélienne contre des potentiels combattants lors d'une future guerre au Moyen Orient. Ces bombes à fragmentation sont en fait devenues des mines terriennes qui empêcheraient des vagues de combattants libanais de pénétrer en Israël en cas de guerre contre l'Iran, la Syrie, les Palestiniens, et le Liban.
Scénario de guerre régionale : préparations israéliennes pour une tempête de représailles par missiles
Le projet pour un « Nouveau Moyen Orient » coûtera très cher, et le prix en sera une guerre. La militarisation de la Bande de Gaza comporte plusieurs volets et est liée aux préparatifs d'un conflit plus large au Moyen Orient. Le déploiement de troupes étrangères dans la Bande de Gaza et la Cisjordanie, comme au Liban, et l'emmurement de la Cisjordanie servent aussi les mêmes objectifs pour contenir les Palestiniens si une guerre éclatait au Moyen Orient entre Israël, l'Amérique, et l'OTAN d'un côté, et la Syrie, l'Iran et leurs alliés de l'autre.
Le raisonnement qui fonde cette analyse c'est qu'une guerre contre l'Iran et la Syrie réduirait et affaiblirait l'armée israélienne : les forces israéliennes seraient exposées aux missiles balistiques de l'Iran et les différents groupes de résistance palestiniens en ont bien conscience. Si une guerre régionale éclate entre Israël et l'Iran et la Syrie, les Palestiniens pourraient se voir élever en tant que combattants pratiquement à égalité avec les Israéliens dans les territoires occupés palestiniens. La dynamique du conflit entre Israéliens et Palestiniens serait immédiatement transformée.
Des divisions entre les Libanais et les Palestiniens feraient obstacle à l'efficacité d'un effort combiné militaire contre Israël dans le cas d'une guerre plus étendue. La situation est la même que celle en Irak : plus les irakiens sont divisés, plus faible est leur effort de guerre contre les US et leurs alliés occupant l'Irak. En dehors de la Palestine, la Nakba a été répétée en Irak. Il n'y a pas d'erreur là-dessus, les occupations de la Palestine et de l'Irak sont de même nature, et ont les mêmes architectes. Bilad Al-Sham, l'Irak, et leurs peuples souffrent de la même source.
Existe-t-il un lien entre les discussions sur un état Palestinien et la Guerre ?
« La guerre que nous (Israël) menons au Moyen Orient ce n'est pas seulement la guerre de l'état d'Israël… et nous (Israël) sommes sur les lignes de front. » Avigdor Lieberman, (ex) ministre des affaires stratégiques.
Suite à l'assassinat d'Hariri, la France et l'Allemagne sont devenues plus actives dans la valse diplomatique au Moyen Orient. Les ressources franco allemandes sont totalement activées et alignées sur les intérêts anglo américains sur le front diplomatique. Avant de se rendre en Egypte pour une visite d'état, la chancelière Angela Merkel a déclaré que l'Allemagne et l'UE redémarreraient le processus de paix arabo israélien. (8) Des diplomates franco allemands et l'UE ont aussi harmonisés leurs efforts avec l'Arabie Saoudite pour ce qui est de calmer les Palestiniens. (9)
On peut dresser de nombreux parallèles entre la marche vers la guerre de 2002 et 2003, en relation avec l'Irak et l'actuelle marche vers la guerre contre la Syrie et l'Iran. L'un de ses parallèles c'était l'initiative de la Maison Blanche pour ranimer le « processus de paix arabo israélien » ainsi nommé, et aider à l'établissement d'un état palestinien indépendant avant l'invasion anglo américaine de l'Irak.
Il y a un lien étroit entre les guerres américaines au Moyen Orient et les ouvertures faites en direction des Arabes pour la création d'un état palestinien. Les Accords d'Oslo ont également été liés à la défaite de l'Irak en 1991 lors de la Guerre du Golfe. Est-ce pour cela que George W. Bush a plus parlé de la menace de l'Iran que de paix lors de sa tournée présidentielle au Moyen Orient et sa visite en Israël ?
L'une des explications pour les déclarations US concernant l'état pour les Palestiniens, une façade, c'était de s'assurer qu'aucun des gouvernements clients dans le Monde Arabe serait renversé par des révoltes de populations arabes et remplacé. La Question Palestinienne et le soutien aux palestiniens sont un problème qui peut faire gagner ou perdre les cœurs et les esprits dans le Monde Arabe et avec beaucoup de populations musulmanes. L'idée c'est tant qu'il y a un silence temporaire sur le front palestinien, des nouveaux fronts peuvent être ouverts sans créer une révolte de masse au Moyen Orient et ailleurs.
Consultation de guerre OTAN-Israel aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN à Bruxelles
Une trame consistante se construit impliquant l'OTAN, l'Est Méditerranéen, et la « Guerre Mondiale Contre le Terrorisme ». Fin juin 2007, Avigdor Lieberman et des responsables israéliens ont eu des rencontres de haut niveau avec des responsables de l'OTAN aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN à Bruxelles. (10) Le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Alessandro Minuto Rizzo d'Italie, et une délégation israélienne conduite par Avigdor Lieberman ont discuté le déploiement anticipé d'unités et forces de l'OTAN dans la Bande de Gaza (11)
Le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN et le côté israélien ont aussi discuté du déploiement d'une force internationale à Gaza pour maintenir l'ordre et empêcher les Palestiniens de s'armer. (12) Les rencontres ont aussi porté sur l'Iran et la question des défenses aériennes d'Israël, et l'approfondissement de la coopération des services secrets entre l'OTAN et Israël. (13) Avigdor Lieberman est rentré en Israël après ses rencontres en Europe Occidentale, en affirmant à la radio de l'armée d'Israël que les US, l'UE, et l'OTAN avaient donné le « feu vert » à Israël pour initier une guerre au Moyen Orient en lançant une attaque contre l'Iran à une date non révélée. (14)
En 2004 l'OTAN a donné à Israël le « feu vert » pour commencer une guerre contre l'Iran à une date non révélée.
« L'Iran est un pays compliqué et il ne semble pas qu'Israël ait le pouvoir de le contrer (défier). » Javier Solana responsable de la politique étrangère et de la sécurité pour l'UE et ancien secrétaire général de l'OTAN (Der Tagesspiegel)
Après son retour de voyage en Europe de l'Ouest et suite aux entretiens qu'il y avait eu aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN, l'ancien ministre israélien des affaires stratégiques, Avigdor Lieberman, a dit début juillet 2007 qu'il avait reçu l'accord tacite de l'UE, les US et l'OTAN pour initier une attaque militaire israélienne contre l'Iran. « Si nous commençons des opérations militaires seul contre l'Iran, alors l'Europe et les US nous soutiendrons » a dit Avigdor Lieberman à la radio de l'armée israélienne dans un message à destination des soldats, suite à son voyage et à ses rencontres avec des responsables de l'UE, José Maria Aznar d'Espagne, et le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN.
Avigdor Lieberman a aussi affirmé qu'à cause des guerres en Afghanistan et en Irak, les US, la Grande Bretagne et leurs alliés européens étaient dans l'impossibilité d'initier une guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés, mais étaient d'accord pour autoriser Israël à attaquer l'Iran.
Avigdor Lieberman a aussi affirmé que les US et l'OTAN interviendraient au côté d'Israël une fois que la guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés aurait démarré. Le message transmis à Lieberman par l'OTAN et les responsables de l'UE c'était qu'Israël devait «empêcher lui-même la menace » ce qui veut dire qu'Israël doit lancer une guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés régionaux. (15)
Israël sera protégé par l'OTAN dans un scénario de guerre contre l'Iran et la Syrie
« La meilleure façon de fournir à Israël ce supplément de sécurité c'est d'actualiser sa relation avec le bras armé collectif de l'Occident : l'OTAN. Que cette actualisation de la relation culmine avec Israël devenant membre de l'OTAN ou simplement une garantie d'une relation stratégique et opérationnelle (défense) bien plus étroite, cela peut être discuté. Après tout, une garantie classique sécuritaire exige des frontières reconnues pour être défendues, quelque chose qu'Israël n'a pas aujourd'hui. Arranger une actualisation de la relation Israel-OTAN nécessitera une diplomatie prudente et une planification. » Ronald D. Asmus, directeur exécutif du German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center à Bruxelles (21 Février 2006) »
Israël ne peut pas défier l'Iran militairement. Le Téhéran militaire est au-dessus des capacités d'Israël, malgré l'illusion de la puissance d'Israël. Tel Aviv ne lancera pas une guerre contre l'Iran si les US et l'OTAN ne sont pas partenaires dans l'opération militaire.
Dans un tel scénario, les US, la Grande Bretagne, et l'OTAN rallieront immédiatement, ou presque immédiatement Israël, comme l'a déclaré Avigdor Lieberman.
C'est un arrangement prémédité. Les dirigeants de l'OTAN diront à leurs citoyens qu'Israël a été obligé d'attaquer l'Iran par peur et à cause de « son droit d'exister ». Puis ils resserreront les rangs autour d'Israël. Il faut également déclaré que quand le « droit d'exister » d'un organisme vivant s'impose au dépend du droit d'exister de tout ce qui se trouve autour, alors cela devient une menace comme le cancer.
En mars 2006, on a rapporté en Grande Bretagne que des responsables de l'OTAN avaient sous entendu qu'ils joueraient un rôle dans une attaque US-Israel contre l'Iran.
Sarah Baxter et Uzi Mahnaimi ont rapporté que le général en chef Axel Tüttelmann, le commandant de l'AWAC (Airborne Early Warning and Control Force – Force Aérienne d'Alerte Précoce et de Contrôle) de l'OTAN a affirmé aux responsables israéliens que l'OTAN serait impliquée dans une future campagne contre les Iraniens. (16)
« Les commentaires du Général en chef Tüttelmann ont révélé que l'alliance militaire (l'OTAN) pourrait joué un rôle de soutien si l'Amérique (et Israël) lance des attaques aériennes. » Le rapport a aussi révélé que le général en chef avait présenté aux Israéliens une démonstration de l'avion de surveillance d'alerte précoce de l'AWAC. (17) Les démonstrations des avions de surveillance de l'OTAN suggérent l'existence de préparations conjointes Israel-OTAN de guerre.
L'analyste en études stratégiques Patrick Cronin de l' International Institute for Strategic Studies (Institut International d'Etudes Stratégiques) a dit au Guardian (GB) en 2007, que si Israël insistait pour frapper l'Iran, les US devraient mener« une action décisive », insinuant par là que l'Amérique entrerait dans la guerre initiée par Israël, au côté d'Israël. (18)
Israël travaille à créer une atmosphère et un environnement stratégiques : mais pour qui ?
Napoléon Bonaparte une fois a dit : « on ne doit pas laisser les incidents internationaux façonner la politique étrangère, la politique étrangère doit façonner les incidents ». Quelque soit ce qui est affirmé et dit sur ce personnage historique, c'était un génie militaire et un grand homme d'état. Au cours de sa vie, l'officier Corse s'est élevé lui-même au grade de général et est devenu l'Empereur de France, roi d'Italie, protecteur de la Confédération du Rhin, et Médiateur de la Confédération Helvétique (Suisse). Ses campagnes l'ont mené des pyramides d'Egypte et ses collines de la Péninsule Ibérique jusqu'aux plaines de Pologne et les bords de fleuve à Moscou. C'était un homme de tête qui connaissait très bien la profondeur des relations internationales et la politique des incidents.
Si Napoléon était encore en vie, il n'aurait pas été surpris des évènements qui secouent l'environnement mondial, spécialement au Moyen Orient. Aujourd'hui, la politique étrangère façonne encore les incidents internationaux. Israël a été une entité combattant et luttant pour sculpter et façonner son environnement stratégique.
Si les US ou la Grande Bretagne devaient prendre l'initiative de lancer une guerre, leurs dirigeants politiques devraient faire face à une violente opposition de l'opinion publique qui pourrait menacer l'establishment anglo américain et même créer une instabilité nationale. Mais si Israël lançait une guerre la situation serait différente.
Si Israël devait lancer une guerre au prétexte de se défendre d'une menace croissante iranienne, les US et l'OTAN interviendraient pour « protéger Israël » des représailles iraniennes sans avoir l'air d'avoir commencer une guerre internationale illégale.
Le blâme serait porté sur les israéliens pour la guerre plutôt que sur l'administration US et son indéfectible allié britannique. Les dirigeants politiques occidentaux avanceraient comme argument que c'est le devoir national de protéger Israël quelque soit les violations israéliennes du droit international.
Armageddon nucléaire au Moyen Orient : Israël ciblerait le Monde Arabe et l'Iran avec ses armes nucléaires ?
Selon ce qu'écrit Norman Podhoretz, l'un des pseudo intellectuel derrière la politique étrangère de l'administration Bush Jr, dans l'édition de février 2008 du Commentary Magazine, « la seule alternative qui semblait pour moi plausible même de loin c'est qu'il ( George.W. Bush) pourrait sous traiter le boulot (pour commencer une guerre contre l'Iran) aux Israéliens. »
Non seulement Podhoretz a-t-il appelé à ce que Tel Aviv attaque l'Iran pour les US, il a aussi affirmé qu'une guerre nucléaire au Moyen Orient entre les Israéliens et les Iraniens est inévitable, sauf si l'Iran est bombardé. Ceci malgré le fait que le programme d'énergie nucléaire iranien a été certifié comme étant pacifique par l'AIEA. Sur la base du travail d'Anthony Cordesman, Podhoretz a aussi mis en avant l'idée qu'Israël devra éliminer ses voisins arabes, tels que l'Egypte, et la Syrie (même si comme l'Egypte ils sont alliés d'Israël, et ont signé un accord de paix avec lui.)
Selon les propres termes de Podhoretz : « dans l'horrible scénario que décrit Cordesman, des dizaines de millions mourraient effectivement, mais Israël- malgré que sa population civile serait décimée et malgré la destruction de ses principales villes – survivrait même si seulement à peine comme une société fonctionnant. Ce ne serait pas le cas de l'Iran, ni de ses (voisins) arabes les plus importants, particulièrement l'Egypte et la Syrie car Cordesman pense qu'Israël devrait aussi les viser pour « s'assurer qu'aucune autre puissance peut capitaliser sur une attaque contre l'Iran. » De plus, Israël pourrait être amené par désespoir à s'en prendre aux puits de pétrole, raffineries et ports dans le Golfe Persique. »
Osirik/Osiriq déjà vu : Une attaque israélienne contre l'Iran en gestation ?
On doit noter que Pervez Musharraf a commencé un tour d'Europe en même temps que les tours présidentiels du président américain et de Nicolas Sarkozy au Moyen Orient, et la démission d'Avigdor Lieberman du cabinet israélien. (19). Le but du voyage de Musharraf c'est de se coordonner avec l'UE, et l'OTAN à Bruxelles, de même que de visiter la France, la Grande Bretagne et la Suisse. (20) Le voyage de Musharraf a lieu au moment ou le Pakistan traverse une crise politique de division et à la vieille d'appels d'Israël pour une guerre contre l'Iran.
Le secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Jakob (Jaap) de Hoop Sheffer a aussi rendu visite aux Emirats Arabes Unis peu de temps après les déplacements de G.W.Bush et Nicolas Sarkozy ; de Hoop Sheffer a dit à ses hôtes d'Abu Dhabi que l'OTAN travaillerait dans le Golfe Persique pour contenir l'Iran. (21) Le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a aussi défini l'Iran comme une menace commune à la fois pour le GCC et pour les membres de l'OTAN. Ses voyages et déclarations sont dans la ligne des plans anglo-américains et franco-allemands au Moyen Orient pour affronter l'Iran. Alors qu'il était aux Emirats, le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a également laisser entendre que l'OTAN serait impliqué dans un conflit arabo-israélien, qui, comme on l'a noté, est en préparation depuis plusieurs années.(22)
Des déclarations alarmantes ont fait état de tentatives menaçantes de Tel Aviv pour attaquer l'Iran, tentatives menées depuis 2004 et devenues plus fortes. Lors de la conférence 2008 d'Herzliya, une conférence annuelle israélienne sur la sécurité nationale, John Bolton a encouragé Tel Aviv à bombarder l'Iran tandis qu'il mentionnait l'attaque aérienne israélienne de septembre 2007 contre la Syrie comme précédent pour une autre attaque. (23) Ironiquement, Ehurd Barak a commencé à affirmer fi n janvier 2008 que l'Iran est dans les étapes finales de fabrication de têtes nucléaires, tandis que le gouvernement israélien annonçait le succès de ses missiles porteurs de têtes nucléaires (24).
Paris a aussi suggéré qu'Israël commencera une guerre avec l'Iran; dans une interview au Nouvel Observateur, Nicolas Sarkozy a déclaré que la possibilité qu'Israël commence une guerre contre l'Iran était bien plus grande qu'une attaque américaine contre l'Iran. (25) Le Secrétaire National à la Sécurité, Michael Chertoff, a aussi confirmé que les US ne lancerait aucune attaque contre l'Iran dans une interview à RIA Novosti (26)
L'Iran et la Syrie ont déclaré qu'ils sont prêts à se protéger et lanceraient des représailles en cas d'agression israélienne. (27) Partout au Moyen Orient les forces qui résistent au contrôle étranger sont en état d'alerte contre toute forme d'hostilité israélienne. « Si Israël lance une nouvelle guerre contre le Liban, nous leur promettons une guerre qui changera la face de toute la région » le secrétaire général du Hezbollah Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah a-t-il ainsi prévenu Tel Aviv, en anticipation d'une nouvelle agression israélienne au Moyen Orient pendant une cérémonie publique à Beyrouth. (28)
Israël :un instrument de la politique étrangère US au Moyen Orient
Tel Aviv a fourni des preuves aux affirmations de ses opposants qu'il est un outil des projets coloniaux au Moyen Orient. La majorité des Israéliens eux-mêmes sont manipulés par un système complexe incluant la désinformation par les médias, susciter la peur, et un conditionnement psychologique de longue date. Le sang israélien est utilisé pour opprimer, tuer, s'approprier, et alimenter les machines des empires économiques. Le Mercantilisme est toujours très vivant, mais sa forme a muté.
Israël, par le biais de ses responsables et de ses dirigeants gouvernementaux, est utilisé pour maintenir la tension au Moyen Orient. Israël est un instrument qui justifie l'intervention anglo américaine et franco allemande. Pourquoi les US se sont –t-ils mis en colère contre Israël parce que Tel Aviv ne mettait pas en danger ses propres intérêts en attaquant la Syrie pendant la guerre d'Israël contre le Liban en 2006 en refusant d'affronter la colère de l'Iran et de la Syrie dans une guerre régionale étendue ? (29)
Malgré les demandes et opinions d'une majorité de la population israélienne, Ehud Olmert, un homme qui est connu pour sa corruption alors qu'il était maire de Jérusalem Ouest, est toujours au poste de premier ministre. Tout comme la volonté démocratique du peuple américain a été ignorée en ce qui concerne l'Irak, la volonté démocratique des Israéliens a été ignorée pour ce qui est de faire partir Ehud Olmert. Comme dans bien d'autres endroits, les intérêts de la population d'Israël n'ont aucune importance pour les échelons supérieurs du pouvoir. Les dirigeants israéliens ne servent pas les intérêts des Israéliens, ils sont au service du i(« Consensus de Washington ».]i
La coalition d'Ehud Olmert peut durer suffisamment longtemps pour commencer une guerre régionale. La carrière politique du premier ministre Ehud Olmert est pratiquement terminée et il n'a rien à perdre en démarrant une autre guerre. Avigdor Lieberman, l'homme qui a conduit les consultations de haut niveau avec l'OTAN de la part de Tel Aviv, a quitté le cabinet israélien pendant la visite de G.W.Bush en Israël lors du voyage présidentiel récent de ce dernier au Moyen Orient. Lieberman a déclaré que son départ était à cause des « pourparlers de paix » avec les palestiniens, mais en réalité il a pris la décision à cause de la Commission Winograd et comme tactique pour maintenir le parti Travailliste d'Israël dans le gouvernement de coalition d'Ehud Olmert. C'est une tactique pour donner suffisamment de vie et de temps au gouvernement d'Ehud Olmert pour lancer une guerre régionale en essayant d'attaquer l'Iran.
Même les ennemis d'Israël sont d'accord pour reconnaître que Tel Aviv est un proxy des intérêts étrangers anglo-américains. Le Contre Amiral Ali Shamkhani, ministre de la défense d'Iran en 2004, a prévenu le gouvernement US qu'en cas d'attaque par Israël, les représailles militaires iraniennes seraient dirigées à la fois contre les US et lsrael. On admet sur ce point que si Tel Aviv lançait une guerre, il devrait recevoir le feu vert des US avant de commencer les attaques. (30) La Maison Blanche a aussi été complètement impliquée dans tous les tests de missiles israéliens et les préparations de guerre israéliennes ont impliqué une coordination israélo américaine via de tels institutions comme le Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group- Groupe Conjoint Politico Militaire Israelo-US. (31)
Suite à la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban, le vice secrétaire général du Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Qassam (Kassam) a déclaré dans une interview à la TV Al Manar : « qui a commencé la guerre ? Israël. Il se trouve qu'Israël n'a pas répondu de façon proportionnée, mais plutôt pour exécuter des décisions pré planifiées américaines. L'agression a été planifiée d'avance. » (32) Sheikh Naim Qassam a de plus accusé « Israël de fonctionner comme le bras armé des Etats-Unis ». Sheikh Naim Qassam a expliqué que «tout le monde a toujours dit qu'Israël tire les ficelles de l'Amérique, mais actuellement il se trouve que c'est l'Amérique qui dirige Israël. Israël est devenu un bras armé de l'Amérique » (33)
 Khaled Abu Toameh, PLO to form separate W. Bank parliament, The Jerusalem Post, January 14, 2008.
 Emine Kart, Ankara cool towards Palestine troops, Today's Zaman, July 3, 2007.
 Dominique René de Villepin, Déclarations de Dominique de Villepin à propos du Grand Moyen-Orient, interview with Pierre Rousselin, Le Figaro, February 19, 2004.
 Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader Middle East Military Roadmap, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), September 10, 2007.
 Israeli action in Gaza ‘inevitable,' Al Jazeera, January 14, 2007.
 Tom Spender, Israel ‘planning Gaza invasion,' Al Jazeera, April 4, 2007.
 Avigdor Lieberman: Israel should press to join NATO, EU, Haaretz, January 1, 2007.
 Germany to help renew Mideast peace efforts: Chancellor, Xinhua News Agency, December 10, 2006.
 Angela Merkel sets off to Middle East, Associated Press, March 31, 2007.
 Ronny Sofer, Lieberman wants NATO troops in Gaza, Yedioth Ahronoth, June 28, 2007.
 NATO: The US and Europe can not suspend Iran's nuclear program, Azeri Press Agency (APA), July 11, 2007.
 Sarah Baxter and Uzi Mahnaimi, NATO may help US strikes on Iran, The Times (U.K.), March 5, 2006.
 Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran, The Guardian (U.K.), July 16, 2007.
 Pakistan President arrives in Belgium for Europe tour, The Times of India, January 2008.
 Indel Ersan, NATO chief urges cooperation with Gulf over Iran, ed. Andrew Roche, Reuters, January 24, 2008.
 Jamal Al-Majaida, NATO chief discusses alliance's role in Gulf, Khaleej Times, January 27, 2008.
 Yuval Azoulay and Barak Ravid, Bolton: ‘Near zero chace' Pres. Bush will strike Iran, Haaretz, January 24, 2008; Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, also indicated at the Herzilya Conference that the years 2008 and 2009 will also see the last diplomatic efforts against Tehran before an implied military option (attack) against the Iranians. The Israeli Transportation Minister also made similar threats before saying that sanctions had till the end of 2007 to work against Iran until the military option would be prepaired. This prior threat was made as he led the Israeli delegation of the Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group, which focuses on Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Shaul Mofaz was also the former commander of the Israeli military, a former Israeli defence minister, and hereto is one of the individuals in charge of the Iran file in Tel Aviv.
 Iran may be working on nuclear warheads: Israeli Defence Minister, The Times of India, January 26, 2008; Israel suspects Iranians already working on nuclear warhead, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 16, 2008; Lally Weymouth, A Conversation With Ehud Barak, The Washington Post, January 26, 2008, p.A17.
 Sarkozy: France worried by Iran-Israel tension, Associated Press, December 12, 2007.
 U.S. will not attack Iran, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), January 25, 2008.
 Bush trying to foment discord in Mideast, Tehran Times, January 28, 2008, p.A1+; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, America's “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 17, 2008; Nir Magal, Syrian VP: We'll retaliate for Israeli aggression, Yedioth Ahronoth, September 8, 2007.
 Hezbollah chief scoffs at Israel at rare public appearance, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 19, 2008.
 Yitzhak Benhorin, Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria, Yedioth Aharonot, December 16, 2006.
 Anthon La Guardia, Iran wars Israel on pre-emptive strike, The Telegraph (U.K.), August 19, 2004.
 Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Israel's Nuclear Missile Threat against Iran, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 19, 2008; Hilary Leila Krieger, Mofaz warns sanction on Iran must bite by year's end, The Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007.
 Hanan Awarekeh, Kassem: If Israel attacks, we'll show them surprise, Al-Manar, July 12, 2007.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya est un auteur indépendant basé à Ottawa et spécialisé dans les affaires du Moyen-Orient. Il est chercheur associé au Centre de recherches sur la mondialisation.
Articles de Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya publiés par Mondialisation.ca
FIELDS OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Investigations in human science could be divided into the following spheres:
0.Categoriology and Practical Epistemology
Foundation of the universality of knowledge; universals of civilizations; prolegomenous questions in research; scientific methods of criticism (metalanguage of science, conceptual and terminological analysis).
1. Science of Collective Human Facts
Descriptive demography; data banks of cohorts, aggregates; inferences.
2. Egology: Behavioral and Psychological Self Studies as a Private Science
Patterns of external spatio-temporal behavior; categories for handling of introspective data and of self-decision; "equations" with normative and behavioral terms for complex personal decision-making.
3. Social Communication Science
Human social entities and processes as interaction networks and structures.
4. Human Ecosciences
Economics and ecology; systematic interaction of human social entities with the whole non-human sphere.
5. Societal Decision Making and Engineering
Operationalization of the system of public objectives; usable knowledge (applied science, trial and error) for societal and physical planning; complex (interactive) models.
RESEARCH ISSUES AND PRIORITIES
Sciences have their internal dynamics, since in most instances a new question is implied in the response given to a previous one. The history of science shows, however, that the selection of issues that receive priority, and to which are allocated material as well as intellectual means, does not necessarily proceed according to the inner logic of the science in question, but is largely determined by extrinsic factors, such as: authoritarianism, personality cult, position of power, political opportuneness that makes certain subjects fashionable (e.g., the energy crisis following the Middle East war in 1974). INU considers research priorities independently of these considerations and intends to counterbalance these tendencies with its limited means.
The determination of research priorities is an opportunity to return to essentials. As a matter of fact, recently the over-abundance of means generated a plethora of dubious, ephemeral, and theoretically unreflected data (esp. polls, survey and interview data) that obstruct outlook and encumber clear perspectives. In order to prevent further wasting of human and material resources, INU doesn't contribute to the proliferation of pseudo-scientific publications that serve personal promotion or vanity unnecessarily overloading our information systems. To this end INU often publishes research results anonymously and determines research priorities only according to its own criteria.
In general terms, INU considers it imperative for the development of the human sciences today that assumptions inherent in the concepts used be revisited and made explicit before generating new data. In the light of this conceptual control, data should be reevaluated, unreliable or invalid data discarded from data banks (however costly their production proved to be), and other data should be reinterpreted in this perspective.
The subsequent list of priority research topics doesn't claim to be exhaustive but represents an invitation to reflection. At the same time INU has neither the intention nor the means to carry out research on all these questions on its own, but rather submits them as suggestions to fellow researchers.
1. Issues of the epistemology and sociology of scientific knowledge (esp. human sciences).
What are the requirements for a publication to be called a "communication in human sciences"?
How can it make its content controllable in order to detach scientific knowledge from journalism at least as clearly as a publication in physical science does?
Anatomization: syntactic rules, terms (defined technical and non-technical terms: e.g., verbs), direct (experimental) or indirect (inferential) falsifiability.
Which format facilitates (or hinders) the scientific control of the publication's content?
Pragmatics of scientific communication process; texts and hypertexts, transparency (formal versus natural language) and exclusion of distracting extrascientific argumentation (such as terms with affective connotation, stylistic prowess, unproductive professional ritual and mannerism, plain authoritarian arguments).
By which procedure can scientific criticism (book reviews, etc.) fulfill its control function?
Development of scientific methodology for criticism (metalanguage of practical epistemology, criticism of actual book review praxis of scientific periodicals).
Threshold of scientific communication: the entry of a title in a special bibliography. Elements and construction of a scientific title. Methods for automatic selection and abstracting. Thesaurus construction.
2. Issues in studies of the making of a world civilization.
(See Current main project.)
How does a civilization define itself by its universals?
How should coexisting civilizations be enumerated as geopolitical blocks? How can current geographical and political labeling prejudge the enumeration of actually coherent blocks?
How is the spatio-temporal variety of living civilizations being reduced to a mainly temporal succession of civilizations, (from "aires" to "ères") a globalistic doctrine of econo-centered development?
How does the different approach to international social policy and humanitarian action delineate and classify subsidiarily coexisting civilizations?
Degrees of solidarities... Universalist-altruistic versus particularist...Solidarity by shared script(ure), ancestral affiliation (race-preservation) and/or shared collaboration for livelihood (collective self-preservation).
Are true universals of a world civilization in the making or just one-sidedly Western values and categories diffused by global communication?
Coexisting and dominant civilizations. (Criteria for their enumeration and mapping... Classifications... Ideo-pictographic... Alphabetic scripts... Oral...Categorial and conceptual arrangement of their thoughts.)
Civilizational interactions. Descriptive assessment of the world's communication networks and flows with their dominant positions (Nodes of diffusion...The unique position of American-English... Broadcasting telemedia versus reciprocal processes... Existing systems, tendencies, policies...)
The universal character of specific scientific knowledge (Conditions... Characteristics... Proofs through its predictive power and replicability in application.)
Underlying assumptions of concepts and theories. (Universals of general models.. in systems theory.)
Which kinds of approach to problem-solving did different civilizations develop?
Their assessment from this viewpoint...Relative effectiveness of
scientific problem-solving...Inadequacy of end-means dichotomy
models... Non-analytical, action-oriented, interactive and other
problem-solving procedures... Immediacy of goal achievement...
Behavior of other mammalia in life situations.
3. Issues of objective sociology.
How can social behavior be studied exclusively by correlations between external (physical) variables?
Macro- and micro-population systems, geographical distribution, movements.
Spatio-temporal substrata of communication networks and structures. Face-to-face communication and telecommunication systems. Transformation by transportation. (Telecommunication- transportation tradeoff.)
Natural and architectural space variables. Sociological experimentation in built (artificial) space systems.
Probability of encounter as an urbanity index.
4. Issues in the study of the transposition of ecological phenomena into economic terms (the economics of primary resources).
How are natural (non-processed) goods priced?
Pricing of rare, non-renewable resources... Absolute ground rent...Differential ground rent... Urban land.. Artificial rarity and speculation... Oil prices expressed in the price of gold...
5. Issues of forecasting human actions.
How is the predictive power of a body of knowledge a criterion for its scientificalness?
Individual behavior...Social events...
Extrapolations and models..Limits in time and scope...Supervention as insufficient proof. (Incidental occurrence...Futurological sophism: repercussion of published predictions on future events and thus unverifiability of the epistemological value of past predictions. Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Modern augury: deliberate use of ideological effects ("Historical necessity", Cassandran alarmism, doomsday catastrophism...)
Is value-free forecasting possible and how could it be realized?
The exhaustive listing of alternative policy options...Tacitly accepted taboos and disregard of some possible scenarios. (E.g., Evaluation of the OECD's forecastings... Model adequacies. Dichotomic reasoning and suboptimal policy decisions: either unemployment or inflation...either unemployment or technological stagnation...)
6. Issues of policy evaluation.
What is the relation between categories of personal value judgment, those of collective choice, and those of external observation?
Value judgments objectivized in rhetorical policy justification. Goal-setting and decision-making...
How to compare ideal-types of societal systems?
Distributive and competitive systems...Archaic and technological progress-oriented...Other bipolarities...
How to measure the discrepancy between the rhetorics of ideal-type and the functioning of real-type systems?
Societal policy as a general, value order setting model...Political competence distribution among decision-making centers...
Societal efficiency and economics...
Efficient overall use of resources... (Discrepancy in growths of stock, shares, production and employment...) Production, distribution and conservation... with spec. emphasis on processes besides national accounts (Informal and quaternary sector...)
7. Issues of suicidology.
What is revealed by suicide?
The measure of eudemonia by its negative, the manifest negation of the value of life... Objective description. (Demographic... Of personal history... Life-cycles... Health... Life-long contacts... Social frequentations... Other activities.)
How can a counselor enter into the private science of self? How can he revise categories of self-image and enumerate alternatives?
Life problems... Perceiving... Analyzing... Solving...
CURRENT MAIN RESEARCH
"GLOBALISM": GLOBAL COMMUNICATION WITHOUT UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION
(5 active civilizations and the 3 elements of social cohesion)
We are more and more in a Global Age.
It is well-known: our time's (a) instantaneous telecommunication, (b) worldwide (jet air) mass transportation and (c) increasing world trade globalize the social connectedness or coherence.
The social cohesion itself is structured by (a) social heritage preserved by various Scriptures, (b) parenthood for race-preservation and (c) collaborative (eco-)resource management for self-preservation.
Global Age and its rhetoric of "globalism" doesn't bring spontaneously universal civilization but rather the ambition for global hegemony of (1) the so-called "West", which does not recognize the necessity of civilizational cooperation based on reciprocal interdependence.
This corresponds to the tenet that the Western ideology, the economism, attributes to the model, which will and should be imitated by all. The vitality of the existing civilizations having other cardinal institutions and other core values than the Western ones such as (2) the Chinese and peri-Chinese (Japanese, Korean), (3) the Hindu, (4) the Muslim (originating in the Arabic Scripture of the Koran) and (5) the Brazilian (Afro-Euro-Indian) - American - alloy is denied, archaized and ostracized.
In short, we approach the exposed scope of the problem by identifying the active civilizations of our age as actors by their coherence and actual cohesion, as well as their specific relations and interactions. If we conjecture the existence of the enumerated actors, we do not privilege the relation between the West and Non-West but study all 10 competitive and cooperative relations between them. Finally, we overcome the Western-centered viewpoint also by asking the representative intellectuals of each civilization considered not only to discuss its own but in parallel all the 5 civilizations with its 10 relations. (See also G. Ankerl: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations in Democracy and Tolerance UNESCO, Paris, 1995, pp. 59-78.)
In 2000 we published the results of the first phase of the project (see INU Press) and work on the second one: A World civilization by Federation of civilization-states.
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
THE WEST AND THE ARABO-MUSLIM WORLD
[Commentary by G. Ankerl, professor of sociology]
In my book on the peaceful coexistence of geopolitical spheres (Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western) and in my papers published also in Hungarian, furthermore, in my article published in Magyar Nemzet on 10 April 2010 under the heading "What Can the West Do in the Interest of Reconciliation With the Arab-Muslim Sphere?" I expounded the independent nature of the Arab-Muslim cultural community. The flared-up popular movements raise the question of how they can be interpreted in a long-term and global perspective.
We can pick out two aspects in the objective description of