Zionist Hydra: Terror-Free Oil Initiative
February 14, 2007
The brilliant and tireless Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada has uncovered another head of the Zionist hydra: Terror-Free Oil Initiative. Following is from a profile I did for Spinwatch:
TFOI is a Coral Springs, Florida-based racist pro-Israel lobbying group that claims to have established gasoline filling stations in several US cities that do not sell oil originating “from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.” Its website states: “We educate the public by promoting those companies that acquire their crude oil supply from nations outside the Middle East and by exposing those companies that do not.”
The organization shares its address with Americans Against Hate, an organization primarily dedicated to supporting the extreme right in Israel.
Modus Operandi
The organization’s modus operandi is crude, in-your-face propaganda:
- The logo includes the Pentagon and World Trade Center twin towers with the flight numbers of the 9/11 planes inscribed on them;
- An image with Usama bin Laden’s face crossed out;
- The banners alternate between “God Bless America”, “We Stand With Israel”, “[UK] You are in our prayers”, “Support Denmark”;
- Its spokesman appears on TV with an American flag for a tie.
The organization is pushing a variety of the Clash of Civilizations theory which identifies Israel with a West at war with the Arab-Islamic world.
Anti-Arab Racism
The organization’s website includes slogans that gas station owners are encouraged to display, such as “Our oil does not come from the Middle East, Your dollars do NOT finance terrorism.” Another, demonstrating the indiscriminate and racially-based nature of the campaign, states “This Gas Station is part of Terror Free Oil Initiative – We do not purchase our oil from countries whose regimes or populations are hostile to the United States.” The racism of the organization is confirmed by the fact that countries outside the Middle East whose “regimes or populations” are putatively just as hostile, such as Venezuela, are not targeted by it.
Controversy
In the January 6, 2007, Los Angeles Times article “Sen. Boxer rescinds award to Islamic activist,” Ali Abunimah wrote:
In a January 4 [2007] article on the extreme right-wing website Frontpagemag.com, Kaufman claimed that newly elected Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison “carried much radical Islamist baggage,” and he refers to American Muslim groups as “America’s live-in enemies.” In December 2006, Kaufman called California Senator Barbara Boxer a “senator for terror” because she bestowed a public service award on a Muslim American community activist who had previously criticized Israeli human rights abuses. Under pressure from Kaufman’s organization, Boxer, a staunch supporter of Israel, withdrew the award.
Personnel
From all appearances, the project seem to have a single operate: Joe Kaufman. Kaufman is a hardline Zionist propagandist who writes for the extreme-right Frontpage Magazine. He is also the chairman of Americans Against Hate and the founder of CAIR Watch.
Media Exposure
Not surprisingly, Kaufman has made frequent appearances on Fox News and other American right wing media, however, despite its dubious provenance, National Public Radio and the BBC — which claims to rely only on credible sources — also chose to run stories on the initiative.
February 16, 2007 at 8:54 am
If the Terror-free oil initiative is getting oil supplies only from countries who are not enemies of the US they sure are cutting down their options!
Their garages must actually mean it when they say they’re selling gas!That’s gas as in gas.Any oil supplies must surely be rationed to a bare minimum.Don’t turn up in anything bigger than a citroen cv.
Is it just me or does the guy in the Stars and Stripes tie look a complete twat? Shouldn’t it be the Stars and Bars (Confederate) flag which would be even more in keeping with the racist provenance of this group of nutters.
Like a lot of Americans they can’t sort fact from fiction.What with Disney,Fox News and a dangerous fantasist for their President.They’re living with the fairies man!
February 17, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Interesting article.
February 19, 2007 at 11:25 am
Aren’t most of the Middle East’s main oil exporters incredibly cosy with the U.S. anyway? If one includes occupied Iraq, that’s the two biggest oil sources in the world.
Saudi Arabia is certainly more pro-U.S. than Russia, Venezuela, or probably even Canada, which is presumably where most of this twat-in-a-tie’s oil is coming from. Living with the clash-of-civilisation fairies indeed.
February 19, 2007 at 11:39 am
Sure. And that is the problem. Israel is a jealous lover, it won’t accept any rivals. The oil sheikhs are willing to sell everything to the US, but they still have to overcome cultural prejudices. That is why the neocons have jeopardized American oil interests, in order to forward Israel’s.
February 19, 2007 at 11:52 am
I dunno about that. I mean, I’m no fan of Israel, but it’s increasingly friendly with the Sunni oiligarchies too. Zionofascism and American oil interests are intrinsically linked, and certainly not in conflict with each other.
Why, despite calls to do so from within even the Israeli intelligence community, does Olmert consistently refuse to negotiate with Syria? Because Bush told him not too. And why all the demonizing of Iran? Again, many Israelis recognise that far from being a “second holocaust”, a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel could coexist in mutually assured deterrence. The only thing Iran is really threatening is the U.S. oil hegemony (on which Israel is dependent, but so are Britain and the U.S.).
February 19, 2007 at 11:59 am
Ziofascism definitely has relations to oil — an inverse one. Oil men, like Baker, Bush Sr. etc opposed Iraq war because it would jeopardize American interests. Big Oil, represented by James Baker and his Iraq Study Group in fact have advised Bush to open talks with Syria and Iran. What you repeating here is the common fallacy propagated by some on the Left and has no basis in fact.
What Arab rightwing governments do for their survival is irrelevant to this equation.
Bush probably couldn’t even find Syria on a map, he has no opinion on it. The decisions are made by Cheney, whose chief middle east advisor is David Wurmser, a hardline zionist extremist.
February 19, 2007 at 1:08 pm
As you say, the oil industry certainly has an interest in a peaceful and stable Middle East, and as such is directly in conflict with the zionist agenda. I’m not talking about industry though, but the oil hegemony in the true sense of the word.
The U.S.’ overwhelming power comes from the fact that the dollar is the de facto world currency. Dollar inflation means that countries with dollar reserves effectively pay a tax to the U.S., and have as strong an interest in keeping the dollar strong as America itself (hence Japan’s recent hostility toward Iran).
The reason those countries keep reserves in dollars instead of, say, gold or euros is that dollars are necessary to buy oil. With the U.S. controlling, through diplomacy and occupation, most of the Middle East’s oil output, that’s not about to change – except that a few countries like Iran won’t play ball.
Certainly, America’s agenda in keeping Israel as a violent and indestructible superpower is partly based on religious and even borderline-fascist fundamentalism, but it’s also crucial to controlling oil output. If the countries of the Middle East were to develop independent oil programs, “Big Oil” might indeed benefit, but the hegemony of the dollar would be completely undermined.
February 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Many countries did develop independent oil programs — only in the wake of the ‘73 war. Far from securing American interests, Israel has done more to jeopardize them than any other single state. No one has done more to advance the interests of the American Empire than James Baker. Why would he be opposed to the Iraq war, or the coming war against Iran, or Israeli aggression against Lebanon, and urge Bush to force Israelis to the negotiating table, if it were against the Empire’s interests?
For the “Israel as a strategic asset” argument to be correct, one would first have to assume that all the right-wing arab regimes are unwilling to trade with US, or keep dollar reserves.
Jonathan Cutler offers the best analysis of the varied interests of the Washington power elite.
February 19, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Cutler’s piece only supports the idea that Saudi Arabia et al are at least as important to US policy in the Middle East as Israel. I’m not saying that right-wing Arab regimes would be unwilling to support the US – they are firmly behind the Bush cabal – and that is why the US must keep those regimes in power. They, and the Israelis, recognize this, and are increasingly supportive of each other (as you yourself frequently report). It’s a trilateral alliance of Israeli soldiers and ideology, American guns and money, and Saudi oil.
As you point out, there is a plurarility of interests here. Some do indeed see Israel more in ideological terms than strategic ones. What, for example, do you mean by “the good of the Empire”? Baker’s plan for the Middle East would certainly have improved America’s diplomatic standing, facilitated a peaceful resolution of a costly and more or less interminable conflict, lowered the price of oil and reduced security risks to Americans.
That is better for America, by any rational assessment… except that it is an explicit cornerstone of neoconservative philosophy that America remain a superpower. To them, the “good of the Empire” means “strength beyond challenge”. The U.S. is beyond challenge, militarily and economically, as long as the dollar remains the global currency, and whatever the cost to American citizens and businessed, they will fight for it to remain the global currency.
When Saddam started to vaguely threaten Israel, America bombed and sanctioned Iraq into powerlessness. They only went for regime change – and with a passion, mind – when he started to sell his oil in Euros. Likewise, knocking out Iran is irrelevant to Israeli security – Iran has even offered to cease the support of Hezbollah and Hamas that gains it such popularity in return for US recognition of Iran’s interests – but the American-Israeli-Saudi neocon alliance cannot allow Iran to complete its Oil Bourse, the online non-dollar fossil-fuel exchange it hopes to complete this year.
James Baker is promoting the interests of America. The neocons are promoting the interests of America’s unnassailable hegemony. And there’s a world of difference between the two.
February 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm
You seem to be taking neocon’s words at face value, as some like Fukuyama did, hence his break with them. Their interests have little to do with United States. For them a civilizational conflict is necessary insofar as it turns Israel’s enemies into America’s enemies.
As regards hegemony, US remained the preeminent hegemon until it was first challenged by Nasser — only after the Israel succeeded in rebuffing Nasser’s overtures towards the US with things like the Lavon Affair.
Its hegemony was challenged against in ‘73 in the wake of the yom kippur war and in ‘79 by the iranian revolution. In 91 it only emerged as the most powerful force because it wisely chose not to entangle itself in an occupation. Its hegemony in the region outside of Iran was total. The only problem was, this was making Israel irrelevant. Moshe Arens provides a good account of Baker’s rough dealings with Israel around the time. This is what the neocons sought to reverse, as is obvious from the policy document they wrote for Netanyahu.
Everything that has happened since, is precisely what was predicted by Baker, Scowcroft, Brzezinski et al. American power in the region is on the decline.
If Israel is seeking new friends, it is precisely for this reason. And it isn’t chosing randomly. And if the Arab regimes are reciprocating, its because, like Israel, they know the decline of US hegemony will unleash the forces that are equally inimical to both — namely, the people of the middle east.
February 19, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I actually agree with you on most of your points – especially on the motives of the Israeli and Arab regimes in siding with the US against the wider Arab population. And indeed, the zionists do have an extremely strong influence on the neocons, which I am not fool enough to deny. But you are still ignoring the crucial issue of the petrodollar.
When I talk about the US hegemony, I do not mean its preeminence in the Middle East or indeed the wider world. Someone will always be preeminent, why not America. But America isn’t just a first among equals, it is overwhelmingly more powerful than any other country, and has a carte-blanche to act how it likes. This isn’t necessarily good even for America, but it is the goal of the neocons.
You seem to think that I am naively taking their intentions at face value, but this is the inescapable conclusion of their actions. Whenever another state moves towards allowing oil to be traded in anything other than dollars, they are ostracised and, depending on the severity of their threat, brutally put down.
Iraq moved towards selling in Euros in 2000, and soon afterwards the neocons started frantically looking for excuses to overthrow him. And do you think anyone is bothered by Hugo Chavez’ dictatorial attitude and anti-American rhetoric? It’s his willingness to sell oil through barter programs rather than dollars that makes Venezuela a pole of evil or whatever they call it now.
Despite the hysterical anti-Iranian propaganda, even most Israelis do not consider it to be a serious threat to their security (or their Lebensraum). The IOB is a serious (even “existential”) threat to the dollar hegemony, and that is the real reason for all this “second holocaust” bullshit.
Israel could so easily befriend Iran and Syria without compromising its fascist occupation of Palestine or designs on Lebanon – the sad fact is that most Middle Eastern governments are quite happy to sell the Palestinians down the river, though they will make token gestures to the contrary to appease their populations – that it chooses not to despite making peace with, say, Egypt, shows that there is more to this than simple zionist ideology.
February 19, 2007 at 8:47 pm
You seem to think that I am naively taking their intentions at face value, but this is the inescapable conclusion of their actions.
Their actions, as I said, have clearly resuled in the opposite, as predicted by foreign policy realists. Hegemony has been sacrificed in an attempt project overt military power. On that, I agree, Iraq was used as an object lesson for those may think of challenging US might. In that respect, it has been a veritable disaster.
Whenever another state moves towards allowing oil to be traded in anything other than dollars, they are ostracised and, depending on the severity of their threat, brutally put down.
In this instance you have the causation backwards. The only states which have considered trading oil in other currancies are the ones who have been rebuffed, confronted or attacked by the US. Before 2000, I don’t know of any other state which was considering doing such a thing. Iraq only did after two major wars against it (1991, 1998) and 8 years of sanctions. US has much more reliable ways to deal with such situations, as it did when King Saud decided to get his own tanker fleet in the 50s. War was completley unnecessary.
February 19, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Hmmm. Maybe. But as soon as the dollar monopoly on oil sales goes, so too does US domination. I don’t see the neocons letting that happen without a fight.
Shall we agree on the strong correlation, and agree to disagree on the causation?
February 19, 2007 at 9:20 pm
That correlation is true not just for the neocons; any US administration would use maximal means to dissuade a country if it decides to change the currency of oil exchange.
Causation is crucial here, since Iran would never have considered such a move, had it not been pushed against the wall by the neocons-Israel.
Dollar monopoly is not just a neocon priority, its an American priority. However, it is neocon designs that have ultimately compelled other governments to consider different currencies for exchange.
June 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm
good for them..sites like this will inevitably call for the boyotting of israeli goods so why shouldnt people who support israel or the USA boycott the people who call for their destruction..also do a bit of research the right honourable Tony Blair was calling for regime change in Iraq before George Bush was elected..George Bush just provided the vehicle and Tony Blair jumped on..also to call the BBC biased is wrong,,just as when Bill o Reilly of Fox News called them anti-US..You are so blinded that you view every word the same way as a paranoid schitzophrenic..great site,,keep it up