Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

I am reading the third part of Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback Trilogy, Nemesis, and the following article by Scott Ritter reminds me of the stark warnings offered in the book. In Greek mythology, Nemesis is the goddess of divine justice and vengeance who pnishes human transgression of the natural, right order of things and the arrogance that causes it. Johnson focuses mostly on the militarism aspect and warns that urgent action is needed to forestall the appointment with Nemesis. Ritter’s warning is equally trenchant:

Americans, through the will of the people as expressed in the November 2006 election, voiced their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the American war in Iraq, and empowered a new Democratic-controlled Congress to reassert itself … This new Democratic leadership has failed egregiously.  Not only has the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, been unable to orchestrate any meaningful legislation to bring the war in Iraq to an end, but in mid-March she carelessly greased the tracks for a whole new conflict. By excising language from a defense appropriations bill which would have required President Bush to seek the approval of Congress prior to initiating any military attack on Iran, Pelosi terminated any hope of slowing down the Bush administration’s mad rush to war…Speaker Pelosi and others felt that the inclusion of such verbiage put the security of the state of Israel at risk by eliminating important “policy options” for the president of the United States.  In short, Israeli national security interests trumped the Constitution of the United States…

I am troubled by the recent actions of Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress who have not only abrogated their collective responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution but have taken actions which, under normal circumstances and involving any other nation, would border on treasonous…To have our elected representatives flagrantly push aside their constitutional responsibilities in the name of the security interests of another nation is unthinkable.  And yet it has just happened, apparently without consequence…

Democrats can cackle about Republican scandals, including the Jack Abramoff affair…But history will show that the Pelosi-led sellout to Israeli special interests endangered the viability and security of America as a sovereign state governed by the rule of law more than Jack Abramoff ever could.

In this time of constitutional crisis, the American people need to wake up and demand that the basic tenets of the Constitution be adhered to.  Congress is solely empowered by the Constitution to declare war.  Demanding that the president of the United States adhere to this prerequisite is a logical and patriotic stance…We must demand not only that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibilities and authority by demanding the president obey the letter of the law when it comes to war, whether against Iran or any other nation, but also to place in check the anti-American activities of one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C., the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. 

For decades AIPAC has operated in the shadows of American foreign policy decision-making, exerting its influence on elected officials away from the public scrutiny of the very constituents who elected those officials to begin with.  It is impossible to hold someone accountable for actions that are kept secret, and as such AIPAC’s ability to secretly influence American foreign and national security policies represents a flagrant insult and threat to the very essence of American democracy.  I am not advocating the dissolution of AIPAC.  However, I am demanding that AIPAC be treated as any other representative of a foreign nation is treated. It should have to register as an agent of a foreign power so that the totality of its interactions with American officials can become a part of the public record.  We require this of all other nations, including our good friends the British. 

To state that AIPAC, and by extension Israel, is above the law in this regard is to acknowledge the reality that American national sovereignty no longer matters when it comes to the state of Israel…So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol.  While representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C.,

Then there is the Israel Lobby denial industry in the US, which surprisingly also includes some prominent leaders of the  ‘antiwar’ Left. In their view, the Israel lobby is just one pressure group among others — yes, and Everest is one mountain among others. They claim nothing comes close to the Oil lobby, and that Israel receives support merely because it is a ‘strategic asset’. Perhaps they can explain then why the lobby triumphed in the face of opposition from the most prominent faces in the oil lobby — Bush Sr., Baker et al — in going to war in Iraq. Or why the ISG recommendations were dropped in favour of a policy plan hatched at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. But more importantly, perhaps they can explain why an American Secretary of Defense has to personally visit Israel to get its permission regarding the sale of US equipment to her allies.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will visit Israel next week in an effort to gain support for the sale of advanced American-made weapons to Saudi Arabia… the talks are expected to center on a recently frozen U.S.-Saudi arms deal.

The New York Times reported last week that the deal was put on ice due to strong Israeli objections, which pointed out that putting the advanced weapons systems in Saudi hands would severely erode Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region…According to Ha’aretz, Israel has expressed interest in acquiring certain restricted U.S. weapons systems, and that Washington may be willing to consider selling these items to Israel in exchange for Jerusalem’s backing of the Saudi deal.

Interestingly enough, conservative opponents of the war had been more perceptive in terms of detecting the motivations behind the war than their liberal counterparts. In a very interesting article on the arch-conservative Robert Novak, the veteran Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar asks,

[AE:] Why do you insist on calling the war in Iraq “the Sharon war”?

[RN:] “I am convinced that Israel made a large contribution to the decision to embark on this war. I know that on the eve of the war, Sharon said, in a closed conversation with senators, that if they could succeed in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it would solve Israel’s security problems. Israel was the big winner in the terror attack of September 11, 2001. Since then it has been enjoying complete freedom of action in the territories. I believe that Bush intended a two-state solution in all seriousness, but he is focused solely on the Iraqi issue.”

Suez Crisis and the Lobby

Many have argued that the lobby only came into its own after ’67, and became a real force in politics during the Clinton era, but they understimate its power prior to the war. Alexander Cockburn writes, “The late Steve Smith, brother in law of Teddy Kennedy, and a powerful figure in the Democratic Party for several decades, liked to tell the story of how a group of four Jewish businessmen got together two million dollars in cash and gave it to Harry Truman when he was in desperate need of money amidst his presidential campaign in 1948. Truman went on to become president and to express his gratitude to his Zionist backers.” Truman also returned the favour by recognizing Israel within minutes of its founding, in the face of opposition from his Secretary of State, George Marshall.

The standard defense from the lobby’s apologists always points to the ’56 Suez crisis, where Eisenhower was able to order Israel to withdraw from occupied Sinai, despite the opposition of Israel’s sympathizers. However a closer look at the events reveals an entirely different picture. Despite Eisenhower’s great prestige, Israel was able to bring his administration to its knees, and secure maximum concessions before it deigned to withdraw. The Counterpunch newsletter, Vol 14., No. 6, has a very interesting report from Harry Clark on the machinations of the Israel lobby during the crisis. After Eisenhower ordered Israel to withdraw,

Ben-Gurion stood firm, and Israel cued its U.S. apparatus. A crescendo of sympathy boomed in the media; 75 congressmen wrote a letter to Dulles; 42 signed a telegram to him; 8 senators co-sponsored a resolution. Even the Republican Senate minority leader opposed sanctions, as did the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which delayed consideration of the Eisenhower Doctrine, the administration’s response to the collapse of British and French authority after the Suez crisis.

The Suez Canal would remain obstructed and Western Europe in economic distress until Israel withdrew, which would require sanctions, but “Congressional and public sympathy for Israel” precluded that, and held the Eisenhower Doctrine as a hostage. “Dulles, with presidential approval, decided to break the deadlock by partially conceding to Israel’s demands for guarantees outside the context of the United Nations”.

Dulles presented Israel’s Ambassador, Abba Eban, with an aide-mémoire explaining the U.S. view that the Strait of Tiran was international waters and U.S. willingness to uphold that view. On Gaza, Dulles acknowledged Israel’s concerns, but upheld Egyptian rights under the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which neither the U.S.A. or U.N. could abrogate. Ben-Gurion replied that the aide-mémoire did not mention passage of Israeli flagships, and did not prohibit Egyptians from returning to Gaza, where Ben-Gurion insisted on Israeli-U.N. administration. An angry Dulles complained to Eisenhower that further guarantees “would almost surely jeopardize the entire Western influence in the Middle East” where “countries would feel that United States policy toward the area was in the last analysis controlled by Jewish influence in the United States”.

Against overwhelming congressional opposition, Eisenhower authorized U.S. support of a U.N. resolution urging an end to both government and private assistance to Israel. To U.N. Ambassador Lodge, Dulles “worried about a unanimous vote in both houses for a resolution against sanctions”; he complained that “we’re going to be in very serious trouble and indeed may lose our authority to impose sanctions”, and about the “terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage which the Jews have built up on Congressmen”. Eban submitted a modified aide-mémoire, which mentioned a U.N. regime in Gaza and strengthened the language on the Strait of Tiran. “Dulles did something that a few days ago he vowed he would not do: negotiate a bilateral agreement with Israel”.

Eisenhower and Dulles held a White House meeting with 26 congressional leaders to stress the dire consequences of Israel’s failure to withdraw unconditionally, and discuss the aide-mémoire addressing Israel’s concerns, which had been made public. This led only to the delegation affirming its opposition to sanctions on Israel. Eisenhower wrote in his diary later that day: “As I reflected on the pettiness of much of the discussion this morning, I found it somewhat dismaying that partisan considerations could enter so much into life or death, peace or war decisions”. Dulles had given up on sanctions, and feared Ben-Gurion’s government, under attack from the right, might fall before a withdrawal agreement could be reached. His policy entangled with Israel, its diplomats, and their U.S. supporters, he complained to his old friend Roswell Barnes of the National Council of Churches: “I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don’t approve of. The Israeli Embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in this country. The non-Jewish elements of the community have got to make themselves more felt or else there will be a disaster here. It was impossible to hold the line because we got no support from the Protestant elements of the country. All we got is a battering from the Jews.”

The day of the congressional meeting, Eisenhower cabled Ben-Gurion warning him of a possible U.S. vote at the U.N. for sanctions on aid to Israel. That evening, in a televised address he again called for unconditional withdrawal and warned of sanctions. The administration tried to recruit prominent U.S. Jews to its position, including a friend of Dulles. “To Dulles’ astonishment, these assimilated U.S. Jews strongly objected to Eisenhower’s speech of the previous night threatening sanctions.”

In an operatic finale, Israel accepted a loophole acknowledging Egyptian rights in Gaza, secured French and U.S. backing for its position on the Strait of Tiran, outside the U.N., and agreed to withdraw, yet tried to exclude Egypt from Gaza, and almost reneged on the agreement. On March 7, 1957, the last Israeli troops left Gaza, replaced by the U.N. force, with Egypt’s permission, according to the 1949 Armistice Agreements. On March 11, Egyptian civil administration, but not military forces, returned to Gaza. On March 12, the last Israeli forces left Sharm el-Sheik; on April 24, a U.S. flag tanker laden with crude oil docked at Eilat. Israel enjoyed free passage through the Strait of Tiran, and several years of tranquility on its borders – which Sharett’s diplomacy might have achieved if given a chance. In the view of the military and diplomatic departments of the United States government, Zionism and the state of Israel were a strategic liability in the 1940s and 1950s. Yet the nascent Zionist Lobby overwhelmed their views and secured support for the establishment of the Jewish state, and then obtained indispensable loans and grants from U.S. public funds. Israel then waged border wars, rejected peace terms, and attacked Egypt, in collusion with Britain and France, and, in defiance of the U.S., Israel strengthened the war parties in Britain and France and provided the indispensable pretext for their attack on Egypt. It withdrew from Sinai only after a four-month delay, after holding the entire world hostage to its conditions, which the U.S. partly secured for it. Israel’s influence in U.S. politics, and its radicalization of the crises of 1948 and 1956, were portents of its influence today in the U.S. war in Iraq and plans for war on Iran.

The U.S. Israel Lobby’s success, even in a time of strategic liability for its client, attests to its quasi-sovereign influence on foreign policy. The moral antipode to this power is not the orthodoxy, which attributes it to U.S. strategic interest, but anti-Zionism, as once upheld by left internationalism, in which Jews were prominent, and classical Reform Judaism, once the dominant Jewish creed. These views emphatically rejected Zionism as a reactionary ideology, rejected modern Jewish nationality, and affirmed the Jewish place as a minority in liberal or revolutionary society. Anti-Zionism today need not mean, immediately, a democratic, secular state in Palestine, but the moral and intellectual framework, which rejects Zionist claims on Jewish identity and gentile conscience, and asserts liberal and revolutionary values against the genocide of radical nationalism.

[Harry Clark's full report]