[WCUSP] The US & the Middle East: A "Grand Settlement" Versus the Israel Lobby

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

The US and the Middle East:
A “Grand Settlement”  Versus the Israel Lobby

James Petras
December  2006

Introduction

Chances for a change in the direction of US  Middle East policy are extremely 
unlikely.  The reason is the growing power  of the Israel Lobby in Congress, 
the massive Zionist propaganda campaign in  all the mass media, Olmert’s ‘
nose leading’ of Bush, and a host of related  activities.  The end result is that 
Congress will not withdraw or reduce US  troops and war funding for the Iraq 
War.  Bush, with the support of McCain  and Clinton, Liebermann, Reid and 
Hoyer, will push for more troops in pursuit of  an all-out blood bath in Baghdad.  
The Baker Iraq Study Group under siege  from the Zioncons and Zionlibs will 
be unable to deal with Israeli violence  against Palestinians or enter into a 
dialogue with Syria and Iran on any but the  most narrow and unpromising terms.

Baker’s Iraq Study Group and the Lobby’s Preventive War

Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister, firmly  imposed the party-line for the 
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish  Organizations (CPMAJO) and 
related pro-Israel groups during his November 13  visit to Washington in which 
he stated his categorical support for Bush’s Iraq  War policy and 
confrontational strategy with Iran.  According to the  Israeli daily Haaretz (November 
14, 2006): 

“Olmert said Israel and other countries in the area should be thankful  to 
the United States and Bush.  He said the Iraq war had a dramatic  positive 
effect on security and stability in the Middle East as well as  strategic 
importance from Israel’s perspective (my emphasis) and of moderate  Arab states.  
Olmert said he was satisfied with the position Bush took on  Iran which went 
further (my emphasis) than in their previous meeting in  May.  “Iran’s role in the 
conversation was quite clear, very serious and  very significant and I left 
the meeting with an outstanding feeling,” said  Olmert.”

Nothing expresses the power of the Israel  Lobby over US politics as the 
cowardly silence of the leading Democrats before  this gross intervention by a 
foreign ruler into the internal politics of the  US:  Democratic Congressional 
leader Pelosi swallowed the frog in  silence.  The only congressional critics 
complained about Olmert’s  ‘partisanship’ – taking sides with Bush, tacitly 
accepting that Olmert was  impinging on US sovereignty, a widely accepted 
principal by the fifty odd Jewish  Senators and Congress-people, and their numerous 
Gentile pro-Zionist camp  followers.

Clearly Olmert was pre-empting any new more  flexible proposal, which might 
emanate from Baker’s Iraq Study Group.  In  this regard Olmert successfully led 
President Bush ‘by the nose’ – as former  Prime Minister Sharon had once so 
colorfully boasted.  Following the  meeting with Olmert, Bush echoed his master
’s voice calling for the world to  unite in isolating Iran until it “gives 
up its nuclear ambitions…If they  continue to move forward with the program, 
there has to be consequences.   And a good place to start is working together to 
isolate the country…Iran’s  nuclear ambitions are not in the world’s 
interest.  If Iran had nuclear  weapons, it would be terribly destabilizing.”  

Olmert succeeded in committing Bush to a position incompatible with  Baker’s 
proposals for meeting with Iran: a strategy of isolation, sanctions and  
military threats is clearly incompatible with any opening or meaningful dialogue  
let alone Iran-Syria co-operation in stabilizing Iraq.  Yet as Olmert  
explicitly states, it is in line with Israel’s ‘strategic interest’ of extending  its 
power and domination in the Middle East by weakening or destroying its  
adversaries.  Moreover Olmert, embarrassed Jewish Zionists by publicly  praising 
the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, when 85% of the Democratic  voters and 
60% of the US electorate are fed up with the deaths (2890 plus) and  maiming 
(25,000 plus) of US soldiers.  For the ‘Israel First’ Democratic  Congressmen 
and women (the vast majority) who knew all along Israel’s pro-war  position, 
their faint outcry was over the fact that Olmert was so public, overt  and 
aggressively pro-war, just after the same Zionlibs won the election by  ‘criticizing
’ the war (namely over the ‘management’ of the occupation).

The fact that Olmert intervened in US politics  so openly and Bush followed 
so docilely should be no surprise to observers of  US-Israeli relations.  
Moreover, it is the height of hypocrisy for the  Democrats to express ‘surprise’ 
or chagrin, as they know from direct experience  that the Israeli state 
intervenes on a daily basis through its proxy lobby on  every policy having to do 
with the Middle East.  AIPAC even boasts of  writing the legislation and of 
securing massive Congressional majorities and of  its close ‘co-ordination’ (read 
subordination) with the Israeli regime in  synchronizing its political 
operations.  What makes the Democrats angry is  that Olmert exposed their servility 
to Israel.  While they stomp and belch  over Bush’s pro-war policy, they dared 
not even convene a press conference to  criticize Olmert, for fear of 
alienating the pro-Israel millionaires who provide  65% of the funds for the 
Democratic Party.

Olmert’s pro-war position on Iraq, Iran and  Syria were preceded by an 
unprecedented propaganda campaign in all the major  media by all the principle 
Zioncon/Zionlib ideologues: articles, opinion pieces  and editorials flooded the 
pages the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy,  Washington Post, New York Times, 
New Yorker, and Christian Science  Monitor.  The usual crowd of unconditional 
Israel apologists dubbed “Middle  East experts” pushed Tel Aviv’s line of 
continual bloodletting in Iraq and  military aggression in Iran.  Michael Rubin, 
Charles Krauthamer, Clawson,  Eisenstadt, Ledeen, Wolfenson (“American Jews 
should work hard for Israel and  maximize gains for it”), Wurmser, Chertoff (“
the US is threatened by  international law”), Abraham Foxman (“Iran is worse 
than Nazi Germany”) and an  unprecedented one hour long uncontested tirade 
against Iran (“Iran is Germany,  and it’s 1938, except that this Nazi regime is 
in Iran..”) by Benjamin Netanyahu  on Glenn Beck’s  prime time CNN program 
preceded and followed Olmert’s  political intervention in Washington.  The Wall 
Street Journal  editorialized a full-scale attack on the Baker group, even 
before they had  issued any report, backing Israel’s position on war with Iran, 
their support for  continuing war in Iraq and the massive ethnic cleansing of 
Palestinians (40,000  Palestinians have fled Gaza in the last 5 months in the 
face of 400 killed and  thousands maimed by Israeli missiles and shelling).  US 
United Nations  Ambassador “Blowhard” John Bolton let out a maniacal screed 
against the United  Nations General Assembly and all its agencies for voting 
to condemn Israel’s  deliberate, cold blooded massacre of an extended family of 
19 mostly women and  children in their beds in the Gaza village of Beit 
Hanoun.  Bush expressed  ‘pride’ in the US’s 31st veto to stop UN resolutions 
condemning Israel’s  savaging of Palestinians.

If Bolton represents the furthest right of an  already highly skewed 
conservative spectrum (the ‘loony right’), he is not  without support, especially 
among the most respectable and representative  organizations of the Israel/Jewish 
Lobby.  “The Jewish community  remains supportive and would want to see 
(Bolton) stay”, said Malcolm Hoenlein,  Vice-Chairman of the Conference of 
Presidents of Major American Jewish  Organizations.  “He has been an effective 
advocate and he is appreciated by  the diplomatic corp.” (The Forward (Jewish Weekly) 
November 17, 2006).  It  should be remembered that most major Jewish groups 
publicly endorsed Bolton when  his appointment became a political battle in 
Washington in early 2005.   There is no doubt that Bolton is an “effective 
advocate” for Israeli Middle East  interests over and above the lives of Americans, 
Iraqis, Lebanese and  Palestinians.  Hoelein however confuses the appreciation 
of the Israeli  diplomatic corps for the rest of the world’s diplomats who 
are amused or  appalled by Bolton’s frothing rants against Europe, Asia, Africa, 
Latin America,  the UN, International Lawyers or anyone that disagrees with 
him or dares to  criticize Israel.  

Israel’s stranglehold on the White House’s Middle East policy was  
explicitly revealed by Israel’s outgoing US Ambassador Danny Ayalon in an  interview: “
US President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against  Iran in 
order to halt its nuclear program, I have been privileged to know him  well, he 
will not hesitate to go all the way if there is no choice.” (Maariv  Israeli 
Daily Newspaper November 14, 2006).  This is a case where  “knowing”, in the 
Biblical sense conveys intimate relations directed toward  Bush’s compliance 
with the desires of his dominant partner.  Israel’s  intimate “knowledge” of 
the White House extends to setting the political  framework for US policy 
toward Teheran’s nuclear energy program.  According  to Ambassador Ayalon’s time 
table:

“First the President will try to exhaust the diplomatic process, I  estimate 
there is a 50 percent chance that the diplomatic effort will  succeed.  If not 
he will advance another step and consider imposing  isolation and a blockade 
on Iran, like the US imposed on Cuba in the past.   If this too does not 
succeed, he will not hesitate to employ force.  If  sanctions succeed, all the 
better. Otherwise, he will act by all means possible,  including military action.  
(The Iraq War) is not the model.  This  (attack on Iran) is more a case 
employing air power combined with limited ground  force…He (Bush) told me 
personally, in one of these difficult moments, that if  you continue and persevere in 
your path, the people will ultimately follow you.”  (Maariv November 14, 2006).

Ayalon’s interview reveals several important  aspects of the future course of 
White House policy toward Iran.  First and  foremost, the Israelis have 
inside knowledge and access to the While House, and  they have successfully imposed 
their confrontational policies on the  Presidency.  In addition they have 
encouraged the President “to continue  and persevere” in his war policies, even 
when the majority of the US electorate,  the people and nations of the world 
and even some of his advisers are against  ‘his path’.  The Israelis have 
pandered to Bush’s fundamentalist Christian  belief that ‘the people will 
ultimately follow’ him in his Messianic delusions,  even when all the evidence is to 
the contrary.  Bush’s belief is not  distant from the Israeli belief that if 
you defy the world community of nations  and public opinion long enough they 
will eventually come around to acknowledging  the righteousness of the ‘Chosen 
People’.  Israel has, of course, the  luxury of projecting their venal 
arrogance knowing full well they have the  backing of US vetoes in the United Nations 
and the military of a support of a  superpower.  Bush lacks a superior power 
(unless we include the mighty  Jewish Lobby) to counteract his political 
isolation.  Bush has the dubious  distinction of being the 
President-most-servile-to-a-foreign-power in US history  (exceeding his predecessor, ex-President 
Clinton, Zionist Emeritus), a point  emphasized by ex-President Jimmy Carter in his 
latest book.  No previous  President has ever confided his war plans to a 
foreign emissary even before  meeting with his top advisory commission, thus 
precluding the possibility of  domestic influential leaders, like the members of 
the Baker group, from any  substantial role shaping policy.  Moreover Bush’s 
servility to the Israel/  Jewish Lobby extends to blocking his European allies 
from formulating an  alternative Iran policy to Israel’s military ‘pre-emptive 
strike’  proposal.  According to the Israeli daily Haaretz:

“Bush told his French counterpart (President Jacques Chirac) that the  
possibility that Israel would carry out a strike against Iran’s nuclear  
installations should not be ruled out.  Bush also said that if such an  attack were to 
take place he would understand it”, (Haaretz, November 20,  2006).

The single minded stranglehold of the Lobby expressed in White House  support 
for an Israeli sneak attack on Iran, is such that Bush not only ignores  the 
advice of Secretary of State Rice, but dismisses the fateful consequences: a  
massive Iranian military response against US occupation forces in Iraq 
resulting  in thousands of deaths, massive oil and political dislocations in the 
entire  Middle East, destabilization of the Gulf States and rising oil prices.  
The  unprecedented Zionist control over the White House was summed up by Zioncon 
 executive director of the Jewish Institute for (Israeli) National Security  
Affairs (JINSA), Thomas Neumann: “The administration today was stronger on  
Israel than any administration in my lifetime”, (JTA, November 14, 2006).  

While proponents of a ‘turn’ in US policy in the Middle East hailed the  
resignation of Rumsfeld and the appointment of Robert Gates to Secretary of  
Defense – a member of the Baker Iraq Study Group – as auguring a more ‘realist’, 
 less bellicose policy, Zionist leaders were confident that their dominant  
influence over Bush would keep Gates in line with Israeli policy.  Mara  
Rudman, a Zionlib former member of Clinton’s National Security Council speaking  at 
the Zioncon “Israel Policy Forum” in Washington accurately put the Gates  
appointment into its proper perspective: “It’s not really where he (Gates) goes, 
 its where the president goes”.  And as evidence indicates, the President  ‘
goes’ where the Israelis and their US transmission belts tell him. Thomas  
Neumann, the JINSA’s propaganda master dismissed the possibility that Gates  
would front for the Baker Iraq Study Group:  “Gates was appointed more  because he 
has a record of doing what he’s told (by Bush).  There’s nothing  good or 
bad about Gates, they (the White House) wanted someone who doesn’t make  waves”
, (Jewish Telegraph Agency, November 11, 2006).

Along with White House support, Israel has successfully mobilized its  
political apparatus (the Jewish Lobby) in the US to direct political campaign  
funding toward the election of unconditional supporters of Israel.   Democratic 
campaign finance directors, Israeli-US Congressman Rahm Emmanuel and  ‘Israel 
Firster’ Senator Charles Schumer were backed by a multi-million dollar  Wall 
Street slush fund (as reported by Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street  Journal).  
They ensured that over 30 Jewish Congressmen and women and 13  Senators were 
elected, including all of the Jewish incumbents, a number of  senatorial and 
Congressional leaders married to Zionists as well as  Lobby-certified 100% 
Israel supporters like Congressional Speaker of the House  Nancy Pelosi and Senate 
majority leader Harry Reid (praised by the Israel/Jewish  Lobby for his life 
long unconditional support for Israel – JTA November 20,  2006).  In the first 
test of Congressional Zionpower, Nancy Pelosi was  defeated by a large 
majority in her effort to nominate the Iraq War Critic  Congressman John Murtha as 
Majority Leader in the House, in favor of Steny  Hoyer, a Congressman much more 
sympathetic to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s  pro-war views.

The Israel/Jewish lobby has erected a ‘firewall’ to any US  rapprochement 
with Iran, and in particular any initiative in that direction from  the Baker 
Iraq Study Group.  This is especially necessary because of the  dire crisis of 
the US in Iraq and public perception of a new bloodier and  costlier war 
against Iran.  Moreover the Lobby is desperate to counter the  positive confidence 
building measures adopted by Israel’s Middle East  adversaries, namely Syria 
and Iran with regard to overtures to Iraq.  The  Israeli counter-measures were 
not long in coming.

Peace Initiatives from Syria

In November of this year (2006) British Prime  Minister Blair, subsequent to 
a visit to the Middle East, issued a policy  statement calling for a dialogue 
and negotiations for an overall peace  settlement in the Middle East including 
all interested parties, especially Syria  and Iran.  The Israeli regime 
immediately rejected the proposal.  ‘The  Lobby’ echoed their patrons’ policy and 
subsequently the White House and  Congress followed suit.  Syria proceeded to 
establish diplomatic relations  and intelligence and economic cooperation with 
the US-backed Iraqi regime,  demonstrating a major gesture toward ‘stabilizing
’ the Mesopotamian  region.  The Israeli regime branded the policy a means of 
influencing Iraqi  ‘terrorists’.  Predictably, the Jewish Lobby, its scribes 
and media outlets  downplayed its significance or put a negative spin to the 
Syrian initiative –  demanding “Syria follow words by action”, namely 
stopping the flow of militants  into Iraq.  Syria responded by pointing to its far 
more extensive frontier  patrol posts than those of the US or Iraqi government.  
The Israeli regime  and its Lobby, the White House and Congressional clients’ 
rejection of Syrian  (and Iranian) peace initiatives is as much directed at 
neutralizing these  overtures as it is in pre-empting similar initiatives 
emanating from the Baker  Iraq Study Group.  The Lobby’s vehement dismissal of Syria
’s role as a  stabilizing force sets the stage for linking it with Baker and 
undercutting his  recommendations when they finally become public.  A similar 
Lobby  propaganda effort is directed at Iran and indirectly at Baker’s 
proposals for  negotiating with them.

The White House, Brussels and Tel Aviv’s  efforts to isolate Syria, undermine 
its conciliatory steps and block any  overture from the Baker group is 
centered on the unsubstantiated accusations  that Damascus assassinated two ‘
anti-Syrian’ Lebanese leaders, Rafik Hariri and  Pierre Gemayel.  In the case of 
Hariri, the main witness against Syria  later recanted and perjured himself and 
the principal Turkish investigator later  resigned after having pursued only one 
line of investigation – to demonstrate  the complicity of Syria – 
discounting the equally plausible hypothesis of  Israeli involvement.  The major 
beneficiaries of the Hariri assassination  were the US and Israel, even as the 
European Union lent its weight to the  accusation against Syria.  The historical 
lessons of the anti-Syrian Hariri  campaign were not lost on the promoters of the 
current political manipulators of  the Gemayel assassination.  The US and its 
Israeli ally succeeded in  forcing Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, 
apparently making Southern  Lebanon and, in particular, Hezbollah vulnerable 
to Israeli military  attack.  Shortly thereafter, Israel used a routine border 
incident as a  pretext to invade and attempt to destroy Hezbollah and 
decimate its social base  among the millions of residents in Beirut and Southern 
Lebanon.  Rather  than strengthen Israel’s position in Lebanon and increase the 
power of its  longstanding Phalangist clients, the invasion strengthened 
Hezbollah raising its  support to over 60% of the Lebanese population (Guardian of 
London   November 15, 2006).  The campaign to pin the Gemayel death on Syria and 
 Hezbollah is designed to promote Israeli power aggrandizement in Lebanon by  
provoking internal civil conflict, orchestrating and mobilizing a mass smear  
campaign against Hezbollah to pre-empt the latter’s effort to secure a more  
equitable representation of its electoral support in the Lebanese Cabinet.   
Israeli strategists hope to bring about a ‘pincer’ operation in which 
Hezbollah  will be attacked by the Phalangists in the North and by Israel from the 
South.  

Hezbollah under siege would thus weaken its  Syrian ally as a possible 
interlocutor for the Baker Group and encourage  Israel’s militarists to recover from 
their fall from grace following their  ruinous Lebanon adventure.  By tarring 
Syria with dual assassinations, the  White House and Israel will strengthen 
its major Zionist organizations’ campaign  to undermine Baker’s proposal to 
open a dialogue with Syria (Daily Alert  November 22, 2006).  More specifically 
it will neutralize the positive  fall-out in Washington of Syria’s 
establishment of relations with the US  client-regime in Iraq.  For this reason the 
rabidly pro-Israel Wall Street  Journal screeched: “Another Murder in Beirut for 
Jim Baker to Contemplate”  (November 22, 2006).

The fact is that Israel and its Zionist  representatives in the US are the 
main beneficiaries of the dual  assassinations.  There is both hard and 
circumstantial data pointing to  Israeli complicity in the killings.  There are 
several cases of notorious  Phalangists being murdered just prior to their scheduled 
testimony in Brussels  before a case brought by Palestinian survivors against 
top Israelis involved in  the notorious massacres in Lebanon, especially at 
the Palestinian camps of Sabra  and Shatila in September 1982.  On January 24, 
2002, Elie Hobeika, a  Phalangist warlord directly involved in the massacre, 
was blown up in his Beirut  neighborhood along with 3 bodyguards just two days 
after agreeing to testify  against the Israelis on behalf of the Palestinian 
survivors.  Hobeika, who  was the Phalangist chief liaison with the IDF during 
their occupation of Beirut,  claimed to have worked with the Israeli Mossad in 
orchestrating the  massacre.  A mysterious group, ‘Lebanese for a Free and 
Independent  Lebanon’ claimed responsibility from Cyprus.  Just weeks earlier, 
another  witness for the Belgian case and close Hobeika associate, Jean Ghanem 
had been  killed in an auto accident.  A few months later, a third close 
Hobeika  associate and potential witness in the Belgian case, Michael Nassar, was  
assassinated with his wife in Brazil.

In these assassinations and unexpected deaths,  most experts and Lebanese 
politicians, including Phalangists, pointed to Mossad  operations.  In other 
words, the fact that Phalangists were Israeli’s  clients did not preclude 
selective assassinations when it was in Israeli State  interest: They treated the 
Phalangists, their former allies, like used  condoms.  Pierre Gemayel, the 
grandson of the founder of the Lebanese  fascist Phalange Party, was a marginal 
figure in the Lebanese political  equation; in death he becomes a pivotal figure in 
Israel’s Middle East power  grab.

In June 2006 Lebanese military authorities announced the arrest of  Hussein 
al-Khatib, a Lebanese former Israeli prisoner, who confessed to have  worked in 
Lebanon as part of a Mossad-led assassination team killing Lebanese  and 
Palestinian leaders using car bombs.  Throughout Lebanese history,  Mossad 
operatives have been imputed with political assassinations of Palestinian  and 
Lebanese adversaries, car bombings and commando operations in Beirut as well  as 
throughout the country.  As early as the foundation of Israel, its  leaders, 
including Ben Gurion, advocated promoting civil war in order to  establish a 
Christian Maronite government in Lebanon allied to Israel.

In summary, Israel has a motive for killing Hariri and Gemayel, has a  
history of killing ‘clients’ to further their state interests and certainly has  
exercised the practice of executing Lebanese political figures.  Given the  high 
stakes involved in a possible re-direction in US policy toward engaging  
Syria, as proposed by the Baker Iraq Study Group, and given Damascus efforts to  
facilitate such a dialogue by giving legitimacy to the US bloody client in  
Baghdad, the Israeli ploy of political murder and Zionist media blitz condemning  
Syria makes political sense from the point of view of Israel’s quest for 
Middle  East dominance.

The Iranian Peace Overtures

A key interlocutor for a general Middle East  settlement in which the US 
retains its strategic Arab allies in the Middle East  passes through dialogue, 
negotiations and power sharing with  Teheran.    Contrary to the demonic 
propaganda spewed by the  Israeli regime and the Jewish Lobby in the US, Iran has 
repeatedly demonstrated  that far from fomenting ‘terrorism’ it has co-operated 
with the US on a whole  series of important measures compatible with US 
imperial policies in Iraq and  Afghanistan.

In the run-up to the US invasion and subsequent  occupation of Iraq, it is a 
publicly known and officially acknowledged fact the  Iran supported the US 
overthrow of Saddam Hussein, provided intelligence to the  US, advised and 
supported Shia co-operation in the formation of a US client  regime, recognized and 
established formal relations with the puppet regime  despite its collaboration 
with the killers of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi  civilians.

Iran has been a major bulwark against Al Queda,  arresting and in some cases 
offering to extradite them to the West, thus showing  a decided partisanship 
to some aspects of the US ‘War on Terrorism’.   Equally important, Iran has 
played a major stabilizing role in Western  Afghanistan, especially in Herat, 
severely limiting Taliban influence.   Iran works closely with Italian and ISAF 
reconstruction teams in rebuilding the  region.  The Financial Times (November 
18, 2006 p.11) reports: “The main  factor holding the west of Afghanistan 
together is the positive influence of  neighboring Iran which is ‘pumping a lot 
of money into the reconstruction of the  west’, says a senior US administration 
official in Washington”.  

The army of ‘Israel-First’ publicists in the US and Europe  continue to lump 
Iran with Al Queda, Taliban, Iraqi terrorists despite all the  evidence to 
the contrary.  The ‘Big Lie’ campaign is directed toward  isolating Iran and 
securing United Nations sanctions as a prelude to a  US-Israeli sneak attack on 
Iranian cities, infrastructure, military and  scientific research 
installations and nuclear research facilities.  To  proceed toward the destruction of Iran 
and the consolidation of Israeli  dominance in the Middle East, the immediate 
target is to pre-empt the Baker  Group from proposing a dialogue with Iran or 
at a minimum of setting parameters,  which will virtually undercut the 
possibility.  

The most vicious and effective Israel-centered propaganda campaign  against 
Iran focuses on its nuclear research programs.  The Zionist-led  campaign 
against Iran has not provided any basis to contradict the IAEA  inspection team’s 
findings that no evidence for a nuclear weapons program  exists.  Iran’s 
forthright offers to the US and the EU for detailed  inspection tours by all 
inspectors has been dismissed outright by the White  House as a ‘propaganda ploy’, a 
‘ploy’ which Israel has refused to offer with  regard to its own illegal 
nuclear and chemical-biological arms facilities.   No expert or political leader 
in the world, now or in the recent past, has ever  argued that Iran is 
violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.   Israeli-US opposition toward 
uranium enrichment is applied singularly to  Iran.  Otherwise all one hundred 
nations with nuclear energy programs  should be threatened with pre-emptive war. 

Palestinian Peaceful Overtures

Despite sustained bloody attacks from the  Israeli military machine (the 
misnamed Israeli ‘Defense’ Forces) the Palestinian  Hamas government had made two 
peace proposals.  Between January 2005 and  June 24, 2006, the Hamas 
government refrained from responding to Israeli  military attacks on Gaza and the West 
Bank (despite numerous assassinations,  house demolitions and illegal arrests 
of activists) in hopes of inducing Tel  Aviv to begin peace negotiations.  
The Israeli State, backed by the US,  categorically rejected peace and imposed a 
total blockade on the Gaza  Strip.  It was only when the IDF shelled a 
Palestinian beach filled with  families, murdering 18 picnicking children and their 
parents that Hamas  responded with sporadic shell firing and the capture of an 
Israeli tank soldier  engaged in shelling into the Gaza neighborhoods.

The subsequent Israeli massacre of 400  Palestinians (over 200 of whom are 
non-combatant civilians, mainly women and  children) between July and November 
24, 2006 failed to dampen Palestinian  resistance.  Palestinian and 
international proposals to end the blood bath  have been consistently rejected by the 
Israeli regime.  On November 24,  2006 the BBC News reported: “ Israel has 
dismissed an offer by Palestinian  militant groups to stop firing rockets into 
Israel if Israel ends attacks on  Palestinians.  An Israeli government spokeswoman, 
Miri Eisen, said…the  offer of an end to firing rockets from Gaza showed the 
lack of real commitment  to peace (sic!).”  

By that twisted logic, Israel’s continued artillery barrages of  Palestinian 
towns demonstrated a ‘real’ commitment to peace!  The BBC  points to what 
most experts acknowledge is Israel’s long-term bellicose posture:  “Israel has 
in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian  militants, 
saying it refuses to do deals of any kind (my emphasis) with what it  describes 
as terrorist organizations ”, (November 24, 2006).  

The Olmert regime rejected outright a new peace initiative proposed by  
Italy, France and Spain, which would have allowed United Nations peace forces to  
safeguard the frontier between Gaza and Israel (Reuters/Haaretz November 21,  
2006).  In the face of Israel’s systematic daily killing of Palestinians  and 
ethnic cleansing of over 8,000 Palestinians each month (40,000 since June),  
the United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn Israel 150 to 7 for its  
mass murder in Beit Hanoun and call for an investigation.  The Israeli  
Ambassador walked out.  The Israeli regime rejected the UN resolution and  continued 
in its slaughter, killing a dozen Palestinians in the immediate  aftermath, as 
a sign of its contempt for the United Nation.  

Israel’s disdain for world public opinion has the unequivocal support  of the 
Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations and their  counterparts 
in Canada, England, France, Argentina and elsewhere throughout the  world.  
But it is in the United States where the Jewish Lobby’s power  really counts: 
it is the US, which exercised its 31st veto protecting Israel  from a 
censorious UN Security Council resolution.  It was the White House’s  dismissal of the 
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposal for an all inclusive  Middle East 
conference, including Syria, Palestine, Iraq, the Jewish State and  Iran, which 
allowed Israel to ignore the entire European Union, the Middle East,  and for 
that matter the rest of the world.  The Financial Times (November  18-19, 2006 
p.6) reported: “Tony Blair’s call this week for a ‘whole Middle East  strategy’
 sent a message that the road to peace in Iraq passes through Jerusalem  and 
Beirut.  In his foreign policy speech to the City of London, the UK  Prime 
Minister recognized the region’s crises were interlinked and required a  
comprehensive approach.”

It should be clearer than ever that the Israeli  ethnic cleansing of 
Palestine, rather than being a catalyst for Israeli  extremism, is a reflection of the 
pervasiveness of racist attitudes which  characterize Zionist extremism and 
that threatens everyone in the Middle East,  Europe and the United States.  
Zionist unwillingness to compromise, the  belief that the future is theirs alone, 
the denial of the legitimacy of the  other’s narrative, and the determination 
to pursue one’s ideology even at the  expense of one’s own people, are 
characteristics that have made resolution of  the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 
impossible.  These characteristics are at  the heart of the extremist Zionist 
assault on Western nations and people who  propose constraints on Israeli 
militarism.  In 2003 the West failed to act  in time to protect its own interest in 
the Middle East from a Zionist-backed  war.  It is paying a price but the Iraqis 
and Palestinians are paying  infinitely more.  This time around with the same 
White House/Israeli forces  pushing for a new pre-emptive war against Iran, 
we must do better.  If not,  a higher price will again be paid because the 
Iranians and world opinion are  infinitely stronger.

The Israeli rejection of Palestinian, European  and United Nations proposals 
for peace negotiations is directed as much at the  Baker Iraq Study Group, 
which also sees that the road to peace in Baghdad passes  through Jerusalem.  The 
full court press by the Israeli and Jewish Lobby on  the Bush Administration 
and the US Congress to back Israel’s opposition to peace  negotiations is 
designed to undermine any recommendations by the Baker Group and  its numerous 
backers in sectors of the US military, finance, petroleum, Congress  and mass 
media calling for pressure on Israel, inclusion of Iran and reduction  of US 
troops in Iraq.  Led by arch-Zionist Michael Ledeen of the American  Enterprise 
Institute some in the Jewish Lobby dismiss the Baker Iraq Study Group  as ‘the 
realists and anti-Semites’.  Kagen and Kristol explicitly mock them  as ‘
defeatist’ and traitors. (Novartis November 4, 2006)

The Baker Camp

There is no doubt that Baker’s Iraq Study  Group’s proposals to the White 
House and Congress take place in a generally  favorable setting. Domestically, 
anti-war sentiment in the run-up to the  Congressional election in 2006 is at 
an all-time high; the 40% of the electorate  that voted repudiated numerous 
Republican candidates identified with Bush’s  policies (and even others who were 
not). Top advisers to the Bush regime have  publicly supported opening a 
discussion with Iran – a major recommendation of  the Baker Group. David 
Satterfield, a senior adviser to Secretary of State  Condoleeza Rice, told the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, “We are prepared to  discuss Iranian activities in 
Iraq. The timing of such a dialogue is one we  still have under review.” 
(Financial Times November 16, 2006 p.1) 
 
   Satterfield’s comments followed the Congressional testimony of  General 
John Abizaid (the top US general to Iraq) who categorically rejected  sending 
more troops to Iraq.  Interviews with top military officials,  retired and 
active, have called for a phased withdrawal. Equally important, in  an 
unprecedented turn of events, the weekly publications of the three military  sectors 
(Army, Navy and Marine Corps) editorialized in favor of the firing of  Secretary of 
Defense Rumsfeld just two days before the mid-term elections – and  succeeded 
in precipitating his ouster.

A feature article in Newsweek (November 20, 2006, pp. 40-43) favorably  
referred to the Baker Group as the “Rescue Squad.” Other sectors of the media  
followed suit. The Financial Times (Nov. 14, 2006) editorialized:

“The last five years have seen Israel extend and consolidate its hold  on the 
West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem despite western rhetoric. That, every  bit 
as much as the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, is what constantly threatens to  
set the region alight.

The bipartisan Iraq Survey Group, led by James Baker, a former  Secretary of 
State, and Lee Hamilton, an influential former congressman, is  likely to 
focus on these issues and the need to re-launch the peace process.  That, in turn, 
will require engagement with Iran and Syria, and should lead to  the 
reconsideration of the Arab peace plan of 2002 – full Arab recognition of  Israel in 
return for Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab land. Ignoring  the roots 
of Middle East volatility, as the accelerating cycle of conflict in  the 
region should remind us, is a dangerous abdication of responsibility.

By including former leading Republican and Democratic Congress people  
(Hamilton and Simpson) and cabinet members, Baker secured at least the support  of 
some sectors of the two parties and Congress.  By ensuring that one of  the 
Iraq Study Group, Robert Gates, was named to replace Rumsfeld in the crucial  
position of Secretary of Defense, Baker potentially has some direct leverage in  
the Executive branch.  With the exception of Edwin Meese, a leader in the  
far-right Heritage Foundation, Clifford May of the Zioncon Foundation for the  
Defense of Democracy and Michael Rubin (who has since resigned)- all members of  
the Israel First crowd - Baker has limited the influence of the Zioncons who  
designed Middle East war policy in the Bush Administration.

Equally important, Baker has the backing of the  major petroleum and gas 
companies of Houston-Dallas, who have been sidelined  from Middle East 
policymaking during the Zioncon-militarist ascendancy in the  White House. They are eager 
for an “even-handed” Middle East policy to serve  their economic ties with 
Middle East oil producers and to facilitate commercial  negotiations with Iran 
and the Gulf States.  Major US investment houses,  including those whose CEOs 
are prominent donors to the pro-Israel lobbies, are  eager for a peace 
settlement, which includes Iran, in order to move into the new  multi-billion dollar 
Islamic investments funds, which have emerged among the  Arab Gulf States.

On the domestic front, it would seem that Baker  and his Group are in a 
strong position to reorient US Middle East policy, by  engaging Syria and Iran, 
Sunnis and Shia, and even Israel and Palestine in a  “Grand Settlement”.  Most 
US big business interests favor an approach which  would limit Israeli-Zioncon 
influence over the use and abuse of US military  power in the Middle East, 
facilitate US multi-national corporations’ (MNC) and  banks’ (MNB) dealings with 
conservative Arab/Iranian rulers, widen and secure US  access to oil, and 
expand US influence in the oil and gas rich former Soviet  Republics in South and 
Central Asia.

Conditions and circumstances on the  international front are even more 
favorable to the Baker Group. Iran has  accepted a place at the negotiating table 
with the US, to discuss stabilizing  Iraq. This is central to any settlement as 
Iran has ties and influence with  sectors of the Shia leadership in Iraq. 

Of course the quid pro quo for any agreement  between the US and Iran would 
involve the US agreeing to end its confrontational  policies and military 
threats directed at Teheran. As we will discuss shortly  this is a point of intense 
contention within Washington, meeting intense  resistance from the entire ‘
Israel First’ power structure (Lobby-Congress-Mass  Media-Democratic Party 
Donors). To facilitate the opening of a dialogue with the  US, Iran offered the 
United Nations access to all its major nuclear  installations in order to 
neutralize the hysterical warmongers among the  formidable army of ‘Israel First’ 
ideologues. According to the BBC (November 23,  2006): 

“Iran will give inspectors access to records and equipment from two of  its 
nuclear sites, the head of the UN’s atomic agency, the IAEA has said.  Mohamed 
El Baradei said he hoped Iran’s move would begin a series of measures  that 
would clear suspicions over its nuclear program … According to Mr. El  Baradei, 
Iran has agreed to let … the IAEA inspectors take environmental samples  from 
the equipment at a former military site at Lavizan. Iran has also said it  
will give the UN access to records from a uranium enrichment plant in  Natanz.”

These reports by the IAEA provide the Baker  Group with ample justification 
for opening a dialogue with Iran and assuring the  US public and members of 
Congress– at least those not under the thumb of the  Lobby – that they are not “
appeasing” a nuclear menace. Contrary to the claims  of the Israeli warlords 
and their Lobby propagandists that Iran is an  “existential nuclear threat to 
the survival of Israel”, a report by the IAEA  issued on November 14, 2006 sent 
to the governor of the nuclear watchdog,  confirmed that Iran is now 
principally using two ‘cascades’ of 164 centrifuges  apiece to enrich uranium. 
(Financial Times Nov. 15, 2006, p. 8) This means that  Iran “still falls well short 
of the 3,000 or so centrifuges that would be needed  to enrich uranium on an 
industrial scale” (FT Nov. 15, 2006, p.8).  Baker,  if he so wished, could 
neutralize the entire Israel chorus by pointing out that  Iran has grossly 
insufficient weapon-grade enriched uranium for bomb  making.  He could point out 
that, in any case, enriching uranium is in  total compliance with the 
Non-Proliferation Nuclear Treaty and that the IAEA has  extended access to oversee Iran’s 
nuclear projects.

Moreover, Baker could point to the on-going  tacit working agreements between 
the US and Iran in opposing the Taliban,  reconstructing Afghanistan and in 
pursuing Al Queda everywhere. In addition,  Iran has intelligence-sharing 
agreements with the US puppet regime in Iraq. Even  more important, Baker could 
point out that Iran supported the US overthrow of  Saddam Hussein and has 
recognized the US puppet regime.

Syrian diplomatic moves, especially the  restoration of relations with the US 
client regime in Iraq, certainly provides a  positive setting for Baker to 
propose opening a dialogue with Damascus.  Simultaneously, Iran met with Iraqi 
President Jalal Talabani. At a time when the  US client regime in Iraq is 
losing control and the US military is increasingly  incapable of sustaining it, the 
Iranian desire to stabilize it is a signal to  Washington that it is willing 
to cooperate on a joint policy on Iraq. Syria’s  clear overture to the US was 
evident in its statement restoring ties: “ Syria  accepted the Iraqi and UN 
formula about the presence of US troops in Iraq.   Instead of demanding their 
immediate departure, Syria agreed that they should  withdraw gradually when not 
needed.” (BBC November 25, 2006)

Baker has the backing of the White House’s  major European ally, British 
Prime Minister Blair, who supports the idea of  including Syria and Iran in a deal 
to stabilize Iraq.  Blair argued for a  ‘general plan’, which would include 
an international agreement to resolve the  Palestine - Israel conflict. Given 
the mood of compromise, that leaves only  Israel pitted against the entire 
European continent and Middle East in refusing  to negotiate with Iran, Hamas and 
Syria.

With regard to the Palestinian conflict, Hamas  has implicitly endorsed a two 
state solution based on the 1967 borders, for all  intents and purposes 
recognizing Israel.  Hamas’ offer forcefully puts the  lie to Israel’s claims that 
Hamas is a terrorist organization, which refuses to  negotiate a two state 
solution or recognize Israel. Clearly, the ball is in  Baker’s corner.  The 
question is whether he will seek to explore this  window of opportunity presented 
by Hamas to substantially reduce tensions and  conflicts in the Middle East.  
Most experts and Middle Eastern leaders (of  the non-Zioncon variety) have 
repeatedly stressed the road to peace in Baghdad  passes through Jerusalem.

Most important of all, the Bush strategy of  “staying the course” in Iraq 
has been (with the sole exception of Israel Prime  Minister Olmert – the war’s 
only beneficiary) universally rejected -- by his own  generals, “coalition” 
partners, the American people and the majority of the US  combat soldiers in 
Iraq. The White House disaster in Iraq has even led some  Zioncon propagandists 
and architects of the war to abandon and opportunistically  attack Bush. In 
other words, Baker’s proposals will be directed to an isolated  President with a 
totally discredited policy, whose only clutch of supporters are  economically 
and diplomatically insignificant but who possesses a powerful,  wealthy and 
well-placed configuration of disciplined ‘influentials’ in the US  known as 
the ‘Jewish Lobby’.

With formidable domestic allies and an  extremely favorable international 
environment, one would think that Baker’s  proposals for moving forward in a new 
direction in the Middle East would be a  ‘cakewalk.’

Unfortunately, that will not be the case at  all. What most of the critics, 
commentators, self-styled investigative  reporters, politicians and media 
pundits favorable to Baker forget to mention is  the great elephant in the parlor - 
the Israeli/Jewish Lobby and its extended  reach in Congress, the Democratic 
Party, the media and other vehicles for  shaping US Middle East policy.

The Jewish Lobby: Confronts the Baker Group

The American Jewish Lobby, at the behest and  orders of the Israeli state, 
has been leading a large-scale, intensive and  partially successful campaign to 
demonize Iran and Syria, successfully pushing  the US to pressure the United 
Nations in favor of economic sanctions.   Through their blustering political 
clone US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton,  they pulled Washington closer to 
launching a military attack on Iran. An  examination of AIPAC’s agenda puts a 
new war against Iran on behalf of Israel at  the top of its list of priorities.  
For the last 3 years, the publications,  conferences and press releases of 
the Presidents of the Major American Jewish  Organization (PMAJO) urge their 
members to go all out to fund and back  candidates (mostly Democrats) who support 
Israel’s ‘military solution’ to Iran’s  nuclear enrichment program. 

Never a day goes by when the PMAJO publication– the Daily Alert - does  not 
reproduce articles endorsing Israel’s war crimes and civilian killings and  
fabricating tissue thin ‘explanations’ justifying each and every  brutality.  
Whether it involves murdering a family of 10 at a beach outing  in June 2006 or 
an extended family of 19 in their beds in Beit Hanoun or  dropping one million 
anti-civilian cluster bomblets in Lebanon two days before  the ceasefire, or 
the cold-blooded murder of American activist, Rachel Corrie,  the Daily Alert 
is ready to cover-up for the Israeli State. 

An army of ‘Israel First, Last and Always’ ideologues (‘Resident  Scholars’ 
of some Washington institute or ‘Middle East Experts’ from a  prestigious 
university) are churning out articles every day calling for the US  to spill 
more of its soldiers blood for ‘Greater Israel’ by going to war with  Iran. The 
brazen arrogance of these intellectual trollops defies the  imagination.  Here 
our country is still immersed in a losing war, which  their cohorts in the 
Pentagon designed and executed, and which the ‘Lobby’  celebrated, and they 
argue, push and shove for us to engage in a bigger,  bloodier and costlier war 
with Iran.  Despite their disastrous policies,  the ‘American’ Zionists have 
purchased a formidable bloc of Congress-people and  Senators who are 
unconditional supporters of Israel and its political definition  of Middle East policy.

The newly elected Democrats, Congressional  leaders and Committee 
Chair-people dared not challenge the Israel Prime Minister  Olmert when he endorsed Bush, 
his catastrophic war in Iraq, his policy of  “staying the course” and his 
proposal to “put the military option on the table”  with regard to Iran.

The Israeli-American head of Homeland Security,  Michael Chertoff has sworn 
enmity to the entire corpus of international law, the  European Parliament and 
the United Nations, in large part because they argue  against the White House 
and Israeli illegal pre-emptive military attacks on  Middle Eastern 
adversaries (Reuters November 17, 2006). The Democrats, in tune  with the Lobby, 
sidelined anti-war Congressman John Murtha from becoming House  Majority leader in 
favor of Steny Hoyer, a pliable Congressman from Maryland  obedient to ‘Lobby 
advice’. Senator Harry Reid, the new  leader of the  Senate Democrats, has 
already been given a certificate of good conduct by the  Nevada State Jewish Lobby. 
 He can be counted on to limit the scope of any  ‘dialogue’ with Iran or 
Syria. The same is true with Nancy Pelosi, Majority  Speaker of the House, who 
has sworn unswerving allegiance to the State of Israel  at every AIPAC 
convention she has ever attended.  

Pelosi selected Reva Price as a key adviser on foreign policy, the  Middle 
East and ‘Jewish interests’, with particular attention to affluent Lobby  
contributors to the Democratic Party.  As Mathew Berger (friend of the  Lobby) 
writes in the Congressional Quarterly (November 24, 2006):

Democratic lawmakers are sporting their pro-Israel credentials…the  Jewish 
donors who come to Washington for intimate meeting just like this one,  are 
eating it up word for word.  In the back stands Reva Price…the policy  matchmaker 
between the Jewish community and Democratic lawmakers – and her role  as an 
adviser to Rep. Nancy Pelosi…Now with Pelosi set to become the next  Speaker of 
the House, Price has the chance to bring the Jewish Community’s hot  topics to 
the ear of true power…”.

Reva Price was the leader of the ultra-Zionist  Jewish Council for Public 
Affairs prior to becoming Pelosi’s key adviser on hot  topics in the Middle East 
of special interest to the ‘Lobby’.  As Berger  points out, in the run-up to 
the election Price “worked hard to counter that  perception that some 
Democratic lawmakers (including a few who are now likely to  chair committees) want to 
pressure Israel to make concessions to the  Palestinians…for this election…
Jewish lawmakers made clear that the Democratic  caucus would support Israel, 
and those members who were not supportive would not  have influence on foreign 
affairs”.  
 
   Pelosi demonstrated her obedience to the Price-Lobby line by  viciously 
attacking Israel critic, former President Jimmy Carter, stating,  “Carter does 
not speak for the Democratic Party or for Israel”.  Amy  Friedkin, a former 
president of AIPAC and a friend of Pelosi for over 25 years,  wrote: “I’ve heard 
her say numerous times that the single greatest achievement  of the 20th 
century was the founding of the modern state of Israel.  She  has been a great 
friend of the US-Israel relationship during her entire time in  Congress and is 
deeply committed to strengthening that relationship”  (Jewishjournal.com 
November 30, 2006).

Numerous articles and opinion pieces have  appeared in the Los Angeles Times, 
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and The  New York Times written by ‘
Israel First’ writers, which attack any attempt by  Baker to change US’s 
confrontational policy towards Iran, not to mention a  proposal calling for an 
international conference to resolve the Palestine-Israel  conflict.

The Jewish Lobby has formidable allies not only  in Congress and the majority 
Democratic Party but powerful representatives in  the executive branch, 
including key operators like Vice President Cheney,  National Security Coordinator 
of the Middle East Elliot  Abrams,  Presidential Spokesperson Joshua Bolton 
and Vice Presidential Adviser David  Wurmser and a pack of other long-serving ‘
Israel Firsters’. The  Zionist-influenced Congress could dredge up Gates’ 
previous involvement in  Iran-Contra scandal to if he decided to ally with Baker, 
just as they sabotaged  Murtha by digging up a 30-year old caper to undercut 
his quest for House  Majority Leader.

Conclusion

The Baker Group, despite the advantageous  international situation and broad 
domestic support, faces the enormous power and  opposition of the Jewish 
Lobby, in its quest to break new ground in US Middle  East Policy. Each and every 
proposal will pass the scrutiny of an army of  ‘Israel First’ Lobbyists, their 
compliant Congress members and staff, and have  to withstand the hostility of 
members of the Executive, including George W.  Bush, aligned with the Jewish 
state. One of the first major battlefields will  revolve around the question 
whether the US should engage in a dialogue and seek  the cooperation with a 
willing Iran and Syria in stabilizing the situation in  Iraq or whether the US 
should pursue a confrontational approach including  sanctions and the military 
option. The first line of attack by the pro-Israel  power configuration is to 
reject outright any openings to the two Middle East  countries. The usual 
froth, damnation and demonization, fabrication and  mistranslation of quotes will 
be trotted out to preclude any meetings with the  Iranian president. If Baker’s 
proposal makes any headway, the Jewish power bloc  in Congress and the 
Executive can be expected to impose a political  straightjacket, which precludes any 
effective and meaningful exchange. This  means that they will propose the 
White House follow a ‘two track’ approach:  vigorously continue to pursue 
economic sanctions and military threats on one  track while, on the other, 
approaching Iran to intervene and stabilize the US  client regime in Iraq. The Zionists 
and their followers know that a two-track  approach is a non-starter. Iran is 
not about to lend its political leverage to  stabilize Iraq in order to free 
up US military power to blow up Iranian cities  as well as its nuclear 
facilities, ports, refineries and other vital  infrastructure. Not even Baker’s much 
vaunted diplomatic skills will convince  Iran to make one-sided strategic 
concessions to the White House in exchange for  nothing – not even an elementary 
security or non-aggression agreement. 

Great Britain’s Defense Minister Des Browne announced a sharp reduction  of 
troops at least by half in Iraq for 2007 (Al Jazeera November 26,  2006).  
Baker will be under even greater pressure to propose a timetable  for the 
reduction of US troops – a position however, which apparently has  divided his group. 
(NY Times  November 27, 2006)

A proposal to gradually reduce US troops in  Iraq and reposition them to 
military bases is not likely to meet stiff  opposition from the Jewish state or 
its representatives in the US – unless the  White Office offers stiff 
resistance. For Israel and its Lobby, the US invasion  and occupation has already 
accomplished its primary mission of destroying the  Iraqi state: fragmenting Iraqi 
society into warring ethno-religious-tribal  divisions and eliminating a strong 
secular republic opposed to the Jewish  state’s ethnic cleansing of 
Palestine. For Israel and its US Lobby, it is now  time to move on to eliminating other 
adversaries to Israeli Middle East  dominance – namely Iran and Syria. That 
is why the Lobby is spending more  resources and exerting greater pressure on 
the White House and the Congress to  escalate the confrontation with those two 
countries. And that is why the Lobby  has already launched a full-scale 
propaganda campaign to block any openings to  Iran, which might lead to some sort of 
security accommodation. 

Will Baker be able to ‘con’ the Iranian and Syrian leaders into  believing 
that their political support of the US in Iraq will be rewarded later?  That 
aiding the US in Iraq will create ‘confidence’ of their good will in  
Washington and enhance Iran’s image as a “responsible” Middle East power?   Baker may 
argue that their co-operation strengthens the ‘good guy realists’ in  
Washington, weakens the ‘bad guy Zioncons’ and leads to an end of the  
confrontational military blackmail.  No doubt there are Iranian politicians  and diplomats 
among the competing forces who are eager to cooperate with the US  at almost 
any price, but even they cannot publicly embrace the restrictive  terms, which 
the Lobby-White House will propose.  A dialog is impossible if  the White 
House and Israel continue to threaten a pre-emptive attack. It is  highly unlikely 
that Baker’s Group will dare confront the powerful Jewish lobby  by raising 
the issue of restricting Israel’s militarist posture or even  diplomatically 
asking the Jewish State to refrain from setting ‘deadlines’ for  an air assault 
against Iran.

Despite the otherwise universal consensus  (Israel and the Jewish Lobby 
excluded) that the Palestine-Israel conflict is at  the center of Middle East 
discord and the public and private acknowledgement  that Israeli land grabbing and 
ethnic cleansing is the major factor in the  conflict, despite the fact that 
James Baker publicly acknowledged as much when  he served as Secretary of State 
in Bush Sr.’s government, it is highly unlikely  that the Baker group will 
advance a proposal convoking an international  conference to deal with the 
Palestinian issue.  He knows in advance that it  will provoke a firewall of 
opposition in a Lobby-controlled Congress and  denunciations of ‘anti-Semitism’ from 
the fanatic Zionist Middle East ‘experts’,  pundits and Ivy League ‘
academics in uniform’.

Baker’s Iraq Study Group proposes an  alternative way of defending and 
enhancing the US Empire.  More  specifically the Group seeks to ‘stabilize’ Iraq in 
order to open the Middle  East for US financial investors and petroleum 
companies.  This strategy is  severely constrained by a formidable bloc led by the 
Jewish Lobby with far  reaching influence in the mass media, the Congress and 
Senate and their  committee chairpersons especially in the Democratic Party.

While neither the Baker Group nor the ‘Israel  Firsters’ represent a 
pro-democracy alternative to empire building, it is  important to note one 
significant difference. The Jewish Lobby is acting  directly and consistently for a 
foreign colonial power, which is beyond the  reach of American voters, the 
constraints of the US Constitution, international  law.  Equally important, Israel 
and its US Lobby is largely unmoved by the  death and injury of US soldiers in 
Iraq and the squandering of the US taxpayers’  money. This is reinforced by the 
fact that less than 2/10 of 1 percent (0.2%) of  the US soldiers in Iraq are 
Jewish (predominantly immigrants from Eastern  Europe) and probably very few 
of those are on the front lines.  Far more  young American Jews volunteer to 
serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. The hard  data on the composition of the 
combat soldiers shows that they are  overwhelmingly lower class, rural or urban 
poor, Christians and without  relatives in the Lobby or among brokers on Wall 
Street.  Hence there are no  personal links between the Lobby and the war in 
Iraq and no pressure from within  the Lobby for a reconsideration of its Middle 
East war campaigns. Middle East  wars are a poor person’s fight and a wealthy 
Lobby’s war.

The Baker Group, in contrast, has a very  heterogeneous group of supporters – 
including a few anti-war democrats, military  officials offended by 
Zionist-Pentagon manipulation, sectors of the media,  several petrol and financial 
moguls, and sectors of the electorate.  While  the Bush Administration has 
shredded the Constitution and corrupted the  electoral system, we still have space 
and voice to articulate our opposition to  the White House and the Jewish Lobby, 
as opposed to our incapacity to influence  the Israeli state. In so far as 
the Baker proposals advance toward a  rapprochement with Iran and Syria it 
weakens the capacity of Israel and its  Lobby to plunge us into another Middle East 
war, at least temporarily. Insofar  as the Baker proposals move toward a 
timetable for withdrawing US troops, it  opens space for accelerating and 
deepening the troop reduction. The almost total  absence of the Left and “progressives”
 from this impending power struggle, given  its world-historic significance 
and consequence, is in large part attributable  to the influence which Jewish 
progressives exercise on the anti-war  movement.  Their refusal to recognize 
the Jewish Lobby as the prime  obstacle and major opponent of a new US Mid East 
policy cripples any effective  public protest.

A prime example is the writing of investigative  journalist Seymour Hersh, 
who is a constant reference for the progressives. In  his latest article (New 
Yorker 11/27/06) Hersh excludes any mention of the  Jewish Lobby and its 
powerful role as the only major national organization in  support of a war with Iran. 
In his earlier texts on the Iraq war planning and  execution, he pointedly 
omitted identifying the long-standing and deep ties of  top Pentagon 
policymakers (Wolfowitz, Feith, Rubin, Perle, Shumsky, et. al.)  with the Israeli state. 
By systematically omitting mention of the Zionist power  configuration in 
pushing US policy toward a war with Iran, he undermines any  effort by his readers 
in the peace movement to act against the principal  architects of a 
pre-emptive war on Iran. Even worse, in his article, Hersh  repeats Israeli (and Lobby) 
fabricated propaganda about Iran’s imminent nuclear  bomb threat together 
with his reportage on a CIA detailed study discounting  those very claims. In a 
word, Hersh gives legitimacy and credibility to  Israeli-Lobby war propaganda, 
while sowing doubts about serious studies by the  UN-sponsored International 
Atomic Energy Agency, which refutes Israeli claims.  What is laughable about 
Hersh’s ‘investigative’ reporting is his breathless  references to ‘anonymous 
high placed sources’ who provide ‘highly confidential’  information, which 
has already been public knowledge for weeks and sometimes  months and reported 
on web-sites, in public documents and even by news services.  Whatever ‘inside 
dope’ that Hersh cites which has not been public is based on  anonymous 
sources which can never be double checked or verified and whose  analysis 
incidentally coincides with Hersh’s peculiar penchant for blaming the  Gentiles (WASPS) 
and exonerating the brethren. 

Because of the refusal of the peace movement to  take a stand and confront 
the Zionist Lobby, it is condemned to playing a  passive ‘spectator role’ in 
the ‘Baker versus-Lobby’ battle for control over US  Middle East policy. No 
doubt some leftists will adopt a ‘pox in both your  houses’ posture; while 
others will welcome some of Baker initiatives for an open  dialogue while refusing 
to recognize that those proposals will go nowhere unless  the Zionist power 
configuration in Congress and the White House is defeated.  Hopefully as the ‘
heavyweights’ at the top joust and clamor, space will open for  a real debate 
from below, which will supersede their debate on the ‘best way to  manage the 
war and the empire’ and propose the immediate withdrawal of troops as  part of ‘
a grand settlement’ among democratic people.  Real peace in the  Middle East 
can only come about with the closing of foreign military bases, the  ending of 
Israel’s colonial occupation and public control or nationalization of  energy 
resources and the separation of church/synagogue/mosque and state.

In the end the Baker Iraq Study Group will  recommend a long-term, 
large-scale US military presence in Iraq, in the Gulf  States and in adjoining Arab 
states.  The ‘redeployment’ strategy, which  Baker proposes, means keeping 
seventy to eighty thousand US armed advisers,  trainers and special operation forces 
‘embedded’ with the Iraqi puppet army for  the foreseeable future.  The 
open-ended nature of the Baker proposals,  without specific time, date and place 
for withdrawal and/or deployment, allows  the White House a ‘free hand’ over 
the next two years to ‘stay the course’,  continue the war and occupation, 
escalate the number of troops, deceive the  public, incur more deaths of US 
troops and perpetuate the slaughter of the Iraqi  people.  With those proposals, 
Baker’s call for a broader dialogue  involving Iran and Syria is dead in the 
water.  Iran conditions  negotiations on a timetable for US withdrawal and a less 
bellicose policy to  itself.  Syria under severe pressure from the White Hou
se is unlikely to  embrace an agenda based on an extended US military presence, 
especially one that  increases US firepower in neighboring countries and 
ignores Israel’s control  over the Golan Heights and its bloody overt and covert 
operations in Lebanon to  destroy Hezbollah.  In the end, the Baker Iraq Study 
Group has raised false  expectations about new directions by its unwillingness 
or impotence in the face  of Bush’s pre-emptive cries to ‘carry on’ with ‘
war as usual’.  Baker’s one  ‘contribution’ to the Bush regime, Robert Gates 
as Secretary of Defense, has  given every indication of following Rumsfeld’s 
policies, a blue-blooded ‘Yes  Man’, as the leading lights of the Jewish Lobby 
predicted.

Note:   James Petras’ latest book:  The Power of Israel in the United States  
(Clarity Press 2006) can be obtained at  amazon.com








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20061203/adb50e26/attachment-0001.html