Utterances.net edited by Jalel Harchaoui.
 
Print Button
RSS Button

According to many, a cabal of dual-citizenship Zionists pull America's strings
Tel Aviv does not control Washington
by Jalel Harchaoui.
The Washington-is-a-victim theory is an attractive theory; but it fails to comport with historical reality.
Tel Aviv does not control Washington

The Clintons at Yitzhak Rabin's funeral.

In 1993, Israel and North Korea were about to conclude a bargain: Israel would recognize North Korea diplomatically. In return, North Korea would end all weapons-related involvement with Syria and Iran. The agreement, from Tel Aviv’s perspective made lots of sense: via just one diplomatic gesture, much security could be achieved for the Israeli population. The New York Times’ Clyde Haberman wrote on 20-Jun-93 that “although the countries have no diplomatic relations, Israel has quietly had a series of contacts with North Korea, hoping that a lure of economic and diplomatic cooperation may stop the North-Koreans from providing advanced-technology and perhaps even a nuclear-capable missile” to Iran and Syria. All weapons-related exchange with Tehran and Damascus—missile, nuclear, other—would be terminated by Pyongyang.

When President Clinton got wind of the tentative “entente” with Kim Il-sung, he intervened and demanded that Yitzhak Rabin walk away from the deal. Tel Aviv complied obediently. North Korea’s illicit weapons commerce with Iran and Syria was therefore allowed to resume. Diplomatic recognition of North Korea constituted a much bigger crime.

Obama’s current talk about Syria’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (although by no means substantiated) is a stark reminder of how commonsensical and pragmatic Yitzhak Rabin’s diplomatic overture vis-à-vis the North-Korean dictatorship was twenty years ago.

The above is one example—among several others—demonstrating that major policy directions are determined by the “boss-man in Washington”, i.e. the White House. They are not dictated by some “underground Zionist conspiracy”. ("Boss-man” is a term used by Israeli journalist Amir Oren in Haaretz, 29-Nov-02.) D.C.-based lobbyists such as AIPAC exacerbate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East only when their pro-crime agenda happens to coincide with Washington’s parochial interests (oil, control, etc.).

That very dynamic began in Feb. 1971, when Egypt’s Sadat had all Russian personnel deported out of his country, and then made a full peace offer to Tel Aviv. (Sadat desired to become a U.S. satellite, as opposed to a Soviet satellite.) The mediator between the two 1967 foes was UN official mediator Gunnar Jarring (Sweden). Sadat’s proposal (essentially UN Security Council Resolution 242) didn’t please Tel Aviv but the latter did contemplate it seriously. It was understood to be as a genuine possibility for peace (Newsweek, 08-Feb-71). Then-U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers was in favor of Tel Aviv embracing Cairo’s offer: Washington had voted for UN 242 on 22-Nov-67. However National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger lobbied hard for what he called “stalemate”, i.e., refusal to sit down and discuss peace with Egypt, the most potent military among the Arab world then. Kissinger’s recommendation superseded Rogers’ calls for durable peace. The Rogers Plan was ignored by the Nixon White House; William Rogers was ousted a month prior to Sadat’s attack on 06-Oct-73.

The world is, today, still being subjected to the ramifications of that wise contribution from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

When looked at wihtout distortion, historical facts demonstrate that Washington can in fact, at any moment, stop Tel Aviv’s thirst for criminality (violation of still-valid UN 242, International Laws, and international humanitarian conventions) in one phone-call. Washington, and its Western affiliates: Berlin, Paris, etc., pay for everything Israel does. Foreign powers’ donations to Tel Aviv amount to roughly $92bn a year; i.e., twice Bulgaria’s entire GDP. That figure doesn’t include additional billions’ worth of gifts sent via the Pentagon (opaque, by definition). According to 2005’s “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs”, the estimated total donation to Tel Aviv from the U.S. and its subordinates just for fiscal 2000, amounts to $91.82bn. Same with Egypt since 1979: the U.S. gives ~$2.5bn but it is misleading. The U.S. giving equates to an instruction for Germany, France, Britain, etc., to donate as well. The combined total for Egypt is $14bn annually (Washington-backed, murderous dictatorship Qatar alone has been donating $2.5bn to Cairo every year).

Washington is not dominated by a Paul Wolfowitz-type cabal, not when Real Power decides otherwise. The “oh, Washington is a victim” theory is an enticing, comfortable theory but it fails to comport with historical reality.

One unpleasant consequence from the above is: The U.S. public has responsibility, whether or not it chooses to remain passive as it has been. The American public could, if it only chose to break its silence, have Washington pull its fingers out of “the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East” (U.S. Strategic Command General Lee Butler, 1999). UN Resolution 242 (plus or minus some minor land swaps) would then be implemented—and unnecessary murder and torturing would stop. American taxpayers only have to speak up (contact their representatives, protest) and demand that Washington comply with International Law.

~ Jalel Harchaoui.