Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders

Jewish culture & religion - Talk Politics Mideast

Ben
Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders

By Michael Collins Piper

THE POWERFUL JEWISH LOBBY in Washington is already issuing marching
orders to President-elect Barack Obama. One of the most influential
voices of the lobby has published an array of "working papers" designed
to tell the president how he must maintain the "special relationship"
between the United States and Israel, increase pressure on a variety of
Arab and Muslim states that are perceived as dangers to Israel, and
generally assure that Israel's interests will always be first and
foremost in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle
East but around the globe.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a
particularly vocal force in the Jewish lobby, published an entire
edition of its Journal of International Security Affairs (dated fall
2008), sending the official word to Obama. JINSA was founded by one
Stephen Bryen who-along with a host of other well known names connected
to JINSA-was once investigated by the FBI on charges of espionage for
Israel.

A variety of articles in the journal addressing "Middle East Policy and
the Next President" and "Iran, Iraq and Beyond," make it clear that
JINSA-best known as a nest of the infamous "neo-conservatives" who
misdirected U.S. foreign policy during the outgoing Bush administration,
sparking the war in Iraq and continuing to clamor for action against
Iran-wants Obama to pursue Bush-style policies.


AIPAC is particularly obsessed with using U.S. military and economic
power to force Arab and Muslim nations to "reform" from within. Talk of
"democracy" flows freely within AIPAC's assorted essays, demanding that
Israel's neighbors conform to the Western version of democracy. But when
the Palestinian people voted the Hamas movement into power in the
Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza strip,
AIPAC and other elements in the Jewish lobby immediately began calling
for the United States to reject that freely elected government.

Now, of course, Hamas is largely only in control of the beleaguered
Gaza-which many refer to as "ghetto"- and the Palestinian statehood
movement has been eviscerated, at least for now. This makes AIPAC and
the lobby for Israel quite happy, for Israel has long encouraged U.S.
policies-and helped create conditions-that have the effect of "divide
and conquer" in the Arab and Muslim world.

Israel is not like any other nation in the world, in that it seems to
thrive best (and enjoys the benefits of) having its neighbors quarreling
among themselves and rent within. Other nations prefer neighbors that
are peaceful and internally secure. Israel wants its neighbors in chaos,
because this prevents them from waging war against Israel, either
individually or united. And although in the wake of the debacle in Iraq,
which led many Israelis and their allies in the United States to
suddenly proclaim that the Iraq war should never have been waged, the
fact is that Israel and its U.S.-based agents-in-place were the prime
movers behind that war and it was Israeli intelligence that was
providing what critics now recognize was the "bad intelligence" that led
the Bush administration to "mistakenly" conclude that Iraq was working
toward an assembly of nuclear weapons to rival that of Israel.

The Israelis and their American spokesmen evidently now believe that if
they tell the "big lie" often enough-the lie that Israel's interests
played no part in orchestrating the debacle in Iraq-that it will make
Americans forget that Israel was the foremost advocate of the war in the
first place.

However, the evisceration of Iraq by the United States is part and
parcel of a long-standing Israeli national security policy aimed toward
"balkanizing" the Muslim world.

Yet, AIPAC, in its journal, is now working to perpetuate the myth of
Iraqi nuclear weapons and suggesting that Iraq's weapons were
transported into Syria, another nation which has been on the "wish list
for war" of Israel and its lobby in America. And AIPAC makes it clear
that the destruction of Iran's nuclear development program is a "must."

AIPAC is not the only Israeli lobby unit sending the message to the new
president. Commentary magazine, long affiliated with the American Jewish
Committee, has-in recent issues-been trumpeting a similar bellicose
refrain directed at Obama. The editorial director of the Jewish lobby
journal is John Podhoretz, a longtime close personal and political
associate of the ubiquitous William Kristol, editor of the Weekly
Standard magazine, which is the most infamous voice of the
neo-conservative, hard-line pro-Israel elements operating in the media,
in the think tanks, and in official policy making and national security
and intelligence circles in Washington.

Their fathers, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, are two of the
founding fathers of the neoconservative network, both Trotskyite
Marxists who announced their "conversion" to conservatism during the
latter days of the Cold War, banging the drum for intensified U.S.
support for Israel.

A complete overview of the neo-conservative power structure and its
rather bizarre origins in the days when American Jewish communists like
Kristol and Podhoretz turned on the Soviet Union when then- Soviet chief
Josef Stalin began moving against Jewish and Zionist elements inside
Russia can be found in The High Priests of War and The Judas Goats, two
works by this author.

Whether President Obama intends real change, as he promised, or whether
he will advance the Israeli agenda (which saw its power expand
exponentially in the Republican administration of George W. Bush)
remains to be seen. But "the lobby" is making its voice heard and Obama
knows that he better not ignore it.

A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is
the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets,
The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the
White House All are available from AFP
                                            
The
A lie.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Battle_of_Gaza
                                            
Ben
No it is not.
                                            
Andrzej
It is a matter of opinion/interpretation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Battle_of_Gaza
<quote>
  Conflict between Fatah and Hamas had been simmering since Hamas won
  the legislature elections in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel
  attempted to undermine the democratically elected Hamas[4] while
  strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas's position and forcing Hamas
  from power. The U.S., Egypt, and Israel also armed and trained Fatah
  for a possible war with Hamas.[5][6][7][8]
  The major conflict in Gaza surfaced in December 2006 and was centered
  on Hamas executive force attempts to control Gaza instead of the
  Palestinian police[2]
</quote>


So, the statement you challenge is a lie (for me) only after carefully
consulting dictionaries :-)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B4%5D
<quote>
  1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
       untrue with intent to deceive 
    b: an untrue or inaccurate statement
       that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
  2: something that misleads or deceives
  3: a charge of lying
</quote>