"SINGLING OUT" ISRAEL

Today, I read an article in the far right-wing pro-Zionist Jerusalem Post by a Prof. Rubin, ("US attack on Iraq: Good for the Jews?" Oct 8, 2002) that anyone who dares suggest the US war on Iraq is intended to promote Israel's ambitions in the Mideast is an anti-Semite:

The idea, then, that Israel is in some way behind the Bush
administration's determination to strike at Iraq has been more the product
of ignorance or anti-Israel (sometimes anti-Semitic) propaganda than
anything based on reality.

Yes, the old and much-worn "You're an anti-Semite if you say something Israel doesn't like!" charge is back in vogue. Americans who refuse to do what Israel wants are just "anti-Semites"! And now being "anti-Israel" is apparently just as bad too.

Of course, anti-Semitism, like any form of bigotry and racism, is bad - but there is something quite interesting about the people such as Prof. Rubin who go around labelling people as anti-Semites just because they dare think things that Israel does not approve of: they're quite happy to engage in their own forms of bigotry and racism when it suits their interest to do so, while at the same time crying loudly about anti-Semitism! Apparently, to these people, only bigotry against Jews is bad, but bigotry by Jews is quite acceptable! In fact, these same people absolutely insist that "Anti-Semitism" can ONLY refer to jew-hatred, and not Arab hatred despite the fact that Arabs are semites too. Why? Because they want to monopolize the victim status.

Anyway, let me give an example of how this double standard on Iraq policy works, as so exemplified by Mr Barry Rubin's accusation: a few months ago, several American Mideast specialist - such as David Mack of the Middle East Institute and Zbigniew Brzezinski- publicly said that the war against Iraq was a bad idea. In reaction, the same "Friends of Israel" instantly accused them quite publicly of having been BRIBED by "the Arabs" (specifically, Saudia Arabia) or at the least suffering from "a case of clientitis" (example of such defamatory rubbish: New York Sun: Sorry State, Aug 14 2002). These Friends of Israel had no problems with launching the most disgusting personal attacks against Mack- just because he expressed an opinion that some Israeli warmongers didn't agree with - but at the same time these same Friends of Israel cry loudly of "anti-Semitism" if anyone expresses an opinion that THEY don't agree with. Talk about a DOUBLE STANDARD! Apparently, everyone must think as the Friends of Israel do or else they're anti-Semites. Its OK for supporters of Israel to cast asperions on the character of their critics, but at the same time they cry foul when "anti-Semtism" raises its ugly head.

And here's the other facet of this double standard: The fact that the war on Iraq is being foisted on the US by the extreme right-wing Israel supporters is, after all, HARDLY A SECTRET! It's quite obvious to any observer and a number of writers have already commented on it. (example: "Playing skittles with Saddam" - The Guardian, Sept 3, 2002 and The Nation: The Men From JINSA and CSP" -The Nation Sept 2 2002)
It is therefore quite ironic that on one hand, these Israel-lovers attack anyone oppose to the war, and on the other hand they claim that they AREN'T pushing for war and accuse anyone who says otherwise of being anti-Semites!

All of this brings us to the uses and abuses of the Anti-Semitism label. This is an old tactic used to silence critics of Israel, and it is most disgusting in that it manipulates and cheapens the REAL issue of anti-Semitism into a cudgel to silence legitimate critics of Israel and to repress free debate on the policies of the Israeli government and the inherent fundamentalist racism of Zionism.

With all the hue-and-cry about Anti-Semitism in the world, you'd think that it is a major problem. In fact, it isn't. Sure there are genuine anti-Semites out there, along with holocaust deniers and other weirdos - but the fact is that anti-Semitism is no where nearly as common and acceptable as anti-Moslem or anti-Arab hatred. Think about it: when was the last time you saw a movie in which a Jew was shown in a bad light, versus all those movies which portray Arabs and Moslems as evil terrorists? In fact, can you name a SINGLE Hollywood movie that has portrayed Arabs or Moslems in a positive light in the last 30 years? And yet you say that Anti-Semitism is a bigger problem than anti-Arab hatred? In fact not only is anti-Arab and anti-Moslem hatred common and tolerated, it is officially PROMOTED, and not just by Hollywood. Example: when blonde-haired & blue-eyed Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma, all while blonde people weren't blamed collectively. When members of the Jewish Defense League bomb offices in California, all Jews aren't held accountable. But when Arabs blew up the WTC, its OK for all Arabs/Moslems to be under suspicion, and these same Friends of Israel gleefully use the opportunity to foist their ethnic hatreds onto the American people. And that is just ONE example.

So why the does the label of anti-Semite work so well? It relies on the fear of being "politically incorrect." The Nazis were genuine anti-Semites. Who is willing to risk being thought of as a Nazi? No one - so people prefer to remain quite rather than risk being called an Anti-Semite. And in this way, Israel can scare its critics into silence.

However, this tactic only works to a limited extent. After all, reasonable people know that anyone who criticizes Israel isn't necessarily an anti-Semite. So as far as the Israel supporters are concerned, the anti-Semite labelling tactic doesn't do enough to silence the critics of Israel. And what's the solution devised by the Friends of Israel to stifle even the slightest free expression? Easy! Complain loudly about genuine instances of anti-Semitism (ie things like the publication of the Protocols of Elders of Zion) and to attribute all of Their gripes against Israel (whether totally legitimate or not) to "Anti-Semitism." Exploit real instances of anti-Semitism and use it as a wide brush to tar all of them with the Anti-Semitic label. Accuse them of being extremists in order to justify/excuse your own extremist racism and bigotry. Do whatever you can to monopolize the victim status. Deny that they may have any legitimate points and instead attribute their most extreme and unsupportable positions to all of them. And most importantly, expand the definition of Anti-Semitism to minimize the range of "acceptable" criticism of Israel. Concentrate especially on breaking down any distinction between Zionism and Judaism so that criticism of Zionism is automatically equated to "Jew-hatred." One way or another, and using whatever rhetorical means necessary, claim that any criticism can be traced to Ant-Semitism.

And the Latest expansion to this misuse of the "Anti-Semite" label: The "Singling-Out Israel Is Anti-Semitic" spin: If you criticize Israel - and fail to immediately criticise everything else under the sun that may also be worthy of criticism in the same breath - you're guilty of "singling out" Israel and are therefore an Anti-Semite!

We have already seen a perfect example of this in the recent speech by the President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, which was in reaction to the popular student movement to divest university funds from Israel. He claims such a student petition is "anti-Semitic in effect if not intent" because it "singles out Israel among all nations" . Well, if that's the way things are done, then NO COUNTRY can EVER be criticized for ANYTHING, because there will always be someone else who is doing worse somewhere! Using this same tactic, the supporters of Apartheid S. Africa could have also complained about being "singled out" too? Can't North Korea - which is already subject to sanctions - complain about being "singled out"? But oh no, just as the term "Anti-Semitism" can only and ONLY be limited to hatred of Jews, the "don't single us out" excuse is only available to Israel! What a gimmick! The fact is that Israel isn't being singled out by the divestment movement. Israel is being held to the same standard of human rights based on its actions which incidentally bear striking resemblence to another country that can complain of being "singled out": Iraq. The same legalized torture and human rights abuse, the same illegal occupation, the same flouting of International law. . .

And so the game continues...

WHY ISRAEL IS INHERENTLY A THREAT TO IRAN

By now we're all quite well aware of Israel-Palestinian conflict and Iran's opposition to Israeli racist expansionism.

Inevitably, the question arises: "Why should Iran be involved?

This is the answer: Aside from the whole issue of Israel's continuing racist policy of ethnic cleansing, murder, theft and expansionism and other crimes against the human rights of Palestinians, Israel is a threat to Iran. Even if there was no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel would STILL be a threat to Iran. Israel is INHERENTLY A THREAT TO IRAN aside from the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

But first, before I tell you why Israel is inherently a threat to Iran, lets clear up one thing about the Israeli Palestinian conflict: Israel does NOT WANT PEACE with the Palestinians. All these "peace talks" are simply public relations and political manouvering by Israel. At best, Israel wants the occasional time-out from their continued conquest and expansionism - never any genuine peace. Israel CERTAINLY doesn't want any genuine Palestinian state created - at best, they want some Bantu-stans created whcih would allow Israel to more easily control and dominate the Palestinian population. So you see, violence SUITS Israel. Israel intentionally provokes it when necessary. They do so because the continued violence is a PERFECT EXCUSE for continued Israeli expansionism and the construction of yet more "settlements". Each day that the conflict continues is another day of construction for Israel. The lastest example of this policy was when Sharon dropped a 1 ton bomb on the occupied territories to kill a Palestinian Hamas leader, exactly at the time that Israeli KNEW Hamas was considering a unilateral ceasefire. Yes, you read that correctly: Hamas was going to declare a ceasefire, so Israel intentionally bombed their leader (killing 14 other civilians- 9 children too.) Israel thus ensured that there would be NO ceasefire, and the war would continue. If you don't believe me, read the NY Times article: "Palestinian Cease-Fire Was in Works Before Israeli Strike" (Jul 24 2002). Why would Israel do this? Because a ceasefire would meant that Israel could not continue killing and stealing from Palestinians. A ceasefire would place Israel under pressure to respond with peace gesture too.

Under these circumstances, SOME people say that Iran should not be concerned with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and instead should worry about the IRI. These same people typically resort to anti-Arab racism too. However Iran's opposition to Israel is the MOST MORALLY CORRECT THING possible. Iran was opposed to the Apartheid-era government of S. Africa - much to its credit - and Israel is a THOUSAND TIMES worse. The question here isn't about the IRI - it is about right versus wrong. Regardless of what sins the IRI has done INSIDE iran, Iran's opposition to Israel is entirely justifiable. Is Iran not located in the Mideast? Are we to pretend that the continued atrocities in the Mideast by Israel do not occur? Can we as a people justify such self-imposed, dishonest willful blindness to the plight of fellow human beings in Palestine? What does it matter whether the IRI is good or bad - how does the "badness" of the IRI make Israel's actions justifiable, especially since Israel's actions PREDATE the formation of the IRI?

Anyway, as I previously stated, Israel is a threat to iran REGARDLESS of the Palestinian. Even if there were no more Palestinians, Israel would still be a threat to Iran.

Why? Because Israel seeks to dominate the Mideast, and Iran is the largest, most populous, richest and most strategically-located nation in the Mideast. Iran is therefore the most likely competitor to Israel's regional ambitions.

Now, you may say "But how do you know that Israel seeks to dominate the Mideast?"

The answer is obvious - ALL nations try to dominate their region to ensure and promote their interests. This is natural. In the case of Israel, this natural tendency is exaggerated by their Zionist ideology which openly espouses racism and expansionism in the name of God.

Next, you may say "But if we're nice to the ISraelis, maybe they'll be nice to us - as they were under the Shah." However, sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that a danger doesn't exist is no way to deal with a danger. So don't be naive. Israel got along with the Shah because the Shah was a US puppet. Had the Shah really been protective of Iran's interests, then Israel would NOT have gotten along with the Shah. In fact, the Shah didn't really trust the ISraelis either.

How does Israel seek to dominate the region and Iran? Well, one way is use their lobbyists and agents in Washington to ensure that the Mideast becomes militarily and economically subservient to Israel, and that Mideastern nation's do not have separate relations with the US which are not approved and controlled by Israel. This is why we have AIPAC telling Washington that it should place sanctions on Iran. THis is also why the ISraelis are currently busy trying to undermine US-Saudi relations. Israel does not want any other Mideastern nation competing for Washington's favors.

NExt, you may ask "But Iran faces many threats from many sources - why single out Israel?" The answer is obvious: first, it is true that Iran faces many threats from many other countries. But that doesn't mean we should close our eyes to Israel's threat. Israel is a particular danger to Iran because Israel is far more capable to harm Iran than any other country. Right now, as you are reading this sentence, Israeli nuclear weapons are pointed at Iran and Israeli jets are stationed in Turkey, ready to bomb Iran. Right now, as you are reading this sentence, Israeli agents are at work in Washington to force a military conflict to break out between Iran and the US. So compared to the dangers posed to Iran by Iraq, Pakistan, Azerbaijan etc., Israel's threat must be taken FAR more seriously because Israel of advanced weaponry and unique political influence in DC which they use to try to isolate Iran and harm US-Iran relations. And those are just two reasons why Israel is a threat to Iran.

And if you think that the Israelis are not driven by an ideology of racist expansionism, read this quote by Ben-Gurion on why Israel refuses to identify its own borders:

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. NO BORDER IS ABSOLUTE. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)

John

---

A CROCODILE CRIES: How the US's "New Approach to Iran" is working - but not in the way you'd expect!

Today, the LA Times carries an editorial ("Turn Down Volume on Iran", 9 August 2002) which rightly points out that Bush's transparently self-serving expressions of "support for the Iranian people" was about as believable in Iran as the US's denials that it armed Saddam or shot down Iran Air 655 killing all 290 onboard. Not only did Bush's new tactic NOT sell in Iran, it further discredited the moderates there who were genuinely trying to establish a rapprochement with the US by exposing them to the charge of being American stooges, and strengthened their opponents.

Iranians in general, of whatever political persuasion, don't like foreign governments interferring in their domestic politics, and certainly not in as amateurish a fashion as Bush's recent statements "supporting" Iranians.

The LA Times is not the only newspaper which seems to have observed this phenomenon. Even the Washington Post admitted that "Bush's Support For Reformers Backfires in Iran" (3 August, 2002 )

Of course, the right-wing "Friends of Israel" whackos who are currently running Little Georgie's foreign policy on his behalf (after all, this was the same president who thought the people of Greece were called "Grecians") couldn't take the hint that no one was buying what they were trying to sell. Among them was Mr. Patrick Clawson of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) who tried desparately to put a positive spin on the dull thud of Bush's new approach to Iran by presenting some very questionable "evidence" that the Bush speech had been effective in propping up pro-democracy forces. In an Aug 7 "Policywatch" report issued by WINEP. Mr. Clawson stated, "Iran's democratic movement has had a busy few weeks", then he recounted the recent activities of the reformists in Iran, and concluded:

"All of this came on the heels of President George W. Bush's July 12
statement supporting democratic and reformist forces in Iran ."

While the pro-democratic events Mr. Clawson describes did come "on the heels" of Bush's statements, they were in no way attributable to Bush's statements as Mr. Clawson suggests in his report. Indeed, those events occurred DESPITE Bush's statements, and were part of the long-running process of reformist-hardliner political battles in Iran which pre-date Bush's speech. If anything, the democratic forces inside Iran were aghast at Bush's expressions of support for them! Mr. Clawson on one had describes the reformist in derisive terms, and on the other hand he tries to capitalize on their actions!

To appreciate the falsenesss in Mr. Clawson's "Policywatch" report and his rosy claims about the success of the "New Approach", it is sufficient to compare it to the Washington Post article on the same subject. The Washington Post recounts the same events as mentioned in Mr. Clawson's report, but then states:

"Then Bush weighed in. His statement echoed reformers' complaints and urged
the overthrow of the clerics, promising that afterward Iran 'will have no
better friend than the United States of America.'

In Iran, however, the focus was on neither the substance nor the form of
Bush's remarks. Rather Bush's statement had the immediate effect of
shifting public debate abruptly to terms favoring the conservatives."

So, apparently the Washington Post disagrees with Mr. Clawson. Bush's "new approach" did not win any converts in Iran. It only strengthened the hardliners.

Anyway, trying to reposition the Bush administration as "supporting the people of Iran" is a nice trick, but if the intent of this "new approach" is to convince Iranians that Bush genuinely supports them, it is quite obviously doomed because it is so glaringly disingenuous. The Bush administration lacks the moral credibility necessary to pull this trick off in Iran or anywhere else. People are too well-informed of the true nature of the Bush's foreign policy to believe all the fake hype about "supporting democracy." They know that the US is a self-interested super-power, not the Father Christmas of Democracy. Certain elements of the US foreign policy establishment may still think of themselves as the knights in shining armor who come to save the world and spread democracy, but according to many recent polls conducted on the image of America abroad, but as shown in poll after poll, the rest of the world sees the US as an aggressive, uncontrolled, short-sighted, lying bully which is quite willing to bomb news agencies, topple democracies, support dictatorships, arm aggressors, and back terrorists when it is in its interests to do so. The people of the Mideast are PARTICULARLY aware of this, thanks to the YEARS of US support for Israeli atrocities there. In the case of Iran, everyone there knows about the role of the CIA in the Mossadegh era, and the support Saddam received from the US while he wage his war of aggression against Iran. Where was the US's concern for the people of Iran when the US was providing Saddam with chemical weapons? So you'll excuse us if we listen to Georgie's statements with a dismissive grin.

During the Clinton years, the US went out of its way to AVOID appearing to support one side or another in internal Iranian disputes. The Clinton advisors knew that openly expressing support for any political party or organization inside Iran would be a "Kiss of Death" because that party or organization could then be accused of being a US stooge.

So why did the administration decide to enter the fray now by suddenly deciding to speak up for the "elected elements" in Iran's government now? So what was the REAL intent of the "new approach"?

The REAL intent behind this "new approach" was indeed to to deliver the Kiss of Death to the moderate elements inside Iran which favor US ties, and thereby weaken them. The intent was to PREVENT improved relations with the US. The target of this policy aren't just the Iranians - the targets also include those in the US who would advocate an improvement in US-Iran ties.

Who would want to sabotage any chance of Iran-US relations by foisting a policy that is so obviously flawed, and why? Remember, Perle and his buddies are running the show. It has long been a goal of Perle and other such well-known, right-wing pro-Israeli elements in the US foreign policy establishment to prevent any improvement of relations between US and Iran which could leave Israel out in the cold. The creation of ties between the US and Iran would be to the detriment of Israeli interests and ambitions, because it could pose a limit to Israel's goal of regional domination. They're already not very happy about Saudi-US relations and are busy trying to undermine that - they certainly don't want to see the US getting along with Iran either. For that reason, they have single-mindedly dismissed or downplayed the significance of the reformist movement in Iran, propped up rejectionist exile dissident groups such as the Monarchists, repeatedly published study after study on "Iran's Threat to the US" based on unverifiable "intelligence sources", and have resorted to spreading the vilest rumour and innuendo against Iran in the US media (ie: that Iran was responsible for Pan Am 103, TWA 800, Oklahoma etc. etc.). They have also accused anyone in the US who sought improved relations with Iran of "appeasing terrorists". Instead of seeking improved US-Iran relations, these pro-Israelis instead have consistenly goaded the US into bombing Iran.

The "Friends of Israel" currently in control of the US foreign policy establishment know that by pushing this "new approach" on Iran, they will alienate and weaken the Iranian reformists who are seeking to establish ties with the US. They will also marginalize American foreign policy actors who seek to improve relations with Iran. This is part of a longer term strategy of keeping the US and Iran away from each other while exploiting the frustrations of the Iranians to topple their government and replace it with a regime more amenable to Israeli regional interests (such as Reza Pahlavi II). THAT is the real aim behind Bush's "new approach" to Iran and his sudden expressions of affection for Iranians. THAT is the real function and aim of this "new approach" to Iran.

CONCLUSION?

The "new approach", as with most other US policies on Iran, won't help anyone in Iran - and is not intended to do so. It has already backfired and failed as badly as the "Axis of Evil" label which managed to insult everyone in Iran. But it is a success in another way: it has further isolated the US and Iran from each other, and has created another stumbling block to any improvement of US-Iran relations. That serve's Israel's interests just fine! The Israelis don't care if Iran is democratic or not - they want to make sure that Iran, the largest, strategically-located and most populous nation in the Mideast, cannot act as a regional challenger and competitor for Washington's favors. For that purpose, and to the extent that they can manipulate and control US foreign policy, they will seek to create further stumbling blocks between any improvement of relations between the US and Iran. A perfect example of this was the sudden "capture" of the alleged Karin-A arms shipment by Israeli commandos which - according to the Israelis - was sent from Iran. Wasn't it funny how that event happend exactly as the US and Iran had started to cooperate in Afghanistan, and eventually led to the whole "Axis of Evil" charge?

Look forward to more of the same.