Saturday, 22 June 2019

Louis versus Schmeling | June 22nd 1938

Louis versus Schmeling (Part of Sports Illustrated’s “Living Legends” series) by Bob Peak. 18” x 22” Lithograph, (1973).

“Joe Louis is the hardest puncher that I’ve ever seen … He’s a good man. Anyone who plans on beating him had better know what they’re doing.”

- Max Schmeling before the the first Louis-Schmeling fight in 1936.

The rematch between Joe Louis and Max Schmeling in 1938 was one of three world heavyweight championship bouts designated as the ‘Fight of the Century’ at the time each was contested. Before it, Jack Johnson’s meeting in 1910 with the previously undefeated Jim Jefferies had been fought on the basis that the winner would decide on the issue of racial supremacy. And in 1971, the meeting between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, two undefeated men with a claim to the title, was framed as one between representatives of the ‘establishment’ and the ‘counter-culture’.

The match between Louis and Schmeling, which took place with the backdrop of a looming world war, was touted as a battle for ideological supremacy between the freedom-embracing ideals of America on the one hand, and the totalitarian designs represented by Nazism.

Louis had unexpectedly lost the first match, a non-title one, in 1936. The result had delighted the Nazi regime which of course promoted the idea of the racial supremacy of the Aryan race. Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels had proclaimed it a victory for Germany, while the Nazi weekly journal Das Schwarze Korps had noted: “Schmeling’s victory was not only sport. It was a question of prestige for our race.”

Schmeling became an unwilling propaganda tool for the Nazi regime, and in the build up to the fight, he was invited to lunch with Adolf Hitler, who had previously shown no interest in the sport of boxing. As they watched the film of the first bout, Hitler slapped Schmeling on his leg each time he saw a blow of Schmeling’s connect with Louis.

Schmeling had accomplished the unthinkable by closely studying Louis’s fighting habits. He noted a predisposition on Louis’s part of lowering his left hand after throwing a left jab. In the fourth round, he threw an overhand right counter to a Louis jab, and dropped Louis for the first time in his professional career. Louis never recovered, and a succession of similar counters and combination punches took their toll over the course of the bout which ended in the twelfth round.

But Louis’s first round destruction of his German rival –accomplished in two-minutes and four-seconds- revenged his humiliating loss and elevated even further the adoration felt for him by the American public.

The match was also a milestone in broadcast history as an estimated 70 million people listened on their radios. It is believed to be the largest audience in history for a single radio broadcast.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is the author of Dick Tiger: The Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal and Jersey Boy: The Life and Mob Slaying of Frankie DePaula. He is also a contributor to the Cambridge Companion to Boxing.


Thursday, 20 June 2019

Who Wants War With Iran?

Mural on a wall in Tehran depicting the Statue of Liberty with a dead face

There are people speaking astutely in the United States about this manufactured crisis with Iran. Tulsi Gabbard, the congresswoman is one and Ron Paul, the former congressman and libertarian, is another.

Who wants a war with Iran?

Apart from the greedy merchants of death connected with the military industry and the maniacs who feel that a global war between nuclear armed powers is winnable, and will, like the aftermath of World War One and Two, reformat the debt-ridden and collapsing international economic system, the two nations who want to see America attack Iran are the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Those two would gladly fight Iran to the last American body.

Perhaps many Americans have short memories? Or is it gung-ho patriotism at work? Or heretical dispensationalist-pretribunational Christian Zionists praying for an end times war which could draw in the Chinese and the Russians?

As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently warned, an attack on Iran would be a “catastrophe with unpredictable consequences”.

Welcome to Armageddon folks.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Friday, 14 June 2019

Beyond The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact: Germany and the Geopolitical Balance of Power

Credit: Wolfgang Ammer

The recent release by the Russian authorities of the Soviet copy of the infamous Nazi-Soviet Pact signed in August 1939 on behalf of Germany and the Soviet Union by Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov has led to a bout of rancorous discussion. In the West, the agreement is largely perceived as having had dire consequences for the peace in Europe, while in Russia it is largely seen as a last ditch attempt at staving off war. But while each perspective has its merits, analyses that is limited only to explaining the causes of the Second World War as well as which army played the greater role in defeating Nazi Germany miss a wider and enduringly crucial picture; this is the centrality of Germany to any calibration of the geopolitical power balance. 

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was an agreement which provided that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would not attack the other or support aggressive third parties. It also provided each signatory state with spheres of influence. One week later, Hitler attacked Poland, occupying the western and central parts of the country, while the Soviet Union took over the eastern part. Hitler would later turn his military westward while Stalin would annexe the Baltic States.

The case for the pact as having served as a malign force in disturbing the peace among European nations would appear to be an open and shut one. The argument is that it enabled Hitler to attack and conquer much of Western Europe and thus start a colossal conflagration that would consume millions of lives. However, a compelling counter-argument to this from the Russian side posits that Stalin was forced into the unholy alliance simply because the Munich Agreement signed in September 1938 by Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had the motive of encouraging Hitler to embark on his anti-Bolshevik crusade.

It is, after all, widely accepted that many western politicians -and not only those who were right-wing conservatives- saw the Nazi regime as a bulwark against the spread of Soviet communism. Chamberlain’s declaration of “peace in our time” did not objectively include the Soviet Union whose western lands, Hitler regarded with envious eyes.

There is also evidence presented in a recently published Russian book, in which the Russian copy of the Nazi-Soviet Pact is reproduced, that Stalin had sought an anti-Nazi alliance with Britain and France, but that his overture was rebuffed. As revealed in 2008, the offer to move over a million troops to the border of Germany to deter Hitler was made in Moscow by senior military officials of the USSR to a visiting delegation of French and British officers two weeks before the Wehrmacht attacked Poland.

The truth is that the Western liberal democracies on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other, were trying to shift Nazi aggression onto the other side.

The back and forth was of course set against the background of the recent commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings from which the Russians were not invited. The not unreasonable assertion that the Soviet Union had borne most of the burden in defeating Nazi Germany was met by claims that the Soviets received massive material aid from the West which enabled them to resist the German invaders.

And while most serious scholars of military history would pinpoint the Soviet defeat of the Sixth Army and other axis armies in Stalingrad as the turning point in the war which set in motion the inexorable process of Germany’s defeat, the atmosphere among many Western analysts was not conducive to anything other than memorialising the sacrifice of allied soldiers who succeeded in the perilous venture of establishing a bridgehead in occupied Europe after the Normandy landings.

The point of this article is to put to one side the differing interpretations of the events which primed Nazi Germany to go on the attack as well as arguments pertaining to which side did the most to defeat Hitler and his axis allies, and instead to focus on the centrality of the German nation to the determination of the balance of power between the Western alliance and the Eurasian power of Russia.

The Cold War which followed Germany’s defeat after World War 2 as well as the present Cold War which has arisen since the emergence of Vladimir Putin place Germany as a focal point of the tension between east and west.

The German nation, which lost a great amount of territory, was divided into two countries because the Western allies and the Soviet Union realised that having a regenerated Germany in one of the post war camps would have given a monumental strategic advantage to one side. This issue remains at the heart of the contemporary east-west divide because a key condition; indeed, arguably the preeminent proviso which enabled the leaders of the old Soviet Union to consent to German reunification and German membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was the promise given by the leaders of the West not extend NATO “one inch eastward”.

This promise was not kept by the American-led Atlantic alliance which since the administration of President Bill Clinton has persisted in expanding NATO to Russia’s border. Guided respectively by the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Brzezinski Doctrine, the United States has in the period since the ending of the ideological-based Cold War sought to impose a historically unprecedented form of global hegemony.

By this is meant that the ends sought by the brutal and perverted philosophy of Nazi Lebensraum was constricted in terms of the amount of territorial conquest and control of other nations. This was implicit in Hitler’s offer to Britain to keep its empire in return for giving Germany a “free hand in the east”.  The other belligerent of World War 2, Japan sought a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, imperialist by design, but not the global dimension suggested by the forged Tanaka Memorial.

But American worldly hegemony has its blue print in its domination of the global institutions of finance, namely the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which were created after the post-war Bretton Woods agreement. Furthermore, the U.S. dollar emerged as the de facto world reserve currency.

The “end of history”, as Francis Fukuyama infamously put it, occasioned by the fall of the Soviet Union and its dominion states in eastern Europe, meant that the free-market economic system and liberal democracy had won out in a dialectical struggle with Marxism. This would, he prophesied mean that free-market orientated liberal democracies would become the world’s “final form of human government.”

This line of thinking fell neatly into place in the new world order envisioned by those who believed in the strand of “American exceptionalism” that embraces the spread of American values by force of arms and those who subscribed to the ideology of neoconservatism and its Trotskyite-like fixation on a form of “permanent revolution” involving the export of the American economic and political system through the instrument of the American armed forces or its proxies.

Thus was born a new age of American militarism. The Wolfowitz Doctrine insisted on imposing the will of the United States even at the cost of abrogating multi-national agreements, while the Brzezinski Doctrine made a specific case for preventing the rise of a Eurasian power that would challenge Anglo-American supremacy. The latter doctrine explicitly sought to intimidate Russia to a state of military impotence, while creating the circumstances whereby Russia -preferably a balkanised Russian state- would service the energy and resource needs of the West.

Where does Germany fit into this? The projection of American military power under the auspices of NATO and the use of the European Union (EU) by the United States  to provide legitimacy for a succession of disastrously implemented interventions has exposed the necessity for restraint on the desire for the imposition of a unipolar model of an international order insisted upon by the United States to be its historical right.

Apart from providing it with the legal cover for illegal military endeavours, the EU has been used by the United States to apply pressure on other countries through the imposition of trade sanctions even when such a course of action has been to the disadvantage of members states such as Germany. For instance, the United States provided covert support for the coup which forced out the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovytch in Ukraine and brought to power ultranationalist, Russophobic parties who proceeded to threaten Russia’s vital strategic interests in the Black Sea.The not unreasonable Russian reaction of annexing Crimea after a plebiscite was construed by the United States as an act of aggression which necessitated a range of sanctions including, at US insistence, German sanctions; measures which many German business leaders opposed because they harmed the German economy.

Yet, for all its influence as the dominant nation within the EU, Germanyhas been unable to assert itself by putting a leash on American aggression. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is that after defeat in two world wars, Germany has remained somewhat in the thrall of the Anglo-American world. The presence of 32,000 American troops who are permanently based there, albeit reduced from the Cold War figure of 300,000, is officially part and parcel of the business of conducting a mutually beneficial military alliance. But for a sizeable segment of the German population, their continued deployment, far from providing an assurance of national protection, bears the aura of an army of occupation; a reminder of Germany being somewhat of a dominion state of the American empire.

The lack of assertion in Germany’s political leaders stem from an erosion of a form of national self-esteem that is based on fears that an assertive Germany may lay the seeds for a resurgence of German militarism. They are also conscious of the doubts which persist among allies. Margaret Thatcher, after all, was not initially in favour of German reunification because of this age-old fear. This fear, deeply rooted in the German psyche, was addressed by Goethe, who in the Napoleonic age cautioned his countrymen about their enthusiastic embrace of nationalism and militarism. He predicted that Germany would come to disaster if they followed that path and so called on them to invest in culture and the spirit: in other words, conquer the world with their talents in music, philosophy, trade and the sciences.

Today, shorn of its martial fixation and possessing the fourth largest economy in the world, Germany would appear to be firmly on the path of which Goethe advised. Many are inclined to view the EU as a German-dominated organisation, something made all the more glaring given the decline of French economic power. Germany imposes its values on economically struggling EU states by diktat. It is a state of affairs which some cynically view as the culmination of the ‘long desired’ German ‘conquest’ of Europe.

Yet, while Germany has forsworn the trappings and the burdens of militarism, some may lament that it does not use its economic might as the basis of tempering the excesses of the American empire. One way of achieving this is to manifest a greater resolve at casting away its inhibition at defying the malign enterprises pursued by the United States so far as consenting to the illegal military adventures pursued by the American, as well as the imposition of sanctions on those perceived to be the enemies of the United States.

Unfortunately, Germany has wilted under American pressure to maintain sanctions against Russia, and while a signatory to the Five Plus One Agreement with Iran, it has begun to buckle in regard to the Trump administration’s sanctions against Iran after Washington abrogated on the treaty. Many larger German commercial concerns have ceased trading with Iran as a result of the threats issued by the United States  that they would face repercussions.

There have been instances when the Germans have tried to act independently of American machinations. For instance, through the Minsk Accord of 2015 which was jointly brokered by Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande. It was a worthy effort aimed at creating the circumstances for peace between the warring sides in the Ukraine, but one whose failure owed a great deal to the opposition of the United States.

American animus towards Russia, something developed after the replacement of the pliant Boris Yeltsin by Vladimir Putin, poses a grave threat to world peace. It also serves as an impediment to the German national interest. Not only does NATO’s expansion eastwards, reneging of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and deployment of a missile shield system imperil Germany, the United States has actively sought to impede the development of Nord Stream 2, the second offshore natural gas pipeline emanating from the Russian mainland which has its entry point to western Europe in Germany. The threat of sanctions issued in June 2019 by U.S. President Donald Trump against Russia is redolent of the sort of paternalism practised by the Americans after the ending of the Second World War. In the words of Trump:

We’re protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money.

These followed a letter writing campaign conducted in January 2019 by the US ambassador to Germany who urged the companies involved in the project to stop their work or face the possibility of sanctions.

The American claim -shared by some eastern European countries- that the project would increase Russian influence in the region, is one which Germany’s political and business leaders feel does not outweigh the benefits that will accrue once it is operational.

Nord Stream notwithstanding, the development of closer ties between Germany and Russia in a much broader sense is one which provides an existential threat of sorts to different parties. For the Anglo-American world, it would represent the beginning of the process whereby Germany jettisons out of their orbit of influence; severely weakening the basis by which British and American empires have sought to counterbalance and contain the rise of any Eurasian-centred power. The French may view it as a dynamic which would shift German focus away from Franco-German relations, which of course was at the heart of the creation of the EU project. The strengthening of Russo-German relations is also viewed with alarm by those nations in eastern Europe who have historically suffered from the projection of Russian and German power, not least of which relates to the implementation of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.

Fears over an emerging power alliance were heightened in some quarters by the appearance of an article written in 2017 by a member of the Russian Izborsky Club. It called for a new geostrategic alliance between Germany and Russia which would serve as an updated version of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact by re-dividing eastern Europe between both countries.

Formed in 2012, and composed of a group of Russian intellectuals, the Izborksy club is a think-tank which disseminates strongly nationalist and anti-liberal views. The level of influence that it has in the Kremlin is something which is disputed. But the thoughts of Aleksandr Gaponenko, the head of the Baltic section of the club, were seized upon by anti-Russian think-tanks and media as evidence of what they believe would be the logical conclusion of a modern German-Russian axis.

Entitled “A Union of Russia and Germany”, Gaponenko argued that such an alliance would allow Germany to “recover” the Sudetenland, Silesia, East Prussia, Poland, Hungary and Romania as well as portions of Ukraine and Lithuania. Russia, on the other hand would take over the rest of the Baltics, Transdniestria and establish a protectorate over Belarus.

How such a fantastical enterprise could be made practicable was not addressed by Gaponenko.

What is more realistic and would be of benefit to the region is if Germany served as a bridge between the West and Russia; in the process diffusing the manufactured tension developed by successive administrations of the United States who are prodded along this path by the self-serving interests of its military industry and national security apparatus.

What is needed is a radical change in the political culture of Germany, one which has been for decades dominated by subservience to the United States, which is insistent on maintaining a form of global hegemony in regard to which Russia, China and Iran offer the last resistance.

Such a transformation of attitude and action through a new-style detente would not only serve German interests, but also the interests of the wider community of nations.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is based in England. He often blogs on topics pertaining to Global Security.

Saturday, 8 June 2019

Israel's Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was Deliberate – Excerpt from my essay “The Six Day War - Myth and Reality” (2017)


Decades have passed since the U.S.S. Liberty, an intelligence gathering ship of the United States Navy was attacked by air and naval forces of the Israeli military, with resultant fatalities and injuries to American servicemen. A cover up followed, as has an enduring silence on the matter by both American and Israeli governments. However, evidence assembled over the years has confirmed that the attack was not predicated on “human errors, unfortunate coincidences and equipment failures on both the American and Israeli sides”, as Michael Oren, an Israeli former ambassador to the U.S. once argued; rather it was a deliberate action contrived by the leaders of Israel. This is an excerpt from an essay I wrote in 2017 entitled, “The Six Day War: Myth and Reality”.

“But Sir, It’s an American Ship.”
“Never Mind, Hit Her!”

– Conversation between an Israeli pilot and the IDF War Room.

The ruthless use of propaganda as a means of camouflaging Israel’s true objectives lies behind one of the most notorious events of the Six Day War: the sinking of the USS Liberty. This murderous act of Israeli aggression against its ally, the United States, was played down as a case of attacking a target mistakenly under the fog of war.

An American intelligence gathering vessel bristling with antennae and flying the stars and stripes, the Liberty was cruising off the coast of Egypt on June 8th when attacked by a combination of Israeli air and naval forces. Thirty-four of its crew -were killed and 174 left wounded. The attack, which was almost certainly ordered by General Dayan, had occurred at a most sensitive stage of the war.

The Israelis, whose rout of the Egyptian army had brought about the unwanted burden of policing more prisoners of war than they could handle, had reached el Arish where hundreds of captured Egyptian soldiers had been executed. Some had been forced to dig their own graves while others were buried by native Bedouin tribesmen after Israeli soldiers had shot them and left the bodies rotting in the desert sun. The Liberty was well-placed to listen in on these events given that el Arish is a port city on the Mediterranean coast.

The other issue of crucial importance concerned Israel’s strategic conduct of the war. After its conquest of the Sinai Peninsula, Israel’s intention was to order many of its units to turn around and be redeployed so as to consolidate the capture of the West Bank and also to provide reinforcement for the units charged with attacking Syria and taking the Golan Heights.

Far from entertaining thoughts of a life or death struggle with its Arab foes which could possibly result in the mass extermination of its citizens, Israeli calculations were based on achieving certain victory. However, this would need to be accomplished within a limited time scale after which it leaders were aware that a UN Security Council-brokered ceasefire would have to be implemented.

While Israel had obtained the blessing of President Lyndon Johnson to go to war, it did not have America’s consent so far as taking over the West Bank and Syrian territory was concerned. Such actions it was felt might provoke an intervention by the Soviet Union.

Thus it was that with victory complete in the Sinai and two days left of the war, the Israelis did not want the Americans eavesdropping through the Liberty when its troops were rerouted northwards. Such was the secrecy behind the planned incursion into Syria that Prime Minister Eshkol was not told of the plan by Dayan until after he had ordered the attack on the Golan Heights.

After being closely monitored by Israeli reconnaissance planes, the Liberty was subjected to a sustained attack lasting for about two hours. The ship endured waves of attacks by strafing jets and projectiles fired from motorized torpedo boats. Crew who attempted to launch lifeboats were targeted by machine guns and napalm bombs were dropped. The intention appeared to be to sink the the ship and leave no survivors. This would have left it open for the attack to be blamed on Egypt.

Miraculously, the ship was kept afloat and a distress signal sent after having had both its tactical and distress frequencies jammed by the Israelis. Twelve fighter jets and four tanker planes stationed on the USS Saratoga, an aircraft carrier of the nearby American Sixth Fleet, were sent into action to defend the Liberty but were recalled by US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara. Once the Israelis knew that the American fleet had received word of the attack, they were quick to inform the Americans that their ship had been hit by mistake.

A cover up was effected by the Johnson administration under pressure from an ever more assertive Israeli lobby which had threatened to smear Johnson with the accusation of blood libel. Alongside this allegation of anti-Semitism would be a refusal by Jewish organisations to fund Johnson if he chose to run for reelection the following year.

Although the establishment cover up over the attack on the Liberty persists to this day several prominent American officials have over the years gone on the record to contradict the hastily arrived official verdict that it had been a mistake; Dean Rusk, a former US Secretary of State, and Admiral Thomas Moorer who was the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff at the time of the incident being among the most prominent of these dissenters.

In a perceptive insert in Newsweek magazine’s ‘Periscope’ column dated June 19th 1967, a staff writer offered the following thesis:

Although Israel’s apologies were officially accepted, some high Washington officials believe the Israelis knew the Liberty’s capabilities and suspect that the attack might not have been accidental. One top-level theory holds that someone in the Israeli armed forces ordered the Liberty sunk because he suspected it had taken down messages showing that Israel started the fighting.

Tape recordings of the dialogue of Israeli personnel during the attack which were available to American officials soon after the incident have been made public in recent years. On separate occasions, a voice is heard clearly identifying the Liberty as an American vessel. The position that the destruction of the USS Liberty was a tragic error is no longer tenable.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2017 & 2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.


Thursday, 6 June 2019

"Thoughts" by Aleksandr Pushkin

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799-1837) By V.I. Shukhayev

June 6th is the birth anniversary of Aleksandr Pushkin, the man considered to be the father of modern Russian literature as well as being the greatest Russian poet. I like his narrative poems and the beguiling nature of his introspective style. “Thoughts” is a favourite of mine. This is the first of two versions written in 1829.

If I walk the noisy streets,
Or enter a many thronged church,
Or sit among the wild young generation,
I give way to my thoughts.

I say to myself: the years are fleeting,
And however many there seem to be,
We must all go under the eternal vault,
And someone’s hour is already at hand.

When I look at a solitary oak
I think: the patriarch of the woods.
It will outlive my forgotten age
As it outlived that of my grandfathers’.

If I caress a young child,
Immediately I think: farewell!
I will yield my place to you.
For I must fade while your flower blooms.

Each day, every hour
I habitually follow my thoughts,
Trying to guess from their number
The year which brings my death.

And where will fate send death to me?
In battle, in my travels, or on the seas?
Or will the neighbouring valley
Receive my chilled ashes?

And although to the senseless body
It is indifferent wherever it rots,
Yet close to my beloved countryside
I still would prefer to rest.

And let it be, beside the grave’s vault
That young life forever will be playing,
And impartial, indifferent nature
Eternally be shining in beauty.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

General Gustavo Leigh Guzman: A Republican General?

General Gustavo Leigh Guzman

A great deal has been written about the coup d’etat in Chile which violently overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government of Salvador Allende in 1973. Much of the literature has focused -at least from this writer’s layman’s perspective- on the figures respectively of Allende and General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, who led the junta. But little to nothing is known about the other military leaders who ruled Chile during an era characterised by violent repression.

Gustavo Leigh, the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Air Force, was an important member of the junta, and an implacable proponent of dealing harshly with the political left, but it is fascinating to discover the contrast in the approach to politics and economics between him and Pinochet; differences which led to his ouster from the junta in 1978.

Both men owed their appointments as heads of their respective branches of the armed forces to Allende. Leigh was in fact one of the primary instigators of the coup plot, with Pinochet apparently only joining the conspiracy at a late stage and taking precedence in affairs of state by virtue of the fact that he was the head of the most important branch of the military.

Both men were, of course, fervently anti-Marxist and, in their thinking, were patriots who were carrying out the sacred duty of rescuing the faltering fatherland from sinking inexorably into a pit of Marxist misery. On the night of the coup, each member of the junta representing each armed service made a brief statement that was broadcast to the Chilean people. When compared to the statements of Pinochet (Army), Merino (Navy) and Mendoza (Police), Leigh’s words are striking in their venom:

After three years of suffering the Marxist cancer which led us to economic, moral and social disaster and which could no longer be tolerated for the sacred interests of the homeland we found ourselves obliged to take on the sad and painful mission which we have undertaken.

We are not afraid. We know the enormous responsibility that will rest on our shoulders .

But we are convinced, we are quite sure that the vast majority of the Chilean people are with us. They are willing to fight against Marxism! They are willing to stamp it down to the final consequences!

While Leigh claimed in an interview in 1977 that he was unaware of human rights violations which had occurred during the first years of the dictatorship, he was, on the contrary, complicit in the uncompromisingly brutal atmosphere that permeated the rule of the generals. Indeed, on the day of the uprising, he set the tone that was to come by sending in air force jets to bomb and machine gun La Moneda, the fortress-like presidential palace in which Allende was holding out; setting it ablaze.

As a key figure of the state, Leigh was a co-overseer of the day-to-day policies of internal repression which were carried out in the name of the junta, and his later affectation of ignorance did not stand the test of scrutiny. For instance, he had to have known of the atrocities committed by the Joint Command, a part of Chilean military intelligence which coordinated the activities of the branches of the armed forces, because it had been created from the ranks of the Intelligence Service of the Air Force (SIFA). This body was responsible for the arrest, torture and elimination of 15 members of Chile’s Communist Party in 1975 and a further 10 between 1976 and 1977.

Also, his purge of the Air Force of left-wing officers delivered them into the hands of state-appointed torturers and murderers whose handiwork led to the deaths of former servicemen such as Brigadier Alberto Bachelet, the father of the future Chilean president.

Nonetheless, he fundamentally differed from Pinochet in some key areas. This did not relate to having any misgivings as to the extreme nature of the terror, a position which almost certainly cost General Oscar Bonilla his life in a mysterious helicopter crash, but was to do with what he felt should be the correct approach to the economy.

Unlike Pinochet, who readily subscribed to and applied the Libertarian economic policies theorised by a group of academicians associated with the University of Chicago, Leigh believed in strong state intervention in the economy. Whereas the ‘shock treatment’ implemented at the behest of Pinochet was based on a free market devoid of price controls and uninhibited competition from foreign concerns, Leigh supported a mixed economy with a substantive presence of the state in heavy industry, as well as the purposeful regulation of imports and the financial speculation market.

He also voiced his concerns over the absence of a timetable through which the regime would restore democracy; specifically opposing the referendum called by Pinochet to serve as a ratification of his continued tenure as head of state until at least 1986.

He restated his objection during an interview with the Paolo Buagialli, an Italian journalist working for Corriere della Sera, which was published on July 18th 1978. Leigh alluded to what he termed the old tradition of Chilean “freedom and democracy” which could not be indefinitely denied. He also strongly implied that intransigence on the part of the military in this matter could precipitate the masses. Leigh further claimed that he would reconsider his position as a member of the junta if it were confirmed that the Chilean state had been involved in the assassination of Oscar Letelier and other misdeeds including torture.

His words were all the more striking given that indictments were at the time expected to be brought against General Manuel Contreras, the head of the dismantled secret police organisation named Direccion de Inteligencia Nacional (DINA), two other army officers and an American, Michael Townley.

Pinochet responded by dismissing Leigh on July 24th 1978 (obtaining the consenting signatures of the other two members of the four-man junta) and removing 18 of the 20 members of the air force general staff. The New York Times reported that Pinochet had “established unopposed control over the governing military junta by demolishing his main critic”.

Leigh died in September 1999 at the age of 79 after surviving and recovering (apart from the loss of an eye) from an assassination attempt carried out by members of the Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front who burst into his office and opened fire on him.

It is clear that from the time of his membership of the junta, he had begun working towards establishing a legacy which would distance him from the Pinochet regime. These efforts did not end with the public utterances exposing his different outlook on political and economic issues. It now transpires that Leigh had regularly taped conversations between himself and other members of the junta with a recording device placed in his jacket.

He did not publish the contents of the tapes after the restoration of democracy because he feared being sued. However, a book written by his widow, Gabriela Garcia de Leigh, has reproduced much of their content. Entitled Leigh: El General Republicano, the book is clearly presented with the objective of dissociating Leigh from the excesses of the Pinochet regime. One example relates to Leigh’s thoughts after reading a letter addressed to him from Mariana Callejas, the wife of Michael Townley, the American agent of DINA who carried out the assassinations of General Carlos Prats and Orlando Letelier.

The import here was that Leigh did not initially believe that Pinochet was capable of orchestrating such crimes and that he confronted him about the matter, even though he himself was implicated in the disappearance of leaders of the communist party and was detained under the orders of an investigating judge. He did not face any sanction owing to an amnesty.

El General Republicano, also attempts to place Leigh thinking as one who had considered the military intervention of 1973 to be a corrective measure that would be a brief one before a return to “normalcy”. Hence the reference to the term “republican”, implies that he fundamentally believed in democratic constitutionalism, albeit that he had not felt bound by General Rene Schneider’s doctrine of non-interference by the army and partook in the overthrow of the Chilean constitution. For Leigh, who once called the coup the “gravest defeat suffered by international communism”, the ends justified the means.

The book seems unlikely to change much in terms of the way the Chilean public view their past. The divisions between those who feel that the coup saved Chile from a civil war and laid the basis for its present relative economic prosperity on the one hand, and those who feel that that it inaugurated the darkest epoch in Chilean national history is as clear as ever.

Leigh will remain a hero to some and a villain to others for the foreseeable future.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.


Thursday, 30 May 2019

Did Israel Attempt to Kill an American Ambassador?

Report about the attack on John Gunther Dean by the New York Daily News

The State of Israel is often touted as America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Yet over the decades, it has acted in clandestine ways that have not only risked the lives of American citizens, but have had the objective of causing their deaths. Examples of such ventures include Operation Susannah, the botched attempt in 1954 by agents of Israeli military intelligence to blow up American civilian establishments in Egypt. There was also the deliberate attack by its armed forces on the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea during the Six Day War of 1967 which killed 34 sailors and wounded 171. In 1980, a shadowy, right-wing group calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners (FLLF) claimed responsibility for an attempt on the life of the American ambassador to Lebanon, John Gunther Dean. For long, Dean claimed that the Israelis were behind it, but he was disbelieved. But revelations by former Israeli intelligence officials in a book published last year appear to back up his suspicion.

On August 28th 1980, John Gunther Dean, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon was travelling as part of a three-car convoy on the main Beirut-Damascus Highway when it came under attack from what news reports at the time described as a hit-squad “firing machine guns and a rocket-propelled grenade”. His car was hit and damaged, but along with his wife, daughter and son-in-law who were travelling with him, he managed to escape serious injury. Responsibility for the ambush was claimed by a newly formed and mysterious group that called itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners (FLLF).

Dean, who is still alive and in his 90s, has always insisted that Israel was behind the attempt on his life. According to him:

Weapons financed and given by the United States to Israel were used in an attempt to kill an American diplomat! Undoubtedly using a proxy, our ally Israel had tried to kill me.

He based this conclusion on his own private investigation. The Lebanese intelligence services had retrieved the empty canisters of two of the light anti-tank weapons that had been used during the attack. A later raid on a house near the scene found 8 more of the kind.

Dean collected the numbers on the 10 missiles and sent them to Washington for analysis. Three weeks later, it was disclosed to him that the weapons had been manufactured in the U.S. and were sold and shipped to Israel in 1974.

Why would Israel attempt to kill the ambassador of the nation often touted as its “closest ally” in the Middle East? Dean, who is of German-Jewish ancestry, believes that he was targeted because he had opened up channels of dialogue with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). He had also criticised Israeli military incursions into Lebanon.

His allegation was ignored.

Later in 1988, when serving as ambassador to India, he voiced the suspicion that Israel was behind the mysterious plane crash that killed Pakistani military ruler General Zia ul-Haq. The response was severe. Dean was declared mentally unfit by officials in Washington and he retired from the foreign service. He was later rehabilitated by the U.S. State Department and given a Distinguished Service Award.

But he remained unswerving in his belief that he had been targeted by a phantom terror group directed by Israeli intelligence.

Phantom organisations are of course not unknown in the secret world of intelligence operations. Under the direction of its head Felix Dzerzhinsky, the Cheka successfully ran ‘The Trust’, a body which posed as an anti-Bolshevik monarchist entity to deceive Russian emigres and others into providing funds for the cash-strapped Soviet regime, as well as luring its enemies to their deaths. And during the Algerian War, the foreign intelligence service of France created the Red Hand, which was tasked with targeting the network of arms suppliers for the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) in Western Europe and North Africa.

Ronen Bergman’s book, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, which was published in 2018 revealed for the first time that the FLLF was established in 1979 by Rafael Eitan, the Chief-of-Staff of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Colonel Meir Dagan, the commander of the South Lebanon Region and a future head of Mossad. It was run under the auspices of the IDF’s Northern Command, which at the time was headed by General Avigdor Ben-Gal. The FLLF would go on to carry out a series of indiscriminate bombings in Lebanon from 1979 to 1983 which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese citizens.

The purpose of running this fictitious terror group was manifold. It was clearly set up to put pressure on those non-Lebanese actors who were Israel’s primary adversaries: the PLO, which had concentrated forces there since its expulsion from Jordan, and the Syrian army which had occupied part of Lebanese territory since 1976. As Bergman has noted, the FLLF was designed to “cause chaos among the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instil them with a sense of insecurity.”

Suspicions about the origins of the FLLF were raised by several people including the PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who claimed in 1981 that Israeli intelligence was behind the bombings claimed by the group. Although Israel’s publicly avowed aim at the time was to dislodge the PLO from Lebanese soil, the FLLF was not limited to harassing it and other militant Palestinian organisations. It was also utilised to exacerbate divisions between Lebanon’s warring militias as well as to demoralise Syria’s sectarian communities. A Mossad officer quoted in Bergman’s book said, “We are speaking here about mass killing for killing’s sake, to sow chaos and alarm among civilians.”  It was a strategy of tension which provided one of several pretexts for Israel to justify its belligerent policies towards its northern neighbour which it has long sought to balkanise.

The admission that the FLLF was an Israeli front adds credence to Dean’s allegation. His efforts to get his government to investigate his claim were consistently rebuffed:

No matter how hard I tried, I could not get a straight answer from the State Department about what the U.S. had discovered in its investigations … I was simply told to resume my duties as ambassador.

And given the U.S. government’s reluctance to hold the Israeli government to account for incidents such as the fatal attack on the USS Liberty, it is unlikely that a probe will ever be made.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Wednesday, 22 May 2019

Muhammad Ali: Jimmy Carter’s Pugilistic Plenipotentiary


February 1980.

Here is film footage of Muhammad Ali speaking to journalists in Nigeria during his notorious tour as a plenipotentiary of sorts for U.S. President Jimmy Carter who was hoping to persuade Black African countries to boycott the Moscow Olympic Games which was to be held later that year.

Ali’s pitch, which occurred soon after Nigerian President Shehu Shagari refused to meet with him, seemed to be that if the Black African states joined in the boycott, it would create the conditions for America to become more pro-active in combating the Apartheid regime of South Africa. And if America did not requite this gesture it would put it and Ali in a bit of a spot.

But the Africans, who had boycotted the 1976 Montreal Games over the issue of sporting links with South Africa, felt no compunction about refusing to boycott the Soviet Union over its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. They were sore over the fact that the United States had dragged its feet over the question of imposing sanctions on Pretoria.

Ali visited five countries in all: Senegal, Liberia, Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania. Liberia was willing to go along with the United States (until the overthrow of William Tolbert), as was Kenya which was the only one to not participate.

The others remained unimpressed.

Senghor-led Senegal stood by a policy of refusing to participate in politically motivated sporting boycotts. Julius Nyerere, the Tanzanian leader like Nigeria’s Shagari, refused to meet Ali. As beloved as Ali was among Black Africans, his mission proved to be a dismal failure. Carter had erred not merely by underestimating the resoluteness of African states in refusing to compromise over South Africa and their anger about America’s hypocrisy in opposing previous African-led boycotts, but also by his decision to entrust such a herculean endeavour in the hands of a non-diplomat sportsman.

An exasperated Tanzanian official asked with disarming candour:

“Would the United States send Chris Evert to negotiate with London?”

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He is a contributor to the recently released Cambridge Companion to Boxing



Wednesday, 1 May 2019

An Examination of the History of the Pro-Zionist Lobby

Stage prior to the start of the plenary session at a conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Ilhan Omar, the newly elected congresswoman from Minnesota at the centre of allegations of “anti-Semitism”, has drawn attention to a particularly sensitive topic at the heart of American politics: the power wielded by the American Israel-Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other pro-Zionist lobby groups. For while it is the case as Omar remarked that the influence of other powerful lobbies are often remarked upon and scrutinised, the same cannot be said of the Israel lobby and the clout wielded by operators of Jewish origin. But the impact of this influence, or even “control”, over members of congress so far as the conduct of the electoral process, as well as in foreign policy issues relating to the Middle East is concerned, justifies the need for open public scrutiny, which many are increasingly coming to believe has been long overdue.

American Politics and the Zionist Lobby

“...the thrust of US policy in the region (Middle East) derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel - are essentially identical.”

- John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby” in the London Review of Books, March 2006.

Four years ago when in March 2015, Binyamin Netanyahu stood before the United States Congress to deliver a speech, he offered his thanks to the gathered Democrats and Republicans for what he said was their “common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade”. He went on to say, “No matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.”

Members of Congress interrupted to applaud 39 times; 23 of which were standing ovations. Each came not after a compelling episode of spoken eloquence, enchanting poeticism or other display of oratorical prowess, but were reactions to short, essentially mundane statements. It was a replay of Netanyahu’s previous address before a joint session of Congress in May, 2011 when he received a total of 28 standing ovations in 47 minutes.

While the mainstream media was content to portray the reception given by US lawmakers as befitting to a visiting world statesman, others saw in each and every exaltation of Netanyahu a shameful display of obeisance.

The idea of American congressmen demonstrating their servility to a foreign power featured in the background of Netanyahu’s 2015 visit. Contrary to established convention, he had been invited to speak before Congress by the Republican House Speaker John Boehner over the head of the serving president, Barack Obama. The subsequent fawning nature of the gathered members merely underlined the power dynamic which “decade after decade” has kept Congress in line: the power of the Israel lobby, and in particular, that of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC.

Formed in 1951, AIPAC is tasked with lobbying the legislative and executive branches of the American state. It does so to promote a special relationship between Israel and the United States, a goal which is justified on the basis that both nations share the same values, most important of which is a commitment to democracy and individual rights. It consistently works towards securing substantial military aid for Israel and maintaining other forms of material and moral support for that country.

Today, AIPAC has a ‘caucus’ in every congressional district from which it can apply pressure to each and every member of Congress. Its website recruits members to join its ‘Congressional Club’ and undertake to commit to providing monies to candidates in a “clearly pro-Israel context” to the tune of “$2,500 a year, or $5,000 per two-year election cycle.”

The requirement that its members join the Congressional Club along with its use of shell organisations are ploys used by AIPAC to avoid registering with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as a political action committee.

AIPAC executes a number of tried and tested strategies which ensure the raising of large sums of money by a range of ad hoc groups that are tied to it, but which do not appear in public documents to be linked to it. In an Al Jazeera documentary which was pulped due to pressure emanating from the pro-Israel lobby, David Ochs, the founder of HaLev, an organisation which facilitates the transporting of young people to AIPAC’s annual conference, described one such group which had no official name as “definitely the wealthiest in D.C.”, adding, “It’s the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal.”  

The Guardian noted that AIPAC spent around $3.5 million on lobbying during the 2018 election cycle, and that pro-Israel lobby groups spent about $5 million in 2018 -the highest recorded amount since tracking began in 1998.

According to Tom Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, a candidate with AIPAC backing can raise in three telephone calls what his opponent would need 50,000 calls to raise. AIPAC’s influence is so pervasive that on leaving office, Ernest Hollings, a former Democratic Senator, claimed that “you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.”

The promotion of Zionist interests extends further than AIPAC. There are a host of organisations emanating from Jewish communities within the United States, as well as among non-Jews, including Christian Zionist bodies, who lobby on Israel’s behalf. As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt put it, the ‘Israel lobby’ is “a loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” So while the lobby is not a monolithic entity headed by a centralised leadership, the activities of AIPAC and others have ensured that the pro-Zionist lobby is arguably the most powerful influencing machine in Washington D.C.

Money of course plays a decisive role in ensuring influence within the American political system. The ‘pork-barrel’ culture of elected politicians being disposed to return favours to moneyed interests is long established. The way Huey Long, the celebrated governor of Louisiana and federal senator, put it was that officeholders are “dime a dozen punks”. Therefore, the  powerful lobbies, including those related to the right to bear arms, the pharmaceutical, the oil and military industry, are consistently taken to task in regard to the extent of the influence which they have over serving congressmen. However, Ilhan Omar’s comments provide useful evidence that the same cannot be said of the pro-Israel lobby.

Present electoral laws mean that all congressmen are cognisant of the need to secure the greatest amount of funding. Being outspent in an election may almost certainly lead to being outvoted and either losing one’s seat or failing to get elected. This correlation between money and election results, for long underplayed by social scientists, has been confirmed in studies carried out in recent decades. Thomas Ferguson, a political scientist and professor emeritus of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, has been providing empirical evidence on this matter since his book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition was published in 1995. In it, he argued that wealthy individuals and corporations strategically invest in political parties in anticipation of reaping tangible benefits.

Surveys conducted by Ferguson and his academic collaborators Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen in relation to elections from 1980 to 2012, establish a clear pattern: the party which outspends its competitor wins. It is no surprise that many members of the US Congress are the willing beneficiaries of money coming from pro-Israel donors.

But a crucial element of this narrative is that the Israel lobby funds candidates from both sides of the political divide. This win-win strategy, goes some way in explaining the “year after year, decade after decade” bipartisan support for Israel alluded to by Netanyahu in his speech before Congress in 2015.

The history of pro-Zionist leverage over members of Congress and the presidency is not often remarked upon by mainstream political scientists and historians. Yet, since the creation of the State of Israel, this lobby has always ensured that it has had a ‘linkman’ in the White House. David Niles fulfilled this role during the administration of Harry Truman, a part which was performed by Maxwell Rabb during the Eisenhower years. Myer Feldman was in place during the successive administrations led by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and it is a trend which has been continued in recent times by the appointment by Donald Trump of his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Successive presidents have had to grapple with the decidedly aggressive methods used by the Zionist lobby during the electoral process and when they are ensconced in office. President John F. Kennedy was treated with great suspicion by Zionist lobby groups. His father, the former ambassador to the Court of St. James, had been considered anti-Semitic because of his isolationist stance which was informed to a large degree by his belief that Jewish groups campaigned to push the United States into an ‘unnecessary’ war with Germany.

Unlike his younger brother Robert, who was viewed as philo-Semitic and a life-long advocate of the Jewish state, Kennedy’s support for Algerian independence was frowned upon by Israel, whose prime minister, David Ben Gurion, expressed his implacable opposition to the idea. Kennedy’s private opposition to Israel’s development of a nuclear capability would later set him on a collision course with Ben Gurion.

Although the son of a very wealthy businessman, Kennedy, like all politicians needed to raise campaign money, in his case for his presidential run, as well as for the general benefit of the Democratic Party. Only the second Catholic to run for the presidency, Kennedy’s campaign ran into difficulties on a number of occasions. One instance of difficulty led to a remarkable episode involving a meeting with about 20 prominent Jewish businessmen and financiers. It was arranged by Abraham Ribicoff, the governor of Connecticut, and took place at a hotel apartment rented by the businessman Abe Feinberg, the man credited with saving Harry Truman’s 1948 presidential run from ruin by organising a ‘whistle-stop’ fundraising tour.

At the meeting, Kennedy was carefully scrutinised by his potential benefactors who raised the issue of his father’s negative legacy among many Jews. In fact, at one point, the accusation that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” was thrown at him. The group agreed to make an initial contribution of $500,000 with more to come. But, crucially, there were strings attached. This related to the policy that Kennedy would pursue in the Middle East if he won.

These details are missing from Feinberg’s recollections. While Feinberg claimed that Kennedy’s voice broke with emotion when expressing his gratitude while speaking to him by phone soon after the meeting, the newspaper columnist and JFK confidant, Charles C. Bartlett recalled a different reaction by Kennedy. “As an American citizen,” Bartlett recalled, “he was outraged to have a Zionist group come to him and say: “We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.”

“They wanted control”, Kennedy angrily told Bartlett.

This experience convinced Kennedy that the way forward was to reform the manner in which campaign monies were raised, and during his first year in office, he established a bipartisan commission to investigate the means by which “the financial base of our presidential campaigns” could be broadened. He would go on the record to criticize the method of campaign financing as “highly undesirable” and “not healthy” because it made candidates “dependent on large financial contributions of those with special interests.”

When in office, meeting the demands of the lobby and confronting Israel are activities which have taxed America’s presidents. Conscious of the power it wields in terms of the finances the lobby can raise for the political parties to which they belong, many presidents appear to be cowed into seriously challenging Israel to make fundamental shifts towards reaching a settlement with the Palestinians. Alan Hart, the late English journalist who closely covered the Israel-Palestine conflict, said that President Jimmy Carter had revealed to him that an American president has “only two windows of opportunity to confront the Zionist lobby: the first nine months of his first term because after that the fund raising for mid-term elections begins, and the last year of his second term if he has one.”

The power of the pro-Zionist lobby in the United States political system is one which can be objectively ascertained under each and every presidential administration since the Truman era. It is a phenomenon which was acknowledged by Binyamin Netanyahu himself when in a 2001 video, he was heard remarking:

I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.

Each American president has been moved “in the right direction” through pressure applied by the lobby on a range of critical issues including those related to Palestinian refugees, Israeli nuclear capability and the colonisation of occupied Palestinian territories through the construction of Jewish settlements.

A useful starting point would be to recall that Truman’s initial doubts over recognising Israel because of his belief that religion and state should not be joined were, as author John Judis’ book Genesis: Truman, American Jews and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict makes clear, overcome by pro-Zionist pressure; mainly through the offer of $100,000 campaign funds by donors Abe Feinberg and Ed Kaufmann. That was enough for Truman to overcome his misgivings over the Israeli policy of denying Palestinian refugees the right of return, as well as to break the promise given by his predecessor to the Saudis not to recognise a Jewish state.

Even Kennedy, who had battled Ben Gurion over Israel’s desire to acquire a military nuclear capability, reversed the policy of the Eisenhower administration relating to the repatriation of Arab refugees and the diversion of the Jordan River waters. Lyndon Johnson, a beneficiary of Zionist money from the time of his entry into Congress, repressed intelligence reports detailing Israeli’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He also ensured that the deliberate and fatal Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was subjected to an official US government cover-up. Johnson’s dependence on lobby funding, as well as his closeness to Arthur and Mathilde Krim, two Israel lobbyists, ensured that he would be the most pro-Israel American president until Donald Trump.

Jimmy Carter’s attempts to prevent the expansion of Israeli settlements into occupied Palestinian land led to what Stu Eizenstat, a US diplomat, has referred to as a “painful experience”. It played a part in pro-Israel lobby money going to Senator Edward Kennedy’s primary challenge which damaged Carter. Kennedy was in the good books of the lobby given his hardline stance on behalf of Soviet Jewish Refuseniks.

This was in contrast to their view on Carter who earned their ire when without consulting American Jewish groups, he announced a summit on the Middle East with the Soviet Union. According to Eizenstat, “The American Jewish leadership went into open war against the president in ways rarely seen before or since.” It was a crisis that Eizenstat claims was orchestrated by Moshe Dayan, the former military leader, who was serving as Israel’s foreign minister. In October 1977, Dayan staged a brazen intervention in a manner only possible because of the power of the American pro-Zionist lobby. As Eizenstat wrote:

This was an amazing intrusion into domestic politics by a foreign minister; even from a friendly country. But it had been clearly based on Israel’s assiduous cultivation of American Jewish groups and Congress, and left no doubt how closely Middle East policy is intertwined with domestic politics.

Like Jimmy Carter, President George H. Bush opposed the expansion of Israeli settlements, and like Carter ended up serving a one-term presidency which some argue was brought about by the enmity his policy generated in the Israel lobby which, in the case of Bush, raised more money for his rival during the 1992 elections. The recollections of the journalist Tom Friedman, and David Steiner, a former AIPAC president, support this thesis.

It is hardly surprising therefore that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did not oppose Israeli settlements even though the United States officially accepted it as being against international law and inherently subverting of any meaningful peace process. And while Obama briefly insisted that settlements be halted, he was ignored by Israel who, through the efforts of its lobby, received the largest ever aid package from any president. The reason why “a more assertive policy toward Israel” never evolved under the Obama administration was according to Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national-security adviser to Obama, because “the Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped by the (Jewish) donor class.”

The lesson learned by US presidents who stand in opposition to any issue considered of vital interest to Israel is perhaps best illustrated by Steiner’s recollection of a reflective Bush Snr. standing outside the White House and saying:

I’m one lonely man standing up against the Israel lobby.

Accusations of Anti-Semitism

“It’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe someone is criticising Israel, we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country (the United States) people are criticising Israel then they are anti-Semitic.”

- Shulamit Aloni, Israeli politician speaking to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, August 14, 2002.

Ilhan Omar’s comments referring to Congressional support for Israel as being fuelled by campaign donations met with a series of condemnations from both major political parties. For instance, Juan Vargas, a Democrat, tweeted on March 4 that Omar was perpetuating “hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community”, adding that “questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable.” Ted Deutch, another Democrat accused Omar of invoking “the classic anti-Semitic tropes (and) anti-Semitic language that Jews control the world, that Jews only care about money, that Jews cannot be loyal Americans if they also support Israel”.

Other pro-Zionist activists have followed a contrived modus operandi of not grappling with specific evidence related to Zionist or Jewish use of monies in seeking political influence, preferring to lecture all through the media on the dark history of anti-Semitism. Alan Dershowitz alluded to an ideological-based rationale in his analysis, telling Chris Salcedo on his Newsmax TV show broadcast on March 6th, that:

Historically, anti-Semitism has come much more from the right than from the left. The phenomenon of left-wing anti-Semitism is relatively new in our country, although historically in the world, the hard left has always been anti-Semitic going back to Marx and Voltaire.

Melanie Phillips, a neoconservative British Jew, wrote that:

Anti-Semitism currently comes from four groups: the left, the Islamic world, neo-Nazis and, in the United States, radicalized African-Americans.

The allegation of anti-Semitism forms a recurring theme against anyone who questions the power of the pro-Israel lobby. Yet when links are made between money and the activities of other powerful lobby groups, a similar accusation is not levelled.

So, absent from their discourse is any acknowledgement of the preponderance of ‘Jewish money’ in the American electoral process. For example, a 2016 study conducted under the auspices of the Ruderman Family Foundation’s Program for American Jewish Studies at the University of Haifa, found that Jewish donors contributed 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party. And while Jews have traditionally voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, Jews accounted for 25% of the Republican National Convention.

Also ignored are donations made to the major American political parties by Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. Both men, billionaires with deep connections to Israel, have made massive contributions to the coffers to the Democratic and Republican parties; Saban to the former and Adelson to the latter.

Saban himself once set out the three ways to be influential in American politics. These he outlined as making donations to political parties, establishing think-tanks and controlling media outlets. The defensive posturing of those who claim that pointing these facts out are anti-Semitic because they allude to the sort of quest for control and domination attributed to Jews in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one frequently utilised. Yet this was the analogy used by the late Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, who in his Gush Shalom blog accused Adelson, a casino magnate, of acting like a figure “straight out of the pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Avnery was alluding to an event which occurred in March 2014. As part of what several mainstream media outlets referred to as the “Sheldon Adelson Primary”, Adelson summoned four Republican politicians hopeful of running for the party’s nomination in order to make a decision as to which candidate he would offer financial backing. All four, including Jeb Bush and Chris Christie were present or former serving state governors. What followed Avnery described as “a shameless exhibition” during which “the politicians grovelled before the casino lord.”

It is seemingly verboten for anyone to comment on the fact that Jewish individuals and organisations donate significant amounts of money in the pursuit of political objectives. But they are occasionally uttered. Retired General Wesley Clark was on the receiving end of harsh criticism when in January 2007, he claimed that “New York money people” were pushing the United States into war with Iran. “The phrase ‘New York money people’ struck unpleasant chords with many pro-Israel activists,” noted the Forward, an online Jewish news site. “They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates.”

That same year, when being interviewed on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! program, Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, reacting in disgust at the fact that leading members of the Democratic Party were joining the Republicans in creating the conditions for a US military attack on Iran, made the following claim as to what was stimulating the shift:

Money. A lot of Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of -right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it.

Donald Trump, himself accused of using anti-Semitic tropes during his campaign, sought to draw attention to the issue in order to win over the white identitarian vote during his presidential campaign. Speaking before the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum in December 2015, Trump matter-of-factly told potential Jewish donors, “I know that you don’t like me because I don’t want your money,” adding “you want to control your own politician”.

Trump, whom the supposedly left-leaning Dershowitz supports for his extremely pro-Israel stance, was also accused of playing towards anti-Semitic sentiment by tweeting an image of Hillary Clinton superimposed on a background of wads of dollar notes accompanied by a modified ‘Star of David’ which was captioned: “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” It was a not unsubtle assertion that Clinton was being backed by ‘Jewish money’.

His diatribes against his competitors in the Republican primaries were couched in similar terms. “Goldman Sachs own him. Remember that!” he railed about Ted Cruz, and of Marco Rubio, Trump claimed Sheldon Adelson would mould him into his “perfect little puppet.”

Yet Trump himself was the direct and indirect beneficiary of donations made by Adelson and has proceeded to act, his detractors would claim, like Adelson’s “puppet”. Adelson donated nearly $83 million to the Republicans in the 2016 election. $20 million of this is said to have gone to a political action committee that supported Trump’s campaign in exchange for Trump’s promise to prioritise moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a promise that came to fruition in May 2018.

Despite all of this, Trump, whose inauguration fund received a $5 million contribution from Adelson, saw fit to call for Omar’s resignation from Congress, or failing that, her resignation from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As if to prove the point they are at pains to deny, it appears that like Trump, pro-Israel funding may have influenced the negative responses to Omar’s comments made by her colleagues in the Democratic Party.

The Guardian newspaper noted on March 9th that “House Democratic leaders who drafted a resolution initially aimed at condemning Omar’s remarks received millions from the pro-Israel lobby throughout their congressional careers.” The article also mentioned that Congressman Eliot Engel, who accused Omar of using “a vile anti-Semitic slur”, has taken “about $1.07 million throughout his career, or about $107,000 per election.” Cory Booker, a senator who described Omar’s comments as “disturbing” received $445,000 during his sole campaign for the senate, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who said that criticisms of Israel should be made “without employing anti-Semitic tropes about money or influence”, has received $367,000, or $91,750 per campaign.

The Guardian article explains that the federal election records available at the website run by the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets dot Org) suggest a correlation between the receipt or non-receipt of pro-Israel lobby money and the politician’s position on the Omar controversy:

Those candidates who have taken little money from the lobby defended Omar, while those who received money criticized her, or were quiet on the issue.

Given the reliance of politicians on financial donations, it is only logical to examine whether their attitudes, the policies they support, and the issues for which they vote are influenced by the political objectives of their sponsors.

The reactions of many of Omar’s accusers including the aforementioned Ted Deutch, included the tactic of attributing words to Omar which she never uttered. Omar’s words, which simply stated that support of Israel by Congress is fuelled by campaign donations from the Israel lobby, cannot be objectively ascertained as “anti-Semitic” in nature. They appear to be reflexive responses that attempt to pre-empt inquiry into a further, extremely delicate issue.

The sensitivity generated by any scrutiny of the Zionist lobby is inextricably woven into the reluctance to acknowledge Jewish power and influence; something which Alan Dershowitz has spoken of, and in regard to which he has asserted that Jews should “never apologize” for utilising their strength, in his words, “for peace.”

Unfortunately Dershowitz’s assumption fails to comprehend that the means and the methods by which such power is utilised do not always conform to moral and ethical standards.

The tactic of smearing those who disapprove of Political Zionism and its promoters has a lengthy history which predates the establishment of Israel. Their respective opposition to the partition of Palestine earned General George Marshall and James Forrestal, both appointees during the administration of President Harry Truman, the label of ‘anti-Semite’.

Prior to this, Brigadier-General Patrick J. Hurley, President Franklin Roosevelt’s special envoy to the Middle East who had opposed Zionist ambitions in Palestine, was subjected to a campaign of smears and innuendo aimed at destroying his influence on the president, as well as terminating his career as a statesman. As with Forrestal, the smears were conducted on several fronts in public and private. In the public realm, both men were targeted by the Zionist-friendly Drew Pearson, an influential columnist who was prone to manipulating the truth.

A wounded and irate Hurley wrote the following to Roosevelt on August 20th 1943:

From Mr. Pearson’s column and from the Washington Daily News of August 19th, I notice that certain Congressmen and Senators, especially Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York, have made various false charges against me, all I presume, based on the Pearson falsehood. In addition to all that, they threaten me with a Congressional investigation. Besides that which is appearing in the press, I am receiving letters from Zionist Jews. Every one of these contains an attack or at least language that is intimidating. I am being baited by the Jews.

A recurring counterpart to the strategy of smearing perceived opponents through intimidation and character assassination is to threaten to withdraw electoral support. Thus, when Truman appeared to be prevaricating over whether to support the proposed partition of Palestine, he was threatened with the cessation of campaign donations. The president also received hate mail, with one letter accusing him of “preferring fascist and Arab elements to the democracy-loving Jewish people of Palestine.”

This modus operandi was put to full effect in the aftermath of the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli air and naval power during the Six Day War of 1967. In order to ensure a cover-up and minimal investigation into the 34 dead and 174 wounded crew, President Lyndon Johnson was pressured by the threat of an accusation of ‘blood libel’ and a refusal by Jewish organisations to fund his election campaign if he chose to run for re-election the following year.

Shulamit Aloni, an Israeli politician, explained in 2002 that the charge of anti-Semitism was strategically used against those who spoke out against Israel; anti-Semitism, according to Victor Ostrovsky, a renegade member of Mossad, being the “one stain you cannot wash (away)”.

Ostrovsky revealed that while in the service of Israel’s foreign intelligence bureau, he had himself been involved in launching smear campaigns against those who posed inconvenient questions about Israeli policy. For instance, one person who was very critical of Israel’s brutal invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s was dealt with using the following modus operandi:

So what you do is you get in touch with the guy in the station in New York or in the station in Washington and say, “Tell the guys at B’Nai B’rith to ‘label him’. And of course the campaign starts and before you know it the guy is ‘labelled’. And he’s an ‘anti-Semite because that’s what we say he is. And that’s one stain you cannot wash. Now it shames me as a Jew to tell you that, but that’s the fact, and it’s wrong.

The fact that an official of the Israeli embassy was filmed in 2016 discussing ‘taking down’ a British political figure who is a critic of Israel, has invited a not unreasonable assumption on the part of some that a similar campaign is being presently orchestrated against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party in Britain. Corbyn, a life-long supporter of anti-racism, has been targeted because of his criticism of the State of Israel and his stance on Palestinian rights.

Those who support Palestinian rights are targeted for denunciation and harassment by pro-Israel groups like Canary Mission, a website established in 2014 for the purpose of compiling an online dossier of activists, professors and organisations primarily associated with universities in North America. While its operators conduct their operations in secrecy, their efforts at blacklisting, which can stymie careers and obstruct employment opportunities for former students, has led to some being compelled to write anonymous confessions where they repent for having being ‘led astray’ in return for being removed from the list. It is a strategy which is redolent of the methods employed during the era of McCarthyism.

But the policy of smearing those who go against the interests of Israel is one which has the effect of stymieing debate and historical inquiry. It also exposes its perpetrators as defamers whose actions devalue the meaning of anti-Semitism and ultimately serves to undermine the case for Israel.

Dual Loyalty

“I am not Israeli. The uniform that I wore in the military, unfortunately, was not an Israeli uniform. It was an American uniform … All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.”

- Sheldon Adelson, Casino magnate who is the biggest donor to the Republican Party.

In a letter dated March 4th 2019 and addressed to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, charged that Ilhan Omar’s comments about “political influence” allowing for “people to push for allegiance to another country” had effectively accused Jews of “having allegiance to a foreign government”.  It was a charge of ‘dual loyalty’ which Greenblatt continued “has long been a vile anti-Semitic slur that has been used to harass, marginalize, and persecute the Jewish people for centuries.”

The charge of ‘dual loyalty’ against Jews is one that predates the establishment of the State of Israel and the germination and entrenchment in the American political system of the pro-Israel lobby. It is rooted in the age old suspicion of Jews as a scattered people living within ‘host’ nations which were predominantly either Christian or Muslim. Although belonging to an Abrahamic faith that is the root of Christian and Muslim religions, their rejection of Christ and refusal to accept the Muslim prophet, meant that their loyalty to the nations within which they resided was constantly questioned. Jews were in the popular imagination ‘a nation within a nation’.

Accusations of ‘dual loyalty’ continued in the post-Medieval world where the idea of the “International Jew” who was loyal not to his country of birth or residence, but to the mutually shared interests of members of his tribe who lived beyond the borders of his ‘nominal’ country took hold. It was commonly used when referring to the powerful Jewish banking houses of Europe, most notably those owned by the Rothschild family.

The spectre of Jewish dual loyalty became a recurring theme during the mid-20th century during the ideological struggle between the West and the Soviet Union. The overrepresentation of Jews in Communist parties and the popularity of Marxism among large swathes of Jewish communities was reflected in the number of American Jews who spied for the Soviet Union. George Koval, Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass and most notorious of all, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were all involved in passing on atomic secrets related to the Manhattan Project.

And the transformation in terms of widespread loyalty among many Western Jews from international communism to that of Political Zionism, a form of Jewish nationalism, created another route through which Jewish loyalty could be questioned. It was not only the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who thought that the formation of the State of Israel posed a threat to the loyalty of that country’s Jewish population, questions began to be raised in the United States even before the birth of Israel. Among those who thought the issue of double loyalty a legitimate one was the Jewish American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt who predicted the rise of the Israel lobby in her 1944 essay “Zionism Reconsidered”.

Arendt based her belief on the grounds that since the Zionist state was to be created by force of arms, without the consent of surrounding Arab populations, it would compel American Jews to be “the lobbies” for what would be an embattled Jewish state. The double loyalty issue she warned would be an “unavoidable one”:

Here enters the double-loyalty conflict, never clearly answered, which is an unavoidable problem of every national movement of a people living within the boundaries of other states and unwilling to resign their civil and political rights therein…

Arendt was not the only one to predict the rise of the lobby. On March 31st 1948, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States presented a paper entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine”, part of which read as follows:

Zionist strategy will seek to involve (the United States) in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.

The import of this was that America’s most important military commanders were of the opinion that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would adversely affect the strategic interests of the United States in “the Near and Middle East” and that Zionists would lobby the American government to pursue actions and policies that would not be in the country’s interests. This was clearly the opinion of General George Marshall, a Chief of Army Staff, who later as Secretary of State clashed with President Harry Truman over US recognition of Israel.

Other statesmen such as James Forrestal, for a time the Secretary of Defense under Truman, voiced their opposition to the partition of Palestine. Again, the reasoning like Marshall’s was based on American national security and economic interests.

These early objections make clear what for many is a buried issue today: that the national interests of the United States can never always be the same as that of another state, in this case, Israel. Further, that the lobby which predictably was created, and which has endured as a powerful force within the American political system, is one that is effectively acting in the service of a foreign power.

Figures in both administrations led by Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy understood this and demanded that leaders of the American Zionist Council, the precursor to AIPAC, register with the US Justice Department as agents of a foreign government.

Perhaps the last senior serving American political figure to speak about this was Senator William Fullbright, who was a chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Fullbright worked hard to get the Zionist Organisation of America registered under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This legislation provides that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a “political or quasi-political capacity” should provide disclosure of the activities and finances which transpire from the relationship.

Of particular concern to Fullbright was the role played by the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency in funding a range of initiatives through miscellaneous “conduits”. These conduits included organisations such as the American Zionist Council and individuals like Isaiah Kenen, the founder of AIPAC. Fullbright and his senate committee discovered that the Jewish Agency, which had been required to file periodic declarations related to FARA, was covertly funding pro-Israel media campaigns designed to influence the US government, as well as lobbyists such as Kenen, all of which was not being disclosed in FARA filings as stipulated by law.

The danger of the sort of ‘dual loyalty’ envisage by Hannah Arendt is one which potentially arises with those associated with the Israel lobby including non-Jews. Public utterances of this potential conflict of loyalties has diminished over the decades in the United States. The trial, conviction and imprisonment of Jonathan Pollard provided one example of the topic being brought up and publicly debated, but there have been many examples of how the pro-Zionist lobby including AIPAC itself, has facilitated spying on the United States through civil servants and public officials.

Espionage under the auspices of the pro-Zionist lobby and the passing of sensitive information to Israel has even involved high-ranking American politicians. While in a different era the Jewish congressman, Samuel Dickstein was persuaded to spy for the Soviet Union, the authors Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon revealed that the late Republican Senator John Tower was recruited to acquire for Israel, top-secret, cutting-edge American technology that was being developed at Los Alamos. Some politicians such as the congressman Charlie Wilson have been directly handled by Mossad. In the case of Wilson, Zvi Rafiah, Mossad’s station chief in Washington, is claimed by the late writer George Crile in his book Charlie Wilson’s War to have “always acted as if he owned Wilson’s office”.

The use by AIPAC of its own officials to conduct espionage against the United States and the role played by elected American politicians in facilitating or covering up such activities was revealed in indictments brought in 2005 against Steven Rosen, a former foreign policy director of the organisation, and Keith Weissman, Rosen’s assistant and former AIPAC Iran specialist. Rosen was charged with two counts of conspiracy to communicate classified information to a foreign power, while Weismann was charged with a single count.

The foreign power was Israel, and three officials who Rosen and Weisman were dealing with were referred to in the indictment. The most prominent one was later identified in the media as Naor Gilon, the chief political officer of the Israeli embassy who was later recalled by Tel Aviv.

Although the charges were eventually dropped without a plea bargain, and both men later fired by AIPAC, the man who passed on the information to Rosen and Weissman, an employee of the Department of Defense named Lawrence Franklin, was convicted of espionage related charges under the Espionage Act (1917) and sentenced to almost 12 years and 7 months imprisonment, which was later reduced to ten months’ house arrest and 100 hours of community service.

The indictment against Franklin, whose sharp reduction in legal penalty was related to the decision not to prosecute Rosen and Weissman, revealed that the investigation had been ongoing since 1999. It also suggested that other individuals at AIPAC, the Defense Department and the Israeli embassy had been involved. The indictment alleged that Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst who worked at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and who was the director of research at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, had provided information to Rosen and Weissmann. The case against Pollack was dropped in April 2009.

In December 2004, FBI agents entered AIPAC’s offices and seized computer equipment and files belonging to its senior officials who they suspected of being intermediaries between Franklin and Israel. Charges were not brought and both AIPAC and Israel denied the allegations; the former claiming that they were “baseless and false” and the latter that they were “completely false and outrageous”.

AIPAC’s refutation of the allegations were contradicted some years later by Rosen in court documents filed in a $20 million defamation suit against the lobby group in 2010. In it, Rosen maintained that AIPAC staffers routinely trafficked classified information to Israel and others when relevant. It should also be noted that members of AIPAC supported Rosen and Weissman during the period they were under indictment.

The strenuous denial of espionage by the Israeli state rang hollow to those who recalled Israel’s 13-year long claim that Jonathan Pollard had not spied on its behalf before it admitted complicity. The Franklin scandal was, some believe, part of a wider investigation into the transfer of sensitive military and dual-use technologies to Israel, including powerful case-management software.

Jim Lobe, a veteran journalist, wrote of concerns about Israeli companies re-selling sensitive American developed technology to rival powers such as Russia and China. This somewhat mirrors the claims by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon that Robert Maxwell, the Czech-born Jewish media magnate and former British Labour Party Member of Parliament, had been a high-placed Israeli spy who sold PROMIS, an American-developed state-of-the-art surveillance software stolen by Mossad, to many countries including the Soviet Union. The same scenario, of US technology being transferred to unauthorised foreign powers pervades the Pollard scandal.

The scandal surrounding AIPAC ‘s Rosen and Weissman did not end with Franklin’s conviction. Both men had to wait until May 2009 before the threat of indictment was lifted. But a number of intrigues which occurred behind the scenes provide further evidence of the Zionist lobby’s ability to exert pressure on the governmental apparatus of the United States through the issuing of threats and the offering of inducements. It has also consistently demonstrated a skill at suborning legislators or otherwise getting them to work in the interests of Israel. The former Congresswoman, Jane Harman, who throughout her career was heavily funded by AIPAC, provides such an example.

In 2006 and again in 2009, National Security Agency (NSA) wiretaps captured Harman telling an Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce the espionage-related charges against Rosen and Weissman in consideration of which the agent would help lobby for Harman to become chair of the House Intelligence Committee. At the end of one of the meetings, Harman reportedly said: “This conversation does not exist.”

In 2006, the New York Times reported that Haim Saban, the wealthy pro-Israel Democratic Party donor, had made an attempt to get Harman the chair of the -committee and threatened to withdraw all financial support for Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives, unless Pelosi named Harman as chair. Harman, a long-term advocate for Israeli interests and a frequent speaker at AIPAC events, was investigated by the Justice Department after the NSA handed it tapes of her conversation with the Israeli agent. However, the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales decided not to continue with the investigation. While Harman eluded potential prosecution for activities, it says quite a lot about the power of the lobby that her name would later be mentioned as a possible replacement for General David Petraeus as the director of the CIA.

The pro-Zionist lobby has also worked behind the scenes to have Lawrence Franklin pardoned. In 2017, it came to light that two California congressmen, Dana Rohrabacher and Juan Vargas, the former a Republican and the latter as Democrat, had secretly pressed the outgoing President Barack Obama to pardon Franklin.

This effort came to nothing.

It would be remiss not to note also that four of the leading Jewish neoconservative figures in the United States who have held influential positions in the government have faced accusations in the past of illegally providing classified information to Israel. They are Richard Perle, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

In Perle’s case, FBI wiretaps captured the future Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs discussing classified information with an official of the Israeli embassy in 1970. Bryen, who would serve as Perle’s deputy at the Department of Defense, was in 1979 overheard offering classified documents to a staff member of the Israeli embassy. A Senate Foreign Relations staff member at the time, he narrowly avoided indictment. In 1982, Feith was fired from the National Security Council after falling under suspicion of passing confidential documents to the Israeli embassy. But he was speedily re-hired by Perle at the Pentagon. Paul Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 over allegations that he has provided a classified document to the Israeli embassy under the auspices of AIPAC and in 2004, the Washington Post, reported that Wolfowitz (along with Feith, David Wurmser and Harold Rhode) had been questioned by FBI counterintelligence about the passing of classified information to AIPAC.

None was prosecuted.

Yet each man was in the future permitted to hold sensitive positions in government, and in the case of Wolfowitz and Feith, both were able to create an ad hoc office within the Pentagon. This entity, named the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was given the responsibility for sending raw intelligence data pertaining to Iraq directly to senior officials of the administration of George W. Bush. However, the OSP, which existed between September 2002 and June 2003, was accused of working towards the neoconservative agenda of creating a justification for a war against Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, while according to Seymour Hersh, the CIA, was working towards disproving a “linkage between Iraq and terrorism”.

That the secular regime of Saddam was unlikely to have had associations with Islamist organisations of the sort that are claimed to have perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11, would have been apparent even to the casual observer of the situation. Yet, the destruction of Iraq, a top priority for the State of Israel, meant that the OSP contributed to the illegal war which followed. Feith’s operation with the OSP included facilitating a relationship with a parallel organisation within the office of Ariel Sharon, the then Israeli prime minister, with the objective of bypassing Mossad in order to filter Israeli-originated intelligence on Iraq to the Bush White House which Mossad was not prepared to authorise.

Yet, mainstream charges of what should have been a prima facie case of the ‘dual loyalty’ of Jewish neoconservative ideologues possessing an especial focus on the interests of Israel were barely existent.

On this issue, recourse often has to be made to the Israeli press to obtain a frank set of facts and accompanying analysis. For instance, the manner in which Jewish members of the neoconservative movement straddle a terrain where on the one hand, they serve as members of think-tanks through which they lobby government, and on the other, as government appointees who are involved in implementing policy. The consistent objective of these roles is to best serve the interests of Israel.

In a 2002 article for Ha’aretz entitled “Perles of Wisdom for the Feithful”, Akiva Eldar, examined the role played by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith with the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, which had offices in Washington and Jerusalem. It noted that Perle and his colleagues used one position paper to provide Binyamin Netanyahu with specific ideas for speeches, as well as advice on how to foresee and best manage American reactions.

“The two Jewish experts (meaning Perle and Feith)”, Elder opined, “are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.”

‘Dual loyalty’ among certain American Jews was a present but publically unknown factor at the time of the crisis caused by Israel’s destruction of the USS Liberty in 1967. Recent research has revealed the existence of several high-placed moles who were close to President Johnson and used by Israel as informants. One was Abe Feinberg, the earlier mentioned key fundraiser for the Democratic Party, who was codenamed ‘Hamlet’. Another was Arthur Goldberg, ‘Menasche’, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. David Ginsberg, a high-profile Washington D.C.-based lawyer was ‘Harari’, while Abe Fortas, a Supreme Court justice, went by the moniker ‘Ilan’. Fortas had dinner with Johnson on the eve of the war.

Outside of the United States, the pro-Zionist lobby has an often unacknowledged formidable influence on the major political parties in countries such as Britain. In fact, Michael Mates, a veteran Conservative Party Member of Parliament once proclaimed the pro-Israel lobby to be “the most powerful political lobby. There’s nothing to touch them.”

The Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) are both parliamentary groups which are affiliated to the Conservative and Labour Parties. Described in 2013 by journalist Peter Oborne as “by far Britain’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group”, it was estimated four years earlier that approximately 80% of Conservative MPs were members of the CFI.

While each body has a range of goals including that of strengthen ties with their right- and left-wing mainstream ideological counterparts in Israel and combating anti-Semitism, the main objective of both CFI and LFI is to promote strong bilateral ties between Britain and Israel. In fact in 2003, the LFI described itself as “a Westminster based lobby group working within the British Labour Party to promote the State of Israel.” That Israel and its interests are paramount to this group has been made clear in recent times despite LFI’s rebranded appendage “For Israel, For Palestine, For Peace.” 

The Al Jazeera documentary, “The Lobby” which examined the workings of the Israel lobby in Britain recorded Shai Mascot, a staff member of the Israeli embassy plotting to take down British MPs who favour recognising a Palestinian state. One name mentioned by Mascot was Alan Duncan, a Conservative member of government who has been critical of Israel, likening its attitude towards Palestinians to that of Apartheid-era South Africa.

Such actions, which constitute a flagrant level of interference in the internal politics of Britain, would necessarily involve using not only Israeli assets in the media, but also those in the political sphere. The documentary caught a former LFI Chair, Joan Ryan discussing the receipt of $1 million from the Israeli embassy to fund a campaign to promote Israeli influence. The issue of Ryan working as an agent of a foreign government has never being made a point of serious discussion by the British mainstream press, which instead publicised her recent defection from the Labour Party as having being related to allegations of anti-Semitism within the party. Instead, Ryan’s former colleague, the Labour MP Ruth George was excoriated for suggesting that the “Independent Party” to which Ryan and other MPs have defected, may be funded by Israel.

As is the case with American legislators and members of government, the links between Israel and British MPs should be open to greater scrutiny, given the danger that they may objectively considered to serve the interests of a foreign nation and be made to act against the interests of their own countries. This was clearly at issue when Priti Patel, a Conservative Party MP, was forced to resign from her role as International development minister having had at least 12 meetings with Israeli officials which had been arranged by a Stuart Polak, a British Israeli lobbyist. She breached ministerial protocol by meeting Israeli ministers when British civil servants were not present.

In her resignation statement, Patel admitted that her actions “fell below the standards of transparency and openness” expected of ministers.

Patel’s meetings exposed how the promise of political funding serves as a means of bending the priorities of elected officials towards a pro-Israeli stance. A BBC News report of November 3rd 2017 noted that several ministers and MPs “accused Ms. Patel of trying to win favour with wealthy pro-Israeli Conservative donors who could fund a potential future leadership campaign.”

The Patel episode also showed how the government’s officially stated policy towards the Middle East is subverted in favour of Israel. On her return, Patel had suggested that some of Britain’s aid money should go to the Israeli Army operating in the Golan Heights. Apart from the fact that Britain officially considers the area to be illegally occupied territory and does not recognise Israel’s annexation of 1981, it was revealed during the Syrian conflict that Israel provided medical, financial and logistical aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels operating in the vicinity of the Golan Heights. Thus to provide what Patel couched as “humanitarian aid” would have provided an indirect means of aiding the ideological counterparts of a group held by Britain and the West to have been responsible for the 9/11 attack, as well as other outrages in Western Europe including the London bombings of 2005.

The question of the perversion of loyalties by the pro-Israel lobby is thus not only an issue that is confined to those of Jewish heritage, it is a more expansive one involving the potential corruption of public officials by powerful and influential groups with an international reach.

Such reach extends to other countries such as France where the Conseil Representatif des Institutions juives de France (CRIF), an umbrella organisation of French interest groups wields a great deal of political influence. It is also where Bernard-Henri Levy, a media intellectual, claimed credit for persuading President Nicholas Sarkozy’s decision to attack Libya. Speaking before a national convention of the CRIF in November 2011, he said, “It is as a Jew that I participated in the political adventure in Libya. I would not have done it had I not been Jewish. I wore my flag in fidelity to my name and my loyalty to Zionism and Israel.”

The notion of ‘dual loyalty’ among Jews endures not least because of a tendency to conflate Diaspora Jews with Israelis, as well as merging the interests of the Jewish state of Israel with Jews around the world. This tendency is not restricted to some anti-Zionists, but also applies to those with pro-Israel views. For instance, in early April 2019, as he attempted to make political capital out of the Ilhan Omar controversy, Donald Trump, while speaking before a gathering of Republic Jewish groups in Las Vegas, referred to Binyamin Netanyahu as “your prime minister”. Trump’s precise words were:

I stood with your prime minister at the White House to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

His follow up comment that the Democrats “very well could leave Israel out there all by yourselves” merely confirmed his assumptions. Not surprisingly, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) tweeted that Trump’s statement could “feed bigotry”.

The charge of ‘dual loyalty’ is of course not historically limited to Jews. Adherents to the Roman Catholic faith were often subjected to the accusation that their first loyalty was to the Pope. It was a significant obstacle to surmount for those who sought to be elected outside of their ethnic bastions in a Protestant-dominated America. But increasing secularization and John Kennedy’s presidential victory in 1960 have contributed to making it a non-issue in contemporary times.

However it continues to be a live one for American Jews because of Israel, a foreign state which Zionist lobbyists consistently argue has interests that are identical to those of the United States. And although the term is resurrected from time to time, it is an old-fashioned expression which has been largely supplanted by the more contemporary ‘Israel Firster’.

The U.S.-Israeli Alliance - A Dark Side

“... This was an insane war that brought us low economically (and) morally. We went to war against a guy who had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. It was a total pretext. It’s inexplicable. And there you go to Cheney, there you go to Bush, there you go to the Jewish neocons who wanted to remake the world...”

- Carl Bernstein, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” programme, April 26th, 2013.

Critics of the US-Israel relationship cite a litany of flaws in the way it has been conducted over the decades. The apparent taboo regarding the criticism of Jews and of Jewish power has, they allege, operated to the detriment of American regional and global interests. They claim that the relationship is ‘one-sided’; that the United States does more for Israel than it gets in return. America, they argue, is seemingly forever shielding Israel from criticism; a country, they add, which places a financial burden like no other nation ever has.

So far as shielding Israel from criticism is concerned, they point not only to the numerous occasions when the United States has blocked motions relating to international condemnation for Israel’s actions, but also to the series of domestic legislations aimed at combating the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This has ramifications for freedom of speech. They also allege that that the privileges afforded to Zionist lobbies and lobbyists for Israel, as well as what they refer to as the “Jew Taboo” (the reluctance of the mainstream media to criticise Jewish individuals or Jewish groups), has meant that important decisions pertaining to America’s national security have been made to the country’s detriment. This includes decisions related to the United States taking military action.

In 2015, while making a speech defending the international agreement reached by the United States and other world powers with Iran over its development of nuclear power, President Barack Obama claimed that “many of the same people who argued for war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.” It was a not very veiled attack on the many pro-Israel groups led by AIPAC, which had sent hundreds of activists to lobby lawmakers on Capitol Hill to reject an about to be voted on bill on the nuclear deal in Congress.

Obama’s accusation, repeated by him on several occasions, led to expressions of concern by several American Jewish organisations that his rhetoric could lead to a backlash against American Jews who are sensitive to suggestions of warmongering or placing ties to Israel over the interests of the United States.

The charge of being warmongers is of course one which Jews have been especially sensitive about. It was made about both World Wars. In 1915, while the First World War was still raging, the industrialist John Ford blamed Jews for starting the war: “I know who caused the war,” Ford asserted, “German-Jewish bankers” (The American Zionist movement was instrumental in lobbying the US to enter the war as part of a bargain with the beleaguered British government which made a promise that led to the Balfour Declaration). And in the 1930s prior to World War 2, many figures associated with the initially prevailing public sentiment of Isolationism made repeated claims that Jewish groups were lobbying for American intervention in the war being fought by the European powers. They included individuals such as Father Charles Coughlin and Joseph Kennedy. The anti-war America First movement boasted the celebrity aviator, Charles Lindbergh as a chief advocate.

But Obama’s claim was not without evidence.

In an article entitled “White Man’s Burden” published in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz in April 2003, Ari Shavit claimed that the war in Iraq was “conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.” Among the instigators named by Shavit –in his words “a partial list”- were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams and Charles Krauthammer. So crucial were these group in instigating the war that Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, claimed that had 25 of them been exiled on a desert island a year and a half previously, “the Iraq war would not have happened.”

Friedman was also quoted as saying the following in the article:

It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11th came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite.

It was an analysis which was alluded to by the journalist Carl Bernstein on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show in 2013. Bernstein opined that “Jewish neocons who wanted to remake the world” had played a part alongside George Bush and Richard Cheney in launching the war. His reference to the war as having been based on a “total pretext” given that the secular Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sunni Islamist ideology motivating the al-Qaeda cell which was claimed to have been behind the attacks of 9/11 was borne out by the recollections of General Wesley Clark who revealed that former colleagues in the Pentagon had alerted him to the existence of a memorandum detailing how the United States was going to “take out seven countries in five years”. This list included the secular states of Iraq, Syria and Libya, as well as the Shi’ite nation of Iran, none of which had links to al-Qaeda, but all of which were implacable foes of Israel.

The creation of the earlier mentioned Office for Special Plans was criticised for its neoconservative agenda. Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer, told the Scottish Sunday Herald in June 2003 that the OSP was “dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. It lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda for removing Saddam. It’s a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence and support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.”

While the OSP was disbanded in the month Johnson’s interview was published, another similar entity, the Iranian Directorate, was created in 2006 to perform what appears to many to be a similar task in fomenting conflict with Iran. It is staffed by persons who are neoconservative in outlook including Abram Shulsky and Reuel Marc Gerecht.

The neoconservative agenda is one which clearly supports the idea of American interventionism with a special focus on the Middle East and the security goals of the State of Israel. It was the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which earmarked a course for taking down governments in the Middle East who were hostile to Israel such as Syria and Iran.

Back in the 1990s, the country earmarked for destruction was Iraq because it came closest to offering a modicum of challenge to Israel’s undisputed hegemony. In January 1998, members of PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove “Saddam Hussein and his regime from power”. This plea was part of a sustained campaign by neoconservative think-tanks and pro-Israel lobby groups which bore fruit later that year in October with the passage by Congress of the Iraq Liberation Act which made it official US policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

It is important to note not only the virtually identical nature of the geopolitical policies constructed by American neoconservatives with those pursued by the Israeli state, but also at times that the same individuals may be involved in the preparation of ideas.

A useful starting point is to note that an overriding aim of Zionist thinking even before Israel’s birth was to balkanise the surrounding region. This initially was focussed on breaking up the Ottoman Empire, and after Israel’s birth, on splintering its neighbours for the purpose of weakening potentially powerful nation states as well as the acquisition of land. Thus in Israel’s early years, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan sought to split Lebanon along religious lines with the prize being the territory south of the River Litani.

The object of balkanisation and “rolling back” of enemy states as set out in the “Yinon Plan” of 1982 and the “Securing the Realm” paper of 1996 cohere with neoconservative-inspired papers such as those produced by PNAC and the scholar Bernard Lewis. Two PNAC members, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were prominent members of the “Clean Break” study team. Both men would also be among a sizeable number of members of PNAC (which was succeeded in 2009 by the now dissolved Foreign Policy Initiative) who became members of the administration of George W. Bush.

Thus, first as members of influential think-tanks who lobbied for military intervention, and later as members of an administration which went to war, the neoconservative ideologues, a large percentage of who have been of Jewish origin, had a decisive role in influencing America’s move towards militarism and its ill-judged, illegal intervention in Iraq for the benefit of the state of Israel.

References to the ‘neocons’ as being a vital driving engine, if not quite the sole instigators of the Iraq war, was taken not inaccurately as a codeword for “Jews”. And use of this codeword only served to underline what many privately considered to be an intolerable situation: the failure to comprehensively address the causes of the ill-fated intervention in Iraq, as well as subsequent interventions in Libya, Syria and the proposed war with Iran.

The pro-Israel lobby was aided in its effort to destroy Iraq not only by neoconservative ideologues in the Bush administration, but also by Jewish journalists such as Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman. And while most American Jews with their enduring Democratic Party affiliation and devotion to liberal causes -including miscellaneous peace movements- are not neoconservative, most appear to have followed the lead given by mainstream American Jewish groups who with near unanimity supported military action against Iraq. As Salon news reported in 2002, “If there’s a peace movement, it will have to get started without them.”

AIPAC, ever sensitive to the warmongering accusation, maintained an official non-committal position in regard to Iraq, preferring to support whatever path the Bush administration chose to take.

But there is evidence that it did in fact push for war.

For instance, in September 2002, Rebecca Needler, a spokeswoman for the group, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “if the president asks Congress to support action in Iraq, AIPAC would lobby members of Congress to support him.”

Needler spoke before Congress began considering the administration’s proposal for war. However, after authorisation had been granted by Congress, AIPAC’s executive director, Howard Kohr was reported by the New York Sun to have boasted of his organisation’s efforts in lobbying for war:

According to Mr. Kohr, AIPAC’s successes over the past year also include guaranteeing Israel’s annual aid package and ‘quietly’ lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq.

The pro-Israel lobby’s promotion of an attack on Iraq was not limited to the United States. In Britain, the other key participant in the invasion, Tam Dalyell, a British Labour Party member of Parliament grumbled at the time of the defeat of Saddam that “there is far too much Jewish influence in the United States”, and in a thinly veiled reference to Lord Michael Levy, the leading fundraiser of the Labour Party between 1994 and 2007, he added, “one over-influential Jew in Tony Blair’s entourage”. He claimed that Levy’s influence had been “very important on the prime minister and has led to what I see as this awful war and sack of Baghdad.” It was a situation which he insisted many Jews were “desperately unhappy about”.

The respective predictions made by Hannah Arendt and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 1940s would appear to have come to fruition. The belief by senior army officials that the “Zionist strategy” of involving the United States “in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations” on behalf the soon-to-be created state is one that can be largely vindicated.

What many mainstream historians and geopolitical analysts continually fail to comprehend, or at least to acknowledge, is that Israel possessed a long-term strategy aimed at getting the United States to be militarily involved in the Middle East. But to do this, it needed, with the help of pro-Zionist lobbies, to fundamentally alter perceptions of the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In other words, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people needed to be reframed from one predicated on the legitimate struggle of a people dispossessed of their land and denied the right to self-determination to one based on a clash of values; that is, of one between the values of the Western world as supposedly represented by ‘democratic’ Israel on the one hand, and values antithetical to the West as represented by Arab ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘fanaticism’.

Military intervention was posited as being necessarily on a global scale. This construct of what would come to be known as a ‘war on terror’ was promoted by the Jonathan Institute, a think-tank founded in 1976 and run by members of the Netanyahu family. The Jerusalem Conference of 1979, which was held under the auspices of the institute, represented a concerted effort aimed at re-shaping the mindset of American policymakers in order to make them amenable to staging pro-Israeli interventions in the Middle East on a scale which the papers produced by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had hinted at three decades earlier.

The institute published papers and Binyamin Netanyahu wrote books which sought to persuade the United States that Israel’s battles were America’s and that the United States should take the lead by ways and means including sending its military to fight in the Middle East.

It is through such standpoint that the policy to take down Iran has been formulated as one which Israel would not undertake by itself, but which has to involve the lead participation of the United States. This is why AIPAC and other pro-Zionist groups strenuously lobbied against the international agreement with Iran over nuclear production as such a deal effectively puts off the table, the possibility of American military action against Tehran.

The existential threat posed by Iran to Israel purportedly rests on Iran’s development of nuclear energy which it is claimed has inexorably led to a nuclear armaments programme. Yet, the irony is that it is Israel which introduced nuclear weapons into the region, a development which had been strenuously opposed by President Kennedy, but which since the time of Lyndon Johnson has been studiously ignored by each and every administration. Israel and its lobby pressure the United States government on Iran, a nation which is a signatory state to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its stricture, while Israel itself is not.

Israel’s acquisition of nuclear materials and technology has been shrouded in decades-long acts of criminality committed by its agents against the United States. This includes spying on American nuclear installations and the theft of nuclear materials which have been smuggled out of the country to aid Israel’s Dimona nuclear project.

Declassified Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) files identified Binyamin Netanyahu as a member of an Israeli smuggling ring which operated in the United States under the overseeing eye of Hollywood producer and long-time Israeli agent (for the now disbanded LAKAM), Arnon Milchan. Codenamed Project Pinto, this enterprise involved a network of Israeli front companies smuggling nuclear triggers to Israel.

Here Israel, purportedly America’s ‘staunchest ally’ was doing precisely what it would later falsely claim (through its dissident Iranian proxy, the MEK) Iran was doing in order to ratchet up the case for an American-led imposition of sanctions, and ultimately, war.

Project Pinto was a continuum of the collaboration between Israel lobby groups and Israeli spy networks in smuggling American resources. Grant F. Smith’s Spy Trade: How the Israel Lobby Undermines America’s Economy which was published in 2009 utilised secret government files to chart a history that began with an operation to funnel stolen and illegally purchased surplus US Army stocks of World War 2 munitions to Jewish militias in Palestine. A threatened FBI crackdown led to covert meetings with Zionist lobbyists in which a bargain was reached: convictions for minor operators in return for immunity for the masterminds.

The result Grant argues has been a consistent perversion of the rule of law. The FBI consistently identifies Israel as a “friendly nation” whose espionage against the United States is the most persistent. However, prosecutions are rare because of political pressure. In the case of Project Pinto, Richard Kelly Smyth, an American physicist who exported the relevant material to Israel received a federal prison sentence of 40 months after spending 16 years as a fugitive. Milchan on the other hand had his US 10-year residential visa revoked, only to have it restored in 2016 through the intervention of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu himself has never been made a person of interest despite the evidence of his involvement.

As was the case with the Zionist operation to illegally smuggle munitions into Mandate-era Palestine, culpability was affixed on the working level, but not the architectural planning level of the operation.

Another malign way in which pro-Zionist activity affects the US body politic is the threat to freedom of speech. The spate of legislations seeking to punish individual or corporate support for the BDS movement presents such a threat. The movement, which has the objective of promoting all forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its “obligations under international law”, has been targeted through laws passed (as of April 10th 2019) by 27 states including New York, Texas and South Carolina.

Each of these laws require businesses contracting with or seeking to contract with the relevant state and local government to affirm that they are not participating in a boycott of Israel. “The language,” wrote Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept on December 21st 2018, “reads like Orwellian -or McCarthyite”- self-parody, the classic political loyalty oath that every American should instinctively shudder upon reading.”

Many expressed similar feelings when it was revealed in 2017 that the authorities in Texas were refusing to give public financial aid to victims of Hurricane Harvey unless they pledged not to boycott Israel. Such stipulations in a domestic setting infringe upon the relationship between citizen and state and tend to underline the veracity of Ilhan Omar’s reference to “political influence” within the United States which “says it is ok for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country”.

At federal level, the Combating BDS bill, while not seeking to impose restrictions on BDS advocates, does provide cover for states who have passed anti-BDS laws while implicitly encouraging those who have yet to pass legislation to do so. The Combating BDS legislation is a top priority for AIPAC which published a memo insisting that such legislation “in no way impedes the right of any American to boycott or criticize Israel.”

Such an assertion is disputed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), each of which issued rebuttals highlighting what they consider to be the proposed law’s infringement of the First Amendment. The ACLU’s statement  noted that the bill “encourages states to adopt the very same anti-boycott laws that two federal courts blocked on First Amendment grounds,” while the FMEP’s fact-check of AIPAC’s memo provided a forensic refutation of each assertion. Criticism of the bill as an affront to the First Amendment has also come from Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.

While anti-BDS state laws do not expressly penalise individuals from joining the BDS movement, the case of Bahia Amawi, a speech therapist working as an independent contractor with a school district in Texas, highlights how individuals electing to boycott Israeli goods can be put into a position of choosing between their right to freedom of expression and their ability to earn a living.

On Thursday, April 25th, a federal judge issued an injunction against the Texas law, saying in a 56-page opinion that it is likely unconstitutional. It was the third court to strike down anti-BDS legislation.

It is also worth noting that the nature of America’s often touted ‘special relationship’ with Israel is perceived as being fundamentally one-sided in nature. This can be examined in relation to the amount of money America gives to Israel in aid; a figure which surpasses the combined aid given to other countries. The conditions by which such aid is given are extremely favourable to Israel. Much of this has been down to the constant pressure applied for decades on the legislative and executive branches of government by lobby groups such as AIPAC.

Yet, some high-ranking US officials have expressed disdain at Israeli ingratitude for America’s largesse. While speaking during a meeting of the National Security Council Principal’s Committee in 2011, the former US Secretary of State for Defense, Robert Gates, asserted that the government of Binyamin Netanyahu was an “ungrateful ally” which had offered the administration of Barack Obama “nothing in return” for its generous security aid which included access to top-quality weapons, assistance in developing missile-defence systems and high-level intelligence sharing. Significantly, the report by Bloomberg said that Gates’s analysis was not contradicted by those present.

According to the Congressional Research Service’s report “US Foreign Aid to Israel” which was produced in April 2018, the United States gives aid totalling $10.5 million a day to a Israel, a country with a per capita income that is slightly below that of the European Union and which provides its citizens with a free college education and free healthcare.

To put matters into perspective, America has given Israel, a nation of just over 8 million people more aid than it has to the combined regions of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean which have a total population of over a billion people. In recent decades such aid moved from economic assistance to purely military aid. The anti-BDS bill initiated in Congress by the Zionist sponsored Senator Marco Rubio incorporates the $38 billion package promised in 2016 by the then outgoing Barack Obama.

Gates’ criticism of Israel for its ingratitude is resonant for some not merely because of the frustration of the Obama administration’s expectation that Israel would aid the peace process by suspending the extension of Jewish settlements within the occupied territories, but also due to the conduct of Israel in instances where it has profited at America’s expense.

In 2016, a source from the US government estimated that Israel was using about $1.2 billion annually, that is, 38.7% of the aid it receives from America, to directly support its domestic budget rather than to build on its arsenal of advanced US equipment.”

It is also pertinent to note that the effective subsidizing of the Israeli defence industry (it was the seventh largest arms supplier to the world between 2001 and 2008, and in 2015, sold $5.7 billion in military items) has meant that the United States is effectively helping another nation to compete against it on the international arms market.

“How inexplicable is it that we are competing against the Israelis in the Indian defence procurement market at the same time we are subsidizing the Israeli defence industry?” asked Mary Beth Long, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

To compound things, the United States does not compel Israel to use the aid it receives to buy American goods. While it is true that the United States has at times insisted on certain tradeoffs -for instance, passing legislation requiring that Israel share its related intellectual property with American defence firms in regard to the Iron Dome Project- and Israel argues that its technology has assisted in the development of certain US military development projects, the sheer cost of giving colossal subsidies to a foreign nation at a time of general economic austerity is critics argue no longer tenable.

Furthermore, the argument has been made that the giving of aid to Israel by successive US administrations has amounted to a breach of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act which was passed in 1976. This legislation expressly prohibits aiding nuclear powers who have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is an open secret that Israel has long acquired a nuclear weapons capability through its establishment in Dimona in the Negev. However, no American president has ever acknowledged this. When pressed on the issue by a journalist in February 2009, Barack Obama could only reply that he did not want to “speculate” on the matter.

It is a state of affairs which even the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the late 1940s, wary of the United States being steered towards an ever deepening commitment to the Zionist state, would have conceived as possible. Yet, no top brass American military figure has publicly voiced any criticism of the US-Israeli relationship since that period except General George Brown, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff who in the 1970s considered continual military aid to Israel to be a burden to the Pentagon.

Using forceful language, Brown claimed that the reason lay in the fact that members of the Jewish community controlled America’s banks, newspapers and elected officials. Speaking before an audience at Duke University in November 1974, Brown’s words were as follows:

It’s so strong you wouldn’t believe now. We have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We say we can’t possibly get the Congress to support that. They say, “Don’t worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress.” Now this is somebody from another country, but they can do it. They own, you know, the banks in this country, the newspapers. Just look at where the Jewish money is.

Brown, who survived the outcry that followed (he was reprimanded by President Gerald Ford), later explained that his remarks had been prompted by the depletion of US military equipment stocks after their transfer to Israel during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, something he resented because the United States was still prosecuting a war in South East Asia.

Many would argue that the entwining of US and Israeli interests has been solidified since the time General Brown raised his objections. The projection of this through the political and diplomatic reach of the United States is complemented in terms of military objectives. The US intervention in Iraq and its support for uprisings against the governments of Libya and Syria tend to support this. Such is the identification of American interests with those of Israel that the Jerusalem Post in March 2018 quoted US Air Force General Richard Clark as saying that US troops deployed in Israel under the terms of a mutual pact would be prepared to die for the Jewish state.

However, there is evidence that not all high level military officials in the Pentagon share Clark’s sentiments. In 2010, while he was head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus made the following observation before the Senate Armed Services Committee about the “challenges to security and stability” faced by the United States:

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbours present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR (Area of Operations). Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilise support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas.

Petraeus' words, which were condemned by the Anti-Defamation League as being “dangerous and counter-productive”, have not been repeated by any senior military figures. Yet, they testify to the existence of a viable alternative approach as to how US interests may be calibrated without an insistence of these interests always been synonymous with those of the State of Israel.

This is what figures within the American high command such as George Marshall were at pains to stress and which politicians such as James Forrestal understood would be a problem for the United States, if the Zionist lobby was allowed to develop and entrench itself within American domestic politics. As Forrestal told J. Howard McGarth, a senator, “No group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point it could endanger our national security.”

It underscores how far circumstances have changed when a serving American National Security Advisor is given a “Defender of Israel” award by the Zionist Organisation of America.  

While the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt was correct to remind Nancy Pelosi of George Washington’s statement that America would be a country “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance”, a far more pertinent Washingtonian sentiment which the US-Israeli relationship raises concerns the special warning he gave to America’s citizens during his farewell Presidential address; that is, that they should be wary of attachments and entanglements with other nations.

Christian Zionism

“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfil God’s plan for both Israel and the West … a biblically prophesised end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”

- John Hagee, National Chairman of the Christian Zionist organisation, Christians United for Israel at an event on July 19th, 2006.

Israel has from the time of its creation worked tirelessly to ensure that it has the political, economic and military backing of America. One important channel which has been utilised to achieving these ends has been through a particular brand of the Christian faith. The alliance between Jewish-Israeli interests and conservative Christian evangelicals has been crucial to fortifying support for Israel within the United States.

It is an alliance which many view as unusual and unholy. For in Christian Zionism, Political Zionism has formed a bond with an ideological partner which is ultimately antithetical to Judaism. A fundamental plank of Christian Zionist-Dispensationalist philosophy is that following the creation of the modern State of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem must serve as a necessary precursor to the end days during which Christ’s chosen will be secretly raptured. Their eschatological doctrine is premised on the belief that the Jews, who rejected Jesus, will in the end times be given a final opportunity to accept Christ, failing which they will be put to the sword.

The roots of Christian Zionism is composed of disparate figures such as John Nelson Darby, whose dispensationalist theology was influential in its spread among American Protestants, and Cyrus Scofield, whose reference bible forms a bedrock of the dispensational premillennialism of today’s Christian fundamentalists.

Not all Christian Zionists are dispensationalists. But they are united in a belief that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the establishment of Israel in 1948 accord with biblical prophecy. They believe, as those who believed in Christian Restorationism did, that Jews should be actively encouraged to return to the land of Israel.

While John Hagee, the chairman of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) is vociferous in proclaiming Christian love for the Jewish people, others such as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, although strongly pro-Israel in their utterances, let slip their latent antipathy towards Jews. For instance, Robertson, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) once referred to the Jewish founder of the US Military Religious Foundation as a “little Jewish radical” for promoting secularism in the American military, while Falwell once stated that “most evangelicals believe the antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male.”

It is a bizarre relationship that nonetheless is mutually beneficial.

The nurturing of American evangelicals has been worthwhile because of the importance of the Christian right in American politics. American evangelical support for the Zionist state has been unconditional. They have exercised influence on American foreign policy over the years, and their members have given millions of dollars to groups in Israel which are opposed to any form of concessions to the Palestinians, and encourage the colonisation of Palestinian land by the most fanatical Jewish settlers.

Many influential American political leaders right up to the present vice president, Mike Pence are adherents of Christian Zionism. Jewish individuals and groups have forged close ties with Christian Zionist organisations in the cause of Israel. Indeed, it speaks volumes that David Brog, the cousin of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, was for nine years, the executive director of CUFI, the largest Christian Zionist lobby group. His appointment as the head of the Maccabee Task Force, an organisation formed by the billionaire duo, Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban to combat BDS activities on American college campus’ confirms that Brog’s link to CUFI was based not on the rationale of promoting interfaith dialogue, but in solely serving the interests of Israel.

The partnership between Israel and the evangelicals, assiduously developed from the time of Menachem Begin’s tenure as leader of Israel’s Likud Party, has, some have argued, long since peaked. But it is one which shows every sign of enduring. As Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Israeli right-wing Home Party stated in early 2018:

We need to use the opportunity to the best of Israel’s national interests and security.

Criticism of Zionism

“It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism.”

- Yehoshafat Harkabi, Director of Israeli Military Intelligence (1955-1959), in his book Israel’s Fateful Hour.

Whereas criticism of the pro-Zionist lobby is based on evidence of the aggressiveness of its agents and the intimidating power that it wields among legislators, criticism of the State of Israel is often predicated on the belief that it is a colonial-settler project which has involved the continuous policy of ethnic cleansing the indigenous Palestinian population, as well as its persistent defiance of international law.

The lobby often proclaims that criticism of Zionism and the creation of the State of Israel and its existence are inherently anti-Semitic since such criticism denies the Jewish people the fundamental right to self-determination. However, this is a position an increasing amount of people are beginning to view as being untenable. Political Zionism, one expression of Jewish nationalism, is a political ideology and as such cannot logically be ring-fenced from any criticism. It is distinct from the idea of 'Spiritual Zionism’ espoused by Asher Ginsberg, and its philosophy was and is not based on the idea of a multi-racial society. Indeed, as a result of the passage of its nation-state law, Israel has officially pronounced itself as an ethno-state.

This earned the admiration of many purveyors of the creed of white nationalism. Comparisons between Israel and the aspirations of white nationalists are frowned upon by Zionist lobbies. In an interview conducted by the New York Times Magazine in March 2019, Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organisation of America, said that he considered it to be “utterly racist and despicable” to support white nationalism. But when he was challenged that white nationalist aspirations paralleled that of a state created solely for Jews, Klein’s response was to state that Israel “is a unique situation”. He continued by stating that Israel “is really a Jewish state given to us by God. God did not create a state for white people or for black people.”

This belief that Political Zionism and its creation, the State of Israel, are above criticism, is of course mirrored by the attitude of Zionist lobby groups such as AIPAC in their refusal to register as political action committees and as agents of a foreign country.

It is pertinent to remind that at one time in history, most Jews were against the philosophy of Political Zionism for religious reasons, as well as what they deemed would be the inevitable outcome of creating a state by force of arms.

Henry Morgenthau Sr, a former US ambassador to Turkey, considered it to be “the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history”. It was, he felt, “fanatical in its politics” and “sterile in its spiritual ideas”.

Edwin Samuel Montagu, a Jewish-English politician who served in the coalition government during the First World War described it as a “mischievous political creed” which he opposed because he foresaw the trouble which what he believed to be a chauvinist ideology would cause in Palestine. Not only would it create an enmity with those who would necessarily be dispossessed of the land on which they had lived for centuries, the accusation of dual loyalty would be made against those Jews who lived in other countries. It was, he believed, a project which would unleash the beast of anti-Semitism.

Israel’s creation involved the use of terrorism and foreplanned ethnic cleansing. It has since existed as a militaristic state which claims a unique right to live above international law, customs and convention. Since the failure of the Oslo Accords, it has been ruled by right-wing governments -heirs to the hardline Revisionist Zionism espoused by Vladimir Jabotinsky- which have disavowed all pretence of ever wanting a peaceful settlement with the Palestinian people and has conducted its military to act in ways which pervert the moral order. For instance, the recent targeted murders of unarmed Palestinians protesting for the right of return is somehow construed as the exercise of legitimate self-defence. As Gideon Levy has often put it, Israel is an “aggressor-victim”.

Levy recently stated in an interview that the “the Israeli lobby, the Jewish lobby are by far too strong and too aggressive,” adding that it is “not good for the Jewish community (and) it is not good for Israel”.

For Levy, Ilhan Omar spoke the truth when raising legitimate questions about the Zionist lobby.

Conclusion

“The best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

- Vladimir Jabotinsky, early Zionist leader.

The reaction to the comments made by Ilhan Omar has revealed in great measure that the pro-Israel lobby is not a conventional lobby. For those who may not have been previously aware of it, the fallout, which included serial denunciations and the passing of two house resolutions, provided ample evidence of the unique place it inhabits in the American political process and the way it insists on framing any criticism that is directed at it.

For instance, there was a tendency among Omar’s critics to import certain meanings to her actual words which did not objectively flow from her actual pronouncements. In particular, there was the implication of what they referred to as agelong “stereotypes”, “tropes” and “canards” about Jews. Furthermore, many of her detractors appeared to be lecturing others about how and how not to criticise the Israel lobby. This, needless to say, is something which does not occur when criticising the gun lobby or the military lobby.

They all suggest that sensitivity over criticism of pro-Zionist interest groups are intrinsically linked to fears over the negative results which may flow from resulting perceptions of Jewish power and influence. Thus, in a sense Omar’s detractors reflect what Vladimir Jabotinsky, an influential figure in the development of Political Zionism, once advised:

The best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.

Jabotinsky’s analysis, made in the context of the brutal experience of Jewry in the Russian empire, has a fatalistic ring to it. He seemed to be stating that any overt, public scrutiny of Jews inevitably led to a reaction, and that such reaction would be a negative one.

Yet the employment of the accusation of anti-Semitism as a reaction to those who raise legitimate questions in regard to ascertaining the extent to which their legislators are influenced by a particular lobby only serves to illuminate the extraordinary levels at which such influence persists. The very thing which is claimed to be minimal or even non-existent, is ironically revealed in its great expanse by the high-level political figures and the media houses who rise up in unison to offer their unequivocal condemnation of a presumed transgressor.

It also effectively exposes a longstanding ban; subtle, yet rigorous, on anything critical of Jewish groups or Jewish individuals.

But given that the issues raised have grave implications pertaining to the health of American democracy, the sanctity of free speech and the promotion of the American national interest, it is a barrier which has long exceeded the limits of logic.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2019)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.