Justin Raimondo writes:
What is US foreign policy in the Middle East all about – and for whose benefit is it being conducted? In two short paragraphs, this news story says it all:
"The U.S. confirmed that an American citizen, identified as 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, was killed by multiple gunshots during the Israeli raid on a flotilla carrying activists attempting to run a blockade of the Gaza Strip.
"State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said the U.S. has made no decision on a response to Dogan’s death."
Apparently official Washington is torn between issuing a mild protest, and thanking them. "Protecting the welfare of American citizens is a fundamental repsponsibility of our government," Hillary Clinton assured the media, "and one that we take very seriously" – but not seriously enough to issue an official protest. "We are in constant contact with the Israeli government attempting to obtain more information about our citizens." Do they want to know how many holes the IDF put in Furkan Dogan’s head before they make a decision on a response?
In reality, the US already made a response in the form of Vice President Joe "Loose Cannon" Biden, who, when asked about the attack on the flotilla, said: "So what’s the big deal here?" At the time he said it, the odds were fair that an American citizen – out of nine with the flotilla — was among the dead. Now that it’s been confirmed, I wonder if it’s dawned on our dim-witted Vice President that it is indeed a very big deal.
In a brazen act of international piracy, the Israelis boarded a ship in international waters and killed an American citizen – so what is the American government going to do about it? The answer is: nothing, zero, nada, zilch. Israel refuses to let an international investigation look into the matter, and Biden is cool with that, as he told Charlie Rose:
"Biden: We passed a resolution in the UN saying we need a transparent and open investigation of what happened. It looks like things are…
"Rose: International investigation?
"Biden: Well, an investigation run by the Israelis, but we’re open to international participation."
That’s certainly impartial, fair, and transparent – let the Israelis investigate themselves! No, Biden isn’t stupid: he’s smart enough to know the Israelis will never be held accountable by our government, and that any attempt to do so would be aborted before it ever became known. The reason for this peculiar passivity is because, contra Hillary, protecting the welfare of American citizens is not considered a fundamental responsibility of our government insofar as it means protecting their welfare against the government of Israel. In any conflict between American and Israeli interests, Washington’s instinctive response is to uphold the latter and ignore the former.
Under the Bush administration, such a conflict of interests was considered impossible: the very idea that there could be daylight between Washington and Tel Aviv on any given issue was considered heretical. Even under the Bushies, however, there was still some vague stirrings of American independence, especially toward the end of the second term. And they never had to face a situation like this, in which an American citizen in transit was murdered by our faithful "allies."
That kind of thing hasn’t happened since the sinking of the USS Liberty – and it may be a sign of what’s to come that a survivor of that heinous assault was traveling with the flotilla, too. In the case of the USS Liberty, the whole thing was covered up in a shameful act of official suppression: against the testimony of the sailors on that ship, 34 of whom were killed, the US government ruled that the savage Israeli assault was a tragic "accident." Yet US government officials knew the truth. As then secretary of state Dean Rusk later put it:
"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
So is this attack outrageous, but if the US government can whitewash the Israeli murder of 34 American sailors, it can overlook the murder of a single American in nearly identical circumstances. Of course, this is not 1967: the news of an American’s death at the hands of the IDF is being transmitted around the world, even as I write this, and all the details are coming out: the pitilessness of the Israelis, young Furkan’s idealism, and the horrific circumstances of his death.
What is being transmitted, above all, is the braying arrogance of the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his media shills, as they deride the dead as "terrorists looking for trouble."
Bizarrely, the Vice President of the United States is joining right in, declaring that Israel had a "right" to board the ships and detain the passengers because it has a "right" to ensure its own "security" – yet the ships were inspected by the Turkish government in Cyprus before they left, and found to contain only items such as building material and children’s toys. The Israelis, as part of their serio-comic propaganda offensive, are triumphantly showing off a cache of "weapons" found on the ship – which looks like nothing more than a collection of old kitchen knives and a couple of metal poles.
An American is killed as heavily armed soldiers of a foreign nation board a ship in international waters, firing live ammunition at the passengers as they rappel onto the deck. Among those passengers: a former US ambassador, a former US colonel and Pentagon official, several members of the European parliament, a member of the Israeli Knesset, and members of parliament from several Arab countries.
Imagine if Iran had done this. Washington would have reverberated with the sound of thunder emanating from the White House, and the attack fleet would already be steaming toward the Gulf, taking up position. That the culprit was Israel, however, puts a whole different face on the matter, at least as far as our government is concerned: they’re content to let the Israelis "investigate," and let the matter drop.
For years, some of us have been saying that the government of Israel and its partisans in this country exercise a decisive – and unhealthy – influence on the making and execution of US foreign policy. We’ve been accused of everything from anti-Semitism to pushing "conspiracy theories," and yet the Mediterranean Massacre – and our government’s non-response – underscores that, if anything, we’ve been underestimating the extent to which the US takes its orders directly from Tel Aviv. The Israel Lobby controls official Washington: Congress is, as Pat Buchanan trenchantly observed, "Israeli-occupied territory." Yet one would think that, in spite of these circumtances, the wanton murder of an American on the high seas by Israeli commandos would provoke an angry response from Washington. Unfortunately, one would be wrong.
Instead, what we have is the grotesque spectacle of our Vice President commending the Israelis, and the US and Israel scrambling to come up with a "joint response." What more proof do we need that the US government is the political equivalent of occupied Palestine, where truth and justice are under blockade? For years, they’ve been spying on us, collaborating with our enemies, stealing our secrets, manipulating our politicians, and now they’ve gone so far as to murder one of our citizens on neutral ground – and still our government cannot manage even a peep of protest. A more disgusting display of cowardice would be hard to imagine. We attacked Iraq in large part due to the influence of the Lobby, and we are gearing up for an armed conflict with Iran in response to the same sort of pressure: will we now countenance the execution of one of our own citizens in order to appease Tel Aviv?
This was no "accident." The Israeli government knew precisely what it was doing, it knew there were Americans on those ships, and chose to go in guns blazing: it was the equivalent of spitting in Uncle Sam’s face. After all, how dare those Americans try to freeze the building of settlements in what is "Greater Israel"? How dare Obama tell us what we can and cannot do?! We’ll show them! Let’s kill a few. Don’t worry – they won’t retaliate. We own them: and they know it. In view of the Obama administration’s shameful crawling, one can hardly disagree. Which raises a question: how many American lives are to be sacrificed on the altar of the "special relationship"? It’s a question to which one doesn’t really want to know the answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How different things look on the other side of the Atlantic. In the US, what the Israelis did is rather popular with the public. Maybe we hear different facts. But, in the US, the following seems clear:
ReplyDeleteIsrael and the Arabs are in a war. Gaza is in alliance with countries which claim to be at war with Israel, with the headquarters of the Gaza government being in Damascus. Moreover, arms come to Gaza from Damascus and another country at war with Israel. The Israelis, in tandem with the US and Egypt and the support of the PA, not to mention most European (e.g. the UK, by the way) and a number of Arab governments, set up a blockade.
Why? Because absent a blockade, there would be a functioning Hamas government vowing, not only according to its covenant but to repeated statements of its leaders, to murder all Jews not only in Israel but throughout the world - as is the view of most Islamist parties, by the way. Read, in this regard, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's important new book, Worse Than War, which shows clearly that the Islamist movement, including its Hamas branch, is an eliminationist movement more open about their intentions than any group in the last 100 years. Even Arab governments realize that the spread of Islamist rule is a disaster for Arabs, not to mention the rest of the world.
So, now we have a group of "peace" activist who think that breaking the Israeli blockade - not, by the ay, supplying food and other supplies to the Gazans under Hamas rule - is humanitarian. No. It is not humanitarian. It is supplying an eliminationist, blood thirsty group which has made clear its intentions and deserves to be crushed, as most Americans believe.
Those who joined the blockade breakers who allied with Hamas may have been duped into believing that the flotilla was purely humanitarian have been shown to be wrong. Why? Hamas refuses to accept the supplies from these naive "humanitarians" who, with eyes wide shut, attempt to help the Islamists who in turn, want to commit genocide.
So, we have the see no evil crowd, who thinks that the Israelis are bloodthirsty. And, we have people who wonder about people who side with the most blood thirsty movement to arise in 60 years.
Who mentioned the public? Americans have this strange fantasy that, uniquely in the world, their foreign policy is somehow dictated by public opinion. It is rather like, and closely allied to, the equally fantastical classlessness of America.
ReplyDeleteAnd how many of the American public have been told that an American citizen was killed? Or about Mossad spying on their soil? Or about the indigenous Christians of the Middle East in general and the Levant in particular? Or about the USS Liberty? Among so very many other things.
This is an American article, Neal.
ReplyDeleteI assume you don't know about the Melkite archbishop aboard the flotilla?
While they greatly emphasise the Levant's Hellenistic and Byzantine heritage, and indeed call themselves the Greek Catholics that they are called in the Lebanese Constitution, the Melkites' withdrawal from the three Greek Orthodox Patriarchates in the region was initially motivated at least in part by the appointment of Greeks in the more usual sense instead of Arabs as bishops, leading them to approach the Jesuits in order to secure the Episcopate for their Arab candidates.
ReplyDeleteGreek Orthodox also have marked pan-Arabist tendencies, counting among their number both the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the founder of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It would be interesting to know if they had Orthodox funerals. I rather expect so. And their parties continue to attract significant Christian support.
Meanwhile, to the north, even one of the co-founders of Amal was the Melkite Archbishop of Beirut.
But no one must ever know these things. Everyone must be allowed to assume, if they are not told outright, that there have been barely any Christians in Jerusalem, Nazareth or Bethlehem since ... well, when, exactly? No, the whole thing is about "Islam". Isn't it?
David,
ReplyDeleteI know full well that there were Americans siding with America's enemies and the enemies of America's allies. It was widely reported. So what? The Liberty incident has also been widely aired. Most assume the obvious. Israel was at war and either made an error or wanted its actions not to be known. Such is the norm in war, with boats of foreign countries - even friendly countries - being sunk when they venture too close to a war zone.
The US spies on Israel. The UK spies on Israel. Israel spies on the US. Israel spies on the UK. They would all be idiots not to spy on each other. I really do not see your point. You might consider that France spies on the UK. So does Sweden. If they don't they are stupid. That's the way of the world.
In the US, we believe that the public does have a say in US foreign policy. That, after all, is your contention when you claim that supporters of Israel have too much say in that policy. The problem about all of such talk is that, while the US does what it thinks is best for the US, that understanding is colored by what constituents think.
So, Obama has said some things that tick off Israel's friends - i.e. the majority of Americans including, among them, a very, very vocal group of Christians and Jews. Vocal opponents of Obama's approach scream to their representatives - which, you will note, occurred after Obama was nasty to Netanyahu for no imaginable reason. That led to rebukes in the press - including in papers not known to be all that pro-Israel, such as The Washington Post-, and among influential members of the House and Senate, including the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority and Minority leaders. Moreover, Senators in states critical to Obama's influence (e.g. NY, California, among other states) went to the airwaves. New York's senior Senator and next in line to be Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, threatened Obama publicly that he would work against Obama and his agenda if Obama did not adjust his policy so as not to tick off Schumer's constituents. Having Schumer as an enemy would be the demise of the Obama agenda and any chance of his re-election. Further, money for Democrats started to dry up. Large donor groups said they could not raise money and the reason: Israel. Small donors were up in arms about what Obama was doing.
So, lest you think that constituents in the US have no say in policy, try living here. This is not Europe. Try taking a stand against Cuban Americans. You will be in hot water. That is the way things should be in a democracy.
Lavishly funded lobbying organisations are not the general public. Quite the contrary.
ReplyDeleteWhy has there never been a Congressional inquiry into the USS Libery incident, uniquely among major maritime incidents in American history?
What made the flotilla America's "enemy"? What threat did it pose to the United States? How was it even peaceably contrary to the stated policy of the United States?
And how can any other country ever again take America seriously, when there is not only no comeback for the murder of an American citizen, but none when a vessel of a NATO member-state is attacked in international waters by the forces of a state with which America has no treaty of common security?
I see that you do not answer about Levantine, and specifically Palestinian, Christianity. No one must know that there is such a thing. Still less that it was represented aboard the flotilla.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou write: "Lavishly funded lobbying organisations are not the general public."
You confuse public participation in politics - e.g. collection of donations by Democratic party activists from individuals (which, under US law, is necessary) with funded lobbying, which is a somewhat different thing. It is funding for the Democrats that is way down. Why? Because friends of Israel are major supporters of the party and its liberal politics. And, such people are, in droves, standing down, disgusted with Obama.
You write: "Why has there never been a Congressional inquiry into the USS Libery incident...?" Because the event was sufficiently understood by the government, to the satisfaction of the President - at a time when Israel's influence in the US was minimal.
You write: "What made the flotilla America's "enemy"?" Because the US government consider Hamas a terrorist group with the same ideology as al Qaeda.
You write: "What threat did it pose to the United States? How was it even peaceably contrary to the stated policy of the United States?" It threatened the US's ability to keep Hamas under control and is undermining US efforts to deal with Iran.
You write: "And how can any other country ever again take America seriously ...?" 1. Because there was obviously no intent to kill any Americans; instead, the aim was to shoot back at Islamist genocidal maniacs. 2. Turkey, you will not all that popular in Washington, just now. Turkey is seen by all involved - left and right - as interfering with US efforts both to resolve the Arab Israeli dispute (which our government stupidly thinks is a vital interest) and to undermine efforts to bring Iran under control. Which is to say, Turkey has acted against US interests. The US, by the way, does have numerous treaties with Israel.
To your last remark. I do not see how Israel is detrimental to Christianity in the Levant. I think the big problems for Christians in the entire Muslim regions is that such regions are subject to a purification movement called Islamism which seeks to rid itself of non-Muslims. While Jews are, with good reason, wary of Christians, they are not seeking to rid the region of them.
"Because friends of Israel are major supporters of the party and its liberal politics. And, such people are, in droves, standing down, disgusted with Obama."
ReplyDeleteThe influence of this small number of very rich people is rather my point. They have always hated Obama and desperately tried to prevent him from being nominated. But he was, and then he won. So who cares what they think? Good riddance to them. Where else are they going to go? And theirs is not the only money in the world, nor even the only money in America.
"Because the event was sufficiently understood by the government, to the satisfaction of the President - at a time when Israel's influence in the US was minimal."
Evidently not.
"Because there was obviously no intent to kill any Americans"
Obvious to whom?
"instead, the aim was to shoot back at Islamist genocidal maniacs"
Who? A former Pentagon official? A Melkite Archbishop? A Holocaust survivor? Is the reporting of these matters in America really *that* bad?
"Turkey"
I am no fan of Turkey, either. I leave that to the Pentagon, without whose approval the Turkish undertaking to provide naval escorts to future flotillas could not have been given. Turkey knows who has her back, and who therefore does not have Israel's.
Turkey has the second-largest army in NATO, hosts American nuclear missiles facing Russia, and has land borders with Iraq and Iran. Whereas Israel has ... well, what, exactly? Unlike Turkey, Israel has never fought alongside the United States in any war. And what treaty, exactly, has America with Israel that is remotely comparable to the NATO Charter?
"I do not see how Israel is detrimental to Christianity in the Levant"
Then you urgently need to speak to the Christians in the Levant.
"While Jews are, with good reason, wary of Christians, they are not seeking to rid the region of them"
If you mean the Israelis, then you very urgently need to speak to the Christians in the Holy Land.
Compare their fate, and that of their brethren in "liberated" Iraq and indeed in NATO (and putatively EU) Turkey, to Lebanon's reservation of the Presidency and half the parliamentary seats to Christians. Or to Syria's predominantly Christian provinces, and her Christian festivals as public holidays. Or to Iran's reserved parliamentary representation both for the Assyrians now subject to genocide in Iraq, and for the Armenians long subject to genocide in Turkey (and not doing too well in the Holy Land, either).
David,
ReplyDeleteFund raising under US law allows contributions in very small amounts - a few thousand dollars. It is average people who are disgusted with Obama. Bundlers, i.e. activists for a political party, collect these small donations. Such people report a lack of enthusiasm for Obama, most particularly by the most generous supporters of the Democrats - people who happen, as it turns out, to be friends of Israel. In fact, there are bundlers who have had enough of Obama.
You write: "Obvious to whom?" To anyone with a brain or who read the papers, which have so indicated.
You write: "Who? A former Pentagon official? A Melkite Archbishop? A Holocaust survivor? Is the reporting of these matters in America really *that* bad?" The group which led the flotilla and the only group which had anyone killed. Its leader spoke in Gaza and said that they were engaged in Jihad.
As I said before, the group included useful idiots who did not know they were working with a genocide preaching, Jihadist group. But, facts are facts, whether or not you want to see them. Perhaps, you should read US papers which report these minor little details about who the dead people actually were. The fact is that the group was led by Islamists who sought a confrontation and, by their own words, sought to become shahids in the Islamist cause. Moreover, they are recorded, just before leaving on their flotilla, comparing themselves with Mohammad's army which routed Arabia's Jews at Khaybar. And, so that no one misunderstood, when Israel contacted their boat, they responded as Islamists typically do:
"Shut up. Go back to Auschwitz," a male voice said in reply. The message was broadcast to the Navy from one of the flotilla ships, the IDF confirmed on Saturday.
"We're helping the Arabs go against the US, don't forget 9/11 guys", a man said later on during the radio exchange.
Does not sound like peaceful people to me. They sound like people who advocate genocide - as in the genocide attack on 9/11 and the Nazi version of it.
You write: "And what treaty, exactly, has America with Israel that is remotely comparable to the NATO Charter?" The two countries have a mutual defense pack.
My wife's business partner is a Lebanese Maronite. He has no problem with Israelis or Jews. He does have problems with Islamists.
Having studied this matter rather carefully, I think you have it all wrong. Regarding Christians in the Middle East and their "fate," the most important fate they have faced is radical persecution which has resulted in their flight in an unprecedented migration out of the Muslim regions.
ReplyDeleteI would read this symposium. It provides a great bit of information, information that my own research shows to be the case, most especially the research of the highly respected Paul Marshall. I realize that Americans see things a lot differently than people in Europe do. We have not yet been completely overcome with having to think that everything is Israel's fault when, in fact, only some things are.
PUMAs. Who cares? The Obama coalition is more like a new party, and they are superfluous to it, but with nowhere else to go. Nor are the Tea Party people terribly pro-Israeli, come to that, being disinclined towards the payment of a gigantic annual subsidy to a foreign state. So, really and truly, nowhere else to go.
ReplyDeleteWhich papers? Only the ones that have been released. In any case, it has certainly not proved obvious to everyone who read those, still less to everyone who was there.
Of course, we cannot expect former Pentagon officials, or retired Melkite Archbishops of Caesarea, to know anything about the situation. They must yield to the people who call in to Rush Limbaugh. And to the people whom Rush would filter out. For example, Joe Biden.
"The genocide attack on 9/11"? Get a grip.
"The two countries have a mutual defense pack"
And that has ever added up to what? For example, there is not a single Israeli troop in Afghanistan, and there never has been. That conflict is ostensibly a response to 9/11.
But your wife's business partner is not a Palestinian, is he? Nor, I expect, has he lived in Lebanon for a long time, if ever. That country is under Israeli bombardment in pursuit of David Ben Gurion's claim to all land south of the Litani, an existential threat to a state which reserves half of its parliamentary seats to Christians and which requires that the President be a Maronite.
Highly respected by whom?
ReplyDeleteBy the Latin Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Syrian Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, Anglicans and Lutherans of the Holy Land?
By the Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Melkites and other Christians of Lebanon, with half the parliamentary seats guaranteed to them?
By the Christians of Syria, predominating in certain provinces and with their festivals as public holidays?
By the Chaldo-Assyrians either of Iraq or recently driven from that country in enormous numbers?
By the Assyrians and Armenians of Iran, with their reserved seats in Parliament?
I only ask.
Just as I only ask, not only “highly respected by whom?”, but also, and inseparably, “funded by whom?”
You seem to think that the UK offers a lot to the US. Troops in Afghanistan. The contribution, however, is not much - basically symbolic. In any event, allies contribute in different ways. Israel contributes substantial technological prowess to the US military and the US more generally. As I have noted before: Israel is the number two technology country on Earth - ahead of any European country, as measured by patents, by inventions that have become important, by the number of start up companies devoted to technological developments, etc. Per capita, Israel is, by a wide margin, the number 1 technology country on Earth in all such measures. And, the US gets preferential treatment when it comes to Israeli technology, as payment in return for military aid. And, the military aid is all spent in the US, so it is a subsidy to the US arms business. Further, Israel provides substantial spying intelligence resources. Had the US listened back in 2002, we would not have invaded Iraq, since the Israeli intelligence service was the only major one in the world to cast serious and public doubt - it having been reported before the war in the paper - on Saddam's WMD program, which the Israelis thought to be a bluff.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is said by you to seek to expand to the Litani. However, that is contradicted by the fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon. My suggestion to you: If Lebanon said, tomorrow, let's bury the hatchet at the current boundaries, Israel would say "yes" in a heartbeat. For what it is worth, ben Gurion has been dead for a long time so, whatever he thought - and, in fact, you have misread his views during the time of Israel's actual existence as an established country, for the record -, that is history. The current government is not interested in conquering any part of Lebanon but rather hopes to survive in a rather hostile world, a world made more hostile than needs to be by stupid, naive Europeans. As for ben Gurion, please do not post a quote. He said a lot of things, many of them contradictory. However, he never acted after Israel was an established country to grab Lebanon up to the Litani.
David,
ReplyDeleteObama is not particularly popular in the US. I hate to tell you that. Try reading Pollster.com including, most important to Congress, the generic ratings of parties, which Democrats usually hold by a wide margin and the President's job approval rating, which is in the dumps. And, if you go by those who hold strong views - i.e. by those most likely to vote -, he is among the least popular presidents in a long time. In any event, Obama would be a lot less popular if the Democrats lose more clout, which seems likely just now.
I realize that you think the President has real independent power. In fact, he can do very little without Congress. And, at this point, Congress is not too thrilled because their constituents are angry with Obama - and that includes the all important center or, as they are called in the US, "independents." In fact, his left wing support has largely dried up. So, I do not know where you think he turns, just now. His problem is that he made contradictory promises and does not know how to reconcile what cannot be reconciled.
In regard to Israel, most Democrats support Israel. Independents mostly support Israel and so do most Republicans. A small part of the Democrat's base hates Israel - with a religious passion. He made promises to both sides. And, he has advisors and friends on both sides. The establishment of the Democrat's is decidedly pro-Israel. So, the base of voters who are part of this independent party you imagine exists are a tiny group who think he has betrayed their loony cause.
I have insufficient knowledge of the tea party to speak definitively. However, your proposition seems pretty far fetched. From what I can tell, among their leaders is Ms. Palin, who is decidedly pro-Israel to the extent of wearing an Israeli flag over the entire course of her career - and, evidently, in private and for religious reasons that I cannot fathom. In any event, the group's stated interest is to reduce "socialist" influence. That is a domestic concern. Foreign affairs to most such people tend to be hawkish and hawkish people tend to support Israel.
The obvious thing with the US papers is that they report that the leaders were the IHH, an Islamist group with ties to Hamas and which is accused by the US of having involving in the attempted millennium bombing. There are also roomers in the US papers of al Qaeda ties. The New York Times seems to think that Islamists, with connection with Hamas were centrally involved with the flotilla. So does the Washington Post. They are two leading US papers.
The reference to genocide attacks comes directly from Goldhagen's book, where he indicates that such is the most apt description of those who kill in the service of the Islamist movement. He calls their attacks genocide attacks because that is what those who send the attackers say, when they speak in their native tongues, the attacks are about.
Paul Marshall is a leading authority on the topic of Christians in the Middle East, having written widely on the topic and having conducted numerous studies on the topic.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any special reason for not having posted my last posts?
ReplyDeleteI was in bed.
ReplyDeleteWhat do Paul Marshall's subjects think of him?
As for the rest, see today's latest from Justin, reproduced here.