The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign: Backers, Apologists and Arms Suppliers

Because of the unconditional support of the entire political class in the US, from the White House to Congress, including both Parties, incoming and outgoing elected officials and all the principal print and electronic mass media, the Israeli Government feels no compunction in publicly proclaiming a detailed and graphic account of its policy of mass extermination of the population of Gaza.

Israel’s sustained and comprehensive bombing campaign of every aspect of governance, civic institutions and society is directed toward destroying civilized life in Gaza. Israel’s totalitarian vision is driven by the practice of a permanent purge of Arab Palestine informed by Zionism, an ethno-racist ideology, promulgated by the Jewish state and justified, enforced and pursued by its organized backers in the United States.

The facts of Israeli extermination have become known: In the first six days of round the clock terror bombing of major and minor populations centers, the Jewish State has murdered and seriously maimed over 2,500 people, mostly dismembered and burned in the open ovens of missile fire. Scores of children and women have been slaughtered as well as defenseless civilians and officials.

They have sealed off all access to Gaza and declared it a military, free fire zone, while expanding their target to include the entire population of 1.5 millions semi-starved prisoners. According to the Boston Globe (December 30, 2008): Israeli military officials said their target lists have expanded to include the vast support network on which the Islamist movement relies to stay in power “…we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel (my emphasis)”. A top Israeli in its secret police apparatus is quoted saying, “Hamas’ civilian infrastructure is a very sensitive target” (ibid). What the Israeli Jewish politicians and military planners designate as “Hamas” is the entire social service network, the entire government and the vast majority of economic activity, embracing almost the entire 1.5 million imprisoned residents of Gaza.

Israel’s ‘target’ list thus involves the ‘total population’, using the totality of its non-nuclear weaponry and for an unlimited time period (until the ‘bitter end’ according to the Israeli Prime Minister). Israel’s defense ministry spokesman has emphatically reiterated the Jewish’s state’s totalitarian war concept emphasizing the targeting of civilians: “Hamas has used ostensibly civilian operations as a cover for military activities. Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target.”

Like all totalitarians in the past, the Jewish state boasts of having systematically pre-planned the extermination campaign – months in advance – up to and including the precise hour and day of the bombing to coincide with inflicting the maximum murder of civilians: The rockets and bombs fell as children were leaving school, as graduating police cadets were receiving their diplomas and as frantic mothers ran out from their homes to find their sons and daughters.

The mass military extermination campaign was a follow up of its non-stop total economic embargo and unremitting selective assassination campaign of the previous two years: Both were designed to purge Palestine of its Arab population, first via mass hunger, disease, humiliation and violent intimidation and the proxy power grab by the PLO Quislings under Zionist puppet Abbas. When they discovered that mass hunger and selective Israeli murder only strengthened the population’s links to its democratically elected government and the resolve of the Hamas government to resist Israel, the Israeli regimes unleashed its entire arsenal of weapons, including its new ‘American gifts’ up-to-date 1000 pound ‘bunker buster’ bombs and high tech missiles to incinerate large numbers of human beings within their deadly radius and to obliterate Palestinian civilization.

Moving directly from its totalitarian vision to its military blueprint to the savaging of Palestinian population centers, the Jewish state destroyed the principal university with over 18,000 students (mostly women), mosques, pharmacies, electrical and water lines, power stations, fishing villages, fishing boats and the little fishing port that provided a meager supply of fish for the starving population. They destroyed roads, transport facilities, food warehouses, science buildings, small factories, shops and apartments. They destroyed a women’s dormitory at the university. In the words of the Israel leader: “…because everything is connected to everything…” it is necessary to destroy each and every facet of life, which allows humans to exist with some dignity and independence.

The Israeli totalitarian leaders knew with confidence that they could act and they could kill with impunity, locally and before the entire world, because of the influence of the US Zionist Power Configuration in and over the US White House and Congress. They knew they had the full backing of all the major Israeli political parties (Right, Left and Center), trade unions, mass media and especially public opinion. Israeli state terror is backed by 81% of Jewish Israelis according to a poll taken by Israel’s Channel 10 (Financial Times, December 30, 2008). Israeli totalitarian violence and extermination of Palestinians is extremely popular among the Jewish electorate, especially in raising support for the Labor Party candidate Minister Ehud Barak. They knew they would ‘succeed’ with virtually no casualties because they bombed, burned and dismembered a defenseless population totally lacking the minimum means to defend themselves from F16 bombers, helicopter gun ships and missile assaults. The vile depravity of the assault on the defenseless population is matched by the utter cowardice of the Israeli military command and its cheering bloodthirsty public ensconced behind their aerial monopoly. They suffered no threats of aerial retaliation, no wounded or dead pilots, helicopter gunners, as wave after wave swept in and over a defenseless imprisoned population in a crowded and besieged ghetto.

Hundreds of tanks and armored carriers are prepared to invade once the cities and towns have been leveled, once the population is too weakened by starvation to resist, once the leaders and fighters have been murdered and the normal Palestinian institutions of law and order have been pulverized, making way for the corrupt thuggish collaborators of the so-called Palestinian Authority…then and only then, will the Israeli General staff risk the skin of a precious Jewish ‘soldier’ and risk the anxiety and worry of their kin in Israel and the US.

Overseas Allies: The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO)

From the moment that the Israeli Government decided it would destroy the newly elected Hamas government and punish the democratic electorate of Gaza with starvation and murder, the entire Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the US, including the PMAJO, pulled all stops in implementing the Israeli policy. The PMAJO encompasses the fifty-two Jewish organizations with the largest membership, with the greatest financial clout and the most influential backers. The most prominent lobbyist within the PMAJO is AIPAC, which has over 100,000 members and 150 full-time operatives in Washington actively pressuring the US Congress, the White House and all administrative agencies whose policies may relate to the interests of the State of Israel. However Israeli political extends far beyond its non-governmental agencies. Over two score legislators in the Congress and over a dozen senators are committed Zionists who automatically back Israel’s policies and push for US funding and armaments for its military machine. Top officials in key administrative positions, in Treasury, Commerce and the National Security Council, senior functionaries in the Pentagon and top advisers on Middle East affairs are also life-long, fanatically committed Zionists, who consistently and unreservedly back the policies of the State of Israel.

Equally important, the majority of the largest film, print and electronic media are owned or deeply influenced by Jewish-Zionist media moguls who are committed to slanting the ‘news’ in favor of Israel. The composition and influence of the ZPC is central to understanding three main characteristics of Israel’s power: (1) Israel can commit what leading United Nations and international human rights experts have defined as ‘crimes against humanity’ with total impunity; (2) Israel can secure an unlimited supply of the most technologically advanced and destructive weapons and use them without limit on a civilian population in violation of even US Congressional restrictions and (3) scores of almost unanimous United Nations condemnations of the construction of genocidal apartheid barriers against a native population, starvation embargoes and the current extermination campaign in Gaza are always vetoed by the US representative.

Many critics of Israel’s genocide in Gaza also condemn what they call ‘the complicity’ of Washington or ‘the United States’ without clearly identifying the actual socio-political forces influencing policy-makers or the ‘dual’ political loyalties and identities of the ‘American’ politicians who have long-standing and deep allegiances to Israel. As a consequence, most critics fail to counter, protest or even identify the ideology and politics of the organized power configurations which define US complicity with Israel, who intimidate potential critics, who write and mouth the pro-Israel editorials in the mass media and who filter out any criticism, any truth…even when Israel engages in sustained bloody extermination campaigns.

The ZPC and the Israeli War of Extermination in Gaza

The ZPC played a major role in all stages of Israel’s extermination campaign against Gaza including a sustained propaganda effort. The ZPC orchestrated a massive successful campaign through the extensive network of American mass media, which it controls and influences. It fabricated an image of the Hamas administration in Gaza as a terrorist organization, which allegedly seized power through violence – totally denying its rise to power through internationally supervised, democratic elections and its defense of its electoral mandate against a US-Israeli backed PLO military takeover. The entire Zionist Jewish leadership backed Israel’s land grabs, its ghetto wall around Palestinians, the hundreds of road blocks, the Jewish settlers violently taking over Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the criminal, genocidal Israeli economic embargo on Gaza designed to systematically starve the Palestinians into submission. Throughout the two years of this Israeli extermination campaign, American Zionists played a major role in leading the servile US government at home and abroad in backing each totalitarian measure: The vast majority of local synagogues became bully-pulpits defending the starvation and degradation of 1.5 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza caged on all sides by deadly force and the ‘walling off’ into economically and socially devastating cantons of the 4.5 million West Bank Palestinian population under foreign occupation. The US Congress shamelessly followed the Zionist lead, backing every single criminal measure taken by the State of Israel and approving dozens of resolutions, which in most cases were entirely written by AIPAC lobbyists acting as unregistered agents of the Israeli government (contrary to US federal statute, which requires foreign agents and lobbyists to be registered as such). Israel’s demands for the most up-to-date US warplanes, including F-16s, Apache helicopter gun ships, and 1,000 pound bombs were secured by dint of effort of the AIPAC lobbyists and their clients in the US Congress. In other words, the American ZPC created the ideological cover and military instruments for Israel’s ‘total war’ against the defenseless Palestinian population. Equally important, prominent Zionist leaders in the US Congress and members of the foreign policy establishment blocked or vetoed any international criticism of Israel – securing its impunity and immunity from any of the Congressional sanctions usually enacted against criminal states. In other words, Israeli policy makers operated with the knowledge that there would be no negative economic, diplomatic and military repercussions to their launching the planned Gaza extermination campaign because they knew, in advance, that ‘their people’ were in total control of US Middle East policy to the extent of actually repeating verbatim each and every propaganda lie in defense of Israel’s total war against the entire population of Gaza.

In Defense of Israel’s War of Extermination

The Zionist-controlled US print media, in particular the New York Times and the Washington Post, systematically fabricated an account that fit perfectly with Israel’s official line defending its massive assault on Gaza: Omitting any historical account of the hundreds of Israeli armed incursions and ‘targeted’ assassinations of Palestinian leaders and officials (even in their own homes) which repeatedly violated the ‘cease fire’ agreed by Hamas and provoked its retaliation in self-defense of its people; omitting the years of an Israeli enforced starvation embargo of food and essentials that threatened the lives of 1.5 million Palestinians and led to the desperate efforts of the elected Hamas leadership to secure supplies for the people’s survival via tunnels across the Egyptian border and through missile attacks against Israel to pressure the Jewish state to negotiate an end of the criminal blockade.

The Conference of President of the Major American Jewish Organizations, and the vast majority of Jewish communal groups and congregations, gave enthusiastic and unanimous support to Israel’s total war, its extermination campaign against the captive Palestinian population of Gaza. Even as images and reports of the massive destruction, killing and wounding of over 2,500 defenseless Palestinians filtered in the mass media, not a single major Jewish organization broke ranks; only individuals and small groups protested. All the ‘Majors’ persisted in the politics of the Big Lie: the destruction of hospitals, mosques, universities, roads, apartments, pharmacies and fishing ports were all labeled ‘Hamas targets’. The systematic all-out assault by uncontested helicopter gunships against 1.5 millions civilians was erased by tendentious accounts of Hamas’ homemade missiles falling ineffectively near Israeli towns.

A close reading of the most important propaganda organ of the PMAJO, the Daily Alert (TDA), during the first 5 days of Israel’s assault, reveals the propaganda tack taken by the leadership of the pro-Israel power configuration. TDA systematically worked to achieve the following:

    1. Exaggerate the threats to Israel by the Palestinian missiles from Gaza, citing 4 Israeli deaths, while omitting any mention of the 2,500 Palestinian dead and wounded and the total destruction of their economy and living conditions (without safe water, electricity, food, cooking fuel, medicine and heat in the winter).

    2. Promote Israel’s military assault as ‘defensive’, directed at eliminating Hamas rocket attacks while omitting mention of Israel’s clearly stated purpose of destroying all civil organizations, social welfare agencies, educational facilities, medical clinics and public security institutions connected in any way with the elected Hamas government and any auxiliary agencies.

    3. Cite select statement from Israel’s allies and clients (Washington, the US media, Germany and the UK) blaming Hamas for the conflict without mentioning the vast majority of countries in the United Nations General Assembly condemning Israel’s brutality.

    4. Reproduce Israeli slanders against any and all international human rights leaders and organizations that condemn the Jewish state’s policy of genocide against the native Palestinians. In this regard, TDA is the foremost ‘genocide denier’ in the United States and, perhaps outside of Israel, in the world.

    5. Repeatedly cite Israeli political and military leaders’ claims of acting ‘with restraint’, ‘safeguarding civilians’, and ‘targeting military objectives’, even in the face of reports and images of mass civilian destruction and loss of life documented in the vast majority of (non-US) Western media.

    6. Defend every Israeli bombing mission, every day, every hour, of every building, every home, and every economic, religious and educational institution in Gaza as ‘defensive’ or a ‘reprisal’, all the while quoting some of the most notorious, unconditional, perennial apologists of Israeli violence as if they were unbiased intellectuals, including Benny ‘Nuke Tehran’ Morris, Marty Peretz and Amos Oz.

    7. The Daily Alert quotes US writers, journalists and editors who praise and defend Israel’s ‘total war’ without identifying their long-standing affiliation and identification with Zionist organizations, giving the false image of a wide spectrum of opinion behind the assault. Never has even the most moderate Jewish or Gentile critic of Israel’s massive extermination campaign appeared in any issues of the Daily Alert.

The principal American Jewish organizations have bombarded the US Congress, influencing, intimidating and purchasing the craven so-called ‘representatives’ of the American people, the media and public notables with lies in defense of Israel’s total war to exterminate a people. Their public, brazen, open complicity in genocide can be considered crime against humanity: The willful promotion of acts of a state designed to destroy an entire people.

And yet these willing accomplices, these ‘willing executioners’ of state mass murder go uncontested within the US political class. One of their leading mouthpieces in the incoming Obama Administration, Chief Presidential Adviser David Axelrod, even cites an Obama campaign speech defending Israeli assaults on the people of Gaza.

Israel arrogantly repudiates all calls to end this mass murder, because Israel knows that ‘its people’ are still in control of US policy toward the Middle East and will use their power in the new president’s administration to block any condemnation of this crime.

To date the entire human rights and anti-war movements have failed to even mention, let along challenge, the most powerful propaganda and political organizations, which influence US policy and manipulate the mass media in favor of Israel’s extermination campaign. They will play no restraining role on Israel’s totalitarian policies as long as its principle US backers are free to lie, manipulate and defend each and every crime.

There is little hope for an independent US Congressional policy as long as Israel’s war of extermination in Gaza can be defended by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (and Zionist zealot) Congressman Howard Berman in the following terms: “Israel has a right, indeed a duty, to defend itself in response to the hundreds of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza over the past week. No government in world would sit by and allow its citizens to be subjected to this kind of indiscriminate bombardment. The loss of innocent life is a terribly tragedy and the blame for that tragedy lies with Hamas.” Thus Congressman Berman cynically omits the 2 years of Israel’s embargo, the daily ‘targeted’ assassinations of Palestinians, the ‘targeted’ missile attacks against civilians, the land, sea and air blockades and the blatant ‘targeted’ destruction of the infrastructure of Gaza. No government, indeed a democratically elected Islamist government, can stand by while its people are starved and murdered into submission. But according to the respected Congressmen Bermans of the world, only the lives of Jews matter, not the growing thousands of murdered, dismembered and mutilated citizens of Gaza – they do not count as people!

What is to be Done

Israel’s crimes against humanity demand a public response: social action, which will force it to cease and desist from its campaign to exterminate the people of Gaza. Because the Jewish state has assaulted a vast array of Palestinian social institutions, which resonate with those in our own society, we can and should mobilize them to condemn and boycott their counterparts in Israel:

    1. We should urge the entire academic community to denounce Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza and the total destruction of all of its science facilities. An organized boycott of Israeli universities and all academic exchanges, especially scientific, should become university policy throughout the country. Special attention should be paid to the 450 US university presidents, who in the recent past, denounced a call by British academics for a boycott and who remain silent and complicit in the face of Israel’s total physical annihilation of all ten faculties for 20,000 Palestinian university students.

    2. All American health workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, should organize and denounce Israel’s medical embargo against the 1.5 million Palestinians crowded into the Gaza Strip. They must condemn Israel’s bombardment of Gaza’s Children’s Hospital, the neighborhood pharmacies and the attacks on any transport of those critically wounded Palestinian victims of its aerial and missile attacks. Medical personnel should raise the fundamental ethical issues regarding the collaboration of US medical personnel and programs with the Jewish State’s ‘total war’ policies of extermination.

    3. All citizens should demand the end of all US military aid to Israel, especially F-16 fighter planes, Apache attack helicopters, missiles, 1000 pound ‘bunker buster’ bombs used by the Israeli armed forces on the civilian infrastructure of Gaza and the murder and maiming of over 2,500 Palestinians, civilians, civil servants, police and national militia. In pursuit of a cutoff of US military aid to Israel, every effort should be made to target and denounce the most forceful, aggressive and successful Zionist advocates and lobbyists who influence the elected members of the US Congress and White House on foreign military aid budgets. No progress in ending US military aid for Israel’s ethnic cleansing will succeed unless the peace movement and others appalled by Israel’s mass murder tackles the Zionist lobby head on. This includes boycotts, rebuttals and demonstrations against the AIPAC, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the other 50 leading American Jewish organizations, which initiate and secure US governmental endorsement of Israel’s extermination policies.

    4. US religious institutions should forcefully denounce Israel’s crimes against humanity, including its demolition of 5 mosques, uniting all faiths (Christian, Moslem, Buddhist) and especially reaching out to the tiny minority of rabbis and observant Jews willing to forthrightly denounce the totalitarian practices of the Israeli state.

    5. Port and long shore workers, sailors and other maritime workers and officials should boycott the handling of all trade with Israel and denounce its Navy’s violent illegal assault, in international waters, of civilian fishing boats and vessels carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. No ships carrying Israeli products should be loaded or unloaded as long as Israel maintains its criminal military blockade of the port facilities of Gaza.

    6. Tens of millions of US citizens subject to the one-sided pro-Israel bias of the electronic and print media, the lop-sided presentations of Zionist ‘op-ed’ writers, ‘news’ reports and the self-styled Middle East experts, should demand equal time, coverage and reportage for non-Zionist specialists, analysts and commentators. We should demand the end of euphemisms and fabrications, which convert victims into aggressors and exterminators into victims.

    7. We should wage a battle of ideas everywhere (in every public forum) against the efforts by the Zionist Power Configuration to monopolize discussion over the Israeli policy of genocide, to censor, intimidate and slander critics of Israeli apartheid – as UN General Assembly President Manuel d’Escoto so aptly calls Israel’s Ghetto Wall surrounding Palestinian villages. The outpouring of public protest over Israel’s war of extermination is an enormous step forward in countering the Zionist monopoly of the mass media and encouraging the tens of millions of Americans who clearly recognize and privately despise Israel’s crimes against humanity and resent the local Zionist elite’s thuggery against those who speak out. Mass pressure on elected representative may sway some to reconsider their abject servility to their Zionist ‘contributors’ and their ‘Israel First’ Congressional colleagues.

    8. A patriotic nationwide campaign should demand that the Israel lobby, especially AIPAC, come clean and register as a foreign agent of the State of Israel. This might undermine the Lobby’s appeal to American Jews, reduce its influence over Congress and open up judicial processes and investigations over its abuse of tax-exemptions, money-laundering and lead to revelations over its treasonous procurement of confidential US state documents for a foreign power. There is a powerful political and legal basis for such a denial of the ‘Lobby’s’ tax-exempt status and legality, apart from the transparent and overwhelming evidence that all Zionist organizations act as transmission belts for Israeli state policies: In the early 1950’s up to 1963, the forerunner of AIPAC was obligated to register as a foreign agent of the State of Israel. More recently, an Israeli prosecutor presented evidence that the Israeli-Jewish Agency and its US counterparts were laundering billions of dollars especially for the funding of Israeli colonial settlements on occupied Palestinian land, condemned as illegal under international law. Congressional hearings, law suits and further published research would reveal the role of the Lobby as a Fifth Column for the State of Israel against the interest of the people of the United States.

Until we neutralize the pervasive power of the Zionist Power Configuration in all of its manifestations – in American public and civic life – and its deep penetration of American legislative and executive offices, we will fall short of preventing Israel from receiving the arms, funding and political backing to sustain its wars of ethnic extermination.

When told that the great majority of the world’s people are sickened and incensed by Israel’s mass murder of the citizens of Gaza, we can easily imagine the contemptuous dismissal by Israel’s top leaders, paraphrasing Joseph Stalin: How many bombers, missiles, fighter planes and powerful lobbies do they (the outraged people of the world) have?

55 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Max Shields said on January 2nd, 2009 at 8:51am #

    Dr. Petras, yours is certainly one interpretation of why what’s happening is happening. I agree with you on what appears to be happening and would not say that your interpretation of what drives it is not correct; I have thought the same many times.

    But I was intrigued by a slight variation of this interpretation of Israel that Justin Raimondo has offered.

    His thesis is that Israel exists only as long as it is in conflict. That its very existence is diminished, unless it remains in constant conflict with the region. This is an evolved pathology (my term). The US must continue to feed this alien “nation” and so the propaganda must be unrelenting in the US so as to extinguish the slightest notion of war criminality and horror.

    The results are the same, but I think we need to figure out what exactly we are dealing with here. We cannot bring this to a final conclusion until we understand it.

  2. Michael Kenny said on January 2nd, 2009 at 9:11am #

    The amusing point about Stalin’s comment is that it was made about the Pope and the Georgian’s successors discovered first in Portugal and then in Poland just how many divisions the Pope actually had!

    Also, there is a much simpler way of dealing with the problem than Professor Petras’s long “shopping list”. All that is required is to break American power. Israel exists purely on American brute force. Break the US capacity to use force outside its borders and Israel has to negotiate. Until that capacity is broken, Israel will continue to stick its tongue out at the entire planet.

    The jam on the bread is that by breaking American power, you destroy the the reason why the Israel Lobby wants to maintain its stranglehold on American public life and the US economy. At that point, American resources are available, as in a normal country, for American needs, like, for example, securing American jobs and providing health care.

  3. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:12am #

    as i see it, the sit’n in expalestine can be better understood w. a widest look possible:

    world plutos r united like never before. the’v heard US say: ur w. us or against us

    ‘jews’ had many ‘teachers’; thus, behave similarly as many others have done before them and do now

    arab lands r against pals. many may think of pals as nonarabic or slightly only; thus no kinship w. pals

    global warming along planet getting poorer is definitely a factor in modern paroxisism

    uselessness of armed struggle against occupators as these r thousand upon thousand of times stronger econo-diplo-militarily than even a bloc of nations.

    from this, a conclusion arises that nato/us cannot lose; winning/losing hinges entirely on the wilingness of the ruling classes how many soldiers they r willing to sacrifice.

    if amers and euros wld refuse to die for the plutos; plutos can hire lostof poor africans and asians to fight for them.

    let’s urge people to stop armed resistance. thnx

  4. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:39am #

    Once again, not since the days of the Nazi regime has there been such an unapologetic attempt by a people to exterminate another. I keep going back to how the world can stand idly by while this happens, regardless of how obvious Israel’s intentions are. What does this say about the world we live in? Has it finally reached that point where the United States holds the world by the throat? Will no one intervene, whether Uncle Sam wants them to or not?
    Obama is getting a good deal here, too. He gets to “no comment” his way out of this situation, then after he’s in the oval office he can jerk us around again by saying this atrocity would not have happened under his administration. This of course after he’s already made it pretty clear that he is pro-Israel no matter what they do. Of course, so is the rest of Washington. I will never for the life of me understand how the Israeli government and AIPAC have been so easily able for so long to control, manipulate and mold the U.S. government.
    It seems that the dream of American government conceived by Truman and carried through to the present has finally come to fruition: America is the Empire: Do Not Question Us. Israel is like the baby hippo that can swim among the crocodiles without fear.

  5. Michael Dawson said on January 2nd, 2009 at 1:31pm #

    If you’re new to this important topic, beware of Petras’ unswerving insistence that Zionism is the main engine, rather than the mere spearhead, of all this.

    Chomsky has long argued that, since at least the late 1960s, Israel has functioned as an aircraft carrier for US imperialism/corporate capitalism. Though you’d never know it from reading Petras, who allows no space for questions, that explanation is a direct rival vis-a-vis Petras’ acronym-slathered attack on Jewish cabals. Check out _The Fateful Triangle_ for Chomsky’s account.

    And isn’t it rather strange that a man who almost claims to “own” the class struggle is telling us we “should” be mounting a “patriotic nationwide campaign”? ( Or is that a PNC?)

    Isn’t nationalism the first and last refuge of scoundrels?

  6. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 3:05pm #

    i think u’r right ab petras’ insisting that the ‘jews’ r more responsible for US imperiliasm than europe and US self.

    one can tell this but cannot, afaik, show let alone prove it. telling only won’t do.

    there is nothing wrong, imo, w. ethnocentrism/nationalism at this time of panhuman development. thnx

  7. mass said on January 2nd, 2009 at 3:11pm #

    Michael Dawson – I do not see how denouncing Zionism, and not denouncing U.S imperialism sufficiently, makes Petras arguments any less valid. In Israel there are no American soldiers. None that I know of at least. There are however, many Israeli soldiers and citizens. All ordinary people. So how does one culture get to exterminate another culture with impunity? I don’t believe it is because of the U.S’s outside influence that makes Israelis behave the way they do. I do believe that a irrational, religious, ultra-supremacist culture has gotten hold of the Israeli zeitgeist. This is Zionism, which has found a fertile and welcoming ground in the U.S. The U.S is home to its own ultra-supremacist fascist zeitgeist, so really the two go hand in hand.

  8. DavidG. said on January 2nd, 2009 at 3:30pm #

    Most Israelis Are Insane! It’s the title of my latest post. It seeks to look at the increasing nightmare that is happening in Gaza from a psychological perspective.

    I believe it is very pertinent to this thread.

  9. DanE said on January 2nd, 2009 at 5:17pm #

    David G,

    Israeli expatriate & Hegelian saxophonist Gilad Atzmon has provided many pages detailing the symptoms you mention. Also, US guitarist/singer Dave Rovics has produced some very insightful diagnosis of the corresponding syndrome so rampant among US Israelophiles.

    I have one cuibble with Dr Petras’ superb analysis, which may be somewhat due to his location both geographically & socially relatively near the centers of US intellectual & political activity. His description of the overall problem is quite accurate, but when he gets to “What Is To Be Done”, it seems to me his listing of strategic goals is excellent but alas there is no clear explanation of how to get from here to there.

    It seems to yours truly that before we can hope to defeat Zionist ideological hegemony in US mainstream institutions, we’ll need to greatly weaken the hold of the Zionist Consensus on persons/groups active in the popular movements.

    Many organizations and leaders who’ve managed to become identified as supporters of “justice for the Palestinians” actually hold and disseminate ideas which in the end support Israel and Zionist colonialism.

    So my view is, instead of trying to challenge the Zionist Consensus via letters to Congresscritters and national media executives, maybe it will be more effective to challenge it in the fora nearest at hand; that is nearest ideologically or/and nearest geographically.

    A prerequisite is to be clear about the nature of the Democratic Party, and especially about the wolves within it who go about in “progressive” clothing. Yes, there are probably some longtime Demo activists, even a few lowest-level candidates, school board, garbage commission members who are sincere and who support good things. Unfortunately such people’s main impact on the political process is to provide cover for the rest of the bastards.

  10. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 5:37pm #

    dan e,
    it is also my perception that ?all ‘jews’ who criticize isr and/or US/isr, r in fact minizionsts; ie, approbate the theft of land in ’48 and possibly in ’67 aggression.
    i haven’t read anything that finkelstein has written; so, i can’t say whether he recognizes isr ’48.
    anybody who does recognize isr in any shape is, to me, a minizionist.
    i do not recognize isr- only palestine.

    it is of utmost import that we never reward criminal behavior. thnx

  11. swan said on January 2nd, 2009 at 7:00pm #

    Again, thanks to Petras, with whom I am in complete agreement, as well as I am with his criticisms of Chomsky, which he enumerates in THE POWER OF ISRAEL IN THE UNITED STATES. Kudos to David G., and check out re its first of the year statement, which completely dovetails with James Petras.

    And Dan E’s comment shows that he knows the main impact of activists for the Democrat Party, on the political process, like I know it to be, for that very reason having just resigned from it. Go Green; go Libertarian.

  12. Deadbeat said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:41pm #

    The desire on the Left to divert attention away from Zionism is as powerful as ever. Petras has done a fine job keeping the pressure on Zionism and antagonizing the apologia of the “Left”.

    As DanE writes …

    A prerequisite is to be clear about the nature of the Democratic Party, and especially about the wolves within it who go about in “progressive” clothing.

    You can easily tell that from some of earlier commentary. The new “imperialism” is to use the old “imperialism” to obscure Zionism. As Petras remarks…

    Many critics of Israel’s genocide in Gaza also condemn what they call ‘the complicity’ of Washington or ‘the United States’ without clearly identifying the actual socio-political forces influencing policy-makers or the ‘dual’ political loyalties and identities of the ‘American’ politicians who have long-standing and deep allegiances to Israel. As a consequence, most critics fail to counter, protest or even identify the ideology and politics of the organized power configurations which define US complicity with Israel, who intimidate potential critics, who write and mouth the pro-Israel editorials in the mass media and who filter out any criticism, any truth…even when Israel engages in sustained bloody extermination campaigns.

  13. Ray said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:54pm #

    A Grammar Mistake

    “…and all the principle print and electronic mass media”
    should be
    “…and all the principal print and electronic mass media”

    – an English teacher (who agrees with much of the article)

  14. Aaron Aarons said on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:51am #

    I agree with Petras’s basic thesis about the overwhelming influence of the Zionist lobby over U.S. policy towards the “Middle East”, and its influence over even “left” opinion in the U.S.. But I wonder whether its the power of Israel in the United States OR the power of the Jewish bourgeoisie, mainly rooted in the U.S., over both Israel AND United States policy regarding Israel. It would be interesting to see studies of the influence of U.S. Jewish capitalists on Israeli politics, as well as of the ties between, and overlapping of, Israeli and U.S. Jewish capital. Even such obvious questions as the weight of Jewish capitalists in the various branches of U.S. capital can’t be raised without provoking cries of “antisemitism”. That latter word has come to mean, not hostility toward Jews, but any idea or question that might lead to something that might make Jews feel uncomfortable.

    I must say, however, that Petras’ call for a “patriotic nationwide campaign” against the Zionist Lobby is shocking coming from someone who has been a strong and radical opponent of U.S. imperialism for half a century. At best, such a campaign is an extremely dangerous example of opportunist pragmatism that tries to deal with one problem, U.S. support for Israeli depredations against the Palestinians, while ignoring how such appeals to U.S. nationalism strengthen the ability of the U.S. ruling class as a whole to mobilize its population for imperialist adventures, even if fewer of those adventures would be in the Middle East. Israel and Zionism had virtually nothing to do with the murders of several million people in Korea and again in Vietnam by U.S. imperialism. Israel’s wars and Zionist-promoted wars haven’t quite reached those levels of devastation yet, and won’t unless they resort to nuclear weapons.

    Another point of disagreement with Petras is over his essentially pacifist and legal approach on what actions to take. It’s time — better late than never! — to organize and support direct action against the interests of Israel-supporting capitalists and institutions in the U.S. and around the world. Even though I’m not personally advocating violence against the enablers of Zionist crimes, it should also be pointed out, at least propagandistically, that material support for these crimes is far more serious an offense than anything Palestinians have done that the Zionists have used as justification for murdering them and their neighbors.

  15. Deadbeat said on January 3rd, 2009 at 11:02am #

    I agree with Aaron Aarons insightful analysis of Petras article and the question he raises. I think that the “best” way to confront Zionism in the United States is by exposing it as a racist ideology. To do so means identifying these “capitalist” and yes — so called “Leftist” as supporting, advancing or apologizing for a form of “White Supremacy”. In other words as identifying them as supporting RACISM.

    Racism is a extremely powerful identifier in the United States and it is also why you’ve seen rhetorical backlashes even coming from the so-called “Leftist” against people of color who has spoken out against Zionism. In the 1990’s the label of “Black Racism” became commonplace among Liberals even to the point where the late Barbara Gordan “apologized” for it during the 1992 Democratic Party Convention.

    Racism is such a powerful identifier that even Noam Chomsky goes to great length to doubletalk Israeli apartheid when it is clear to people like Desmond Tutu.

    To mobilize people they must be on the same page of ideas, concepts, and strategies. I agree with Aaron Aarons caution regarding nationalism. But a discussion of strategies to confront Zionism is sorely needed and sorely missing.

  16. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 4th, 2009 at 6:58am #





    Petras: “To date the entire human rights and anti-war movements have failed to even mention, let along challenge, the most powerful propaganda and political organizations, which influence US policy and manipulate the mass media in favor of Israel’s extermination campaign.”




    by Barbarism = Zionism = Racism

    “Hey, Ruth W., if you ain’t got the stomach for it, then let us, who *do*, deal with it.”
    by Barbarism = Zionism = Racism
    Saturday Jan 3rd, 2009 11:58 AM

    “An Open Letter to Norman Finkelstein, and Barbara Lubin of MECA in Berkeley, et al”
    by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA
    Friday Feb 15th, 2008 3:39 PM

  17. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 4th, 2009 at 8:24am #

    EXCELLENT RESPONSE COMMENTARY , AARON AARONS (Jan 3; 8:51am), to Petras’ otherwise trenchant commentary.

    Aaron Aarons: “Another point of disagreement with Petras is over his essentially pacifist and legal approach on what actions to take. It’s time — better late than never! — to organize and support direct action against the interests of Israel-supporting capitalists and institutions in the U.S. and around the world.”

    One of the best ways to confront Israel as an ideologically and officially Zionist, racist, militarist, apartheid state, and to give both Zionism and Israel THE STRONGEST MORAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL BLOW, would be for leftists to OPENLY and PUBLICLY assert — at least in *principle* — the Palestinian people’s RIGHT TO *ARMED* RESISTANCE, if they so choose, although tactics and forms can always be critiqued.

    As my being a person of color, I have noted that the, typically, white “progressive/leftist” cry, DEMAND, and respect only, for “PEACEFUL RESISTANCE !” and “NONVIOLENCE!!” — even against the most brutal oppression and decades-long armed assault by the oppressor — IS ALWAYS AN EXPECTATION AND DEMAND FOR _PEOPLE OF *COLOR*_ resistance in the world against other *white/European* people. Therefore, I think it’s a white *RACIST* expectation or demand by even white leftists. And I say, *enough* of those namby-pamby whites, always demanding nonviolence, who’ve never lived *a single day* under brutal armed oppression by people (whether, for example, the Christian KKK or the Zionist ‘KKK’, let alone Amerikkkan imperialists) who were trying to kill them.

    (This was, in particular, a white-American expectation for even South African blacks under apartheid — although the IRA certainly supported black South African armed resistance — and today even white liberals, progressives and leftists try to rewrite history and claim that Nelson Mandela believed in *nonviolent* resistance, even though he was a leader of the *MILITARY* wing of the ANC!)

    In short, nonviolence is an absolute demand whites make *only* to even the most brutally oppressed people of color against other *white* people: even white leftists always reserve the right to either nonviolent or armed resistance, as the oppressor, place and the situation warrants.

    (You didn’t notice too many white Christians, Jews or athiests demanding that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and fascist Japan be resisted *nonviolently*.)

    It should easily be noted that ISRAEL ILLEGALIZES *BOTH* ARMED AND NONVIOLENT PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE — and *BOTH* are often met with the same Israeli BULLETS.

    As a person of color who is *SERIOUS* about fighting oppression, I *OPENLY* AND *PUBLICLY* ACKNOWLEDGE THE *RIGHT* OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE TO *ARMED* RESISTANCE, as they feel the need, against the congenitally brutal Zionist state/regime (or “the Zionist entity”, as the Palestinian armed resistance calls it).

    P.S. The *new* Massas of African Americans with any public status are now Zionist Jews (those of us with any public status jump when they say “JUMP!”, bark when they say “BARK!”, and heel when they say “HEEL!”), as opposed to, before, antebellum and former Jim Crow Christians, and the late Barbara Jordan — or the current Barack Obama — was/is no exception.

  18. bozh said on January 4th, 2009 at 10:14am #

    j. anderson,
    i’v been saying that ?all of these jushits who criticize isr/US r mini zionist; ie, they recognize the theft of land of ’48.

    and it is of utmost import that we never reward nonshemitic crimes against canaanitic and shemitic/judean people.

    if we do, it may enbolden another folk to do to another folk what the euros have done to pals.

    canaanites have been hated by hebrews. they have been cursed by noah, gen. 10: 25.

    but hebrews r no more; euros have taken their place. thnx

  19. Michael Dawson said on January 5th, 2009 at 11:44am #

    The choice is stark between Chomsky and Petras. The evidence is most important, of course. One interesting way to a sharpen one’s judgment, though is to look at what each explanation points you toward. Chomsky says cut off Israel financially and use the UN to enforce UN 242. Petras says wage a “patriotic” culture war against Zionism.

    Another way to get your mind around things is to focus on which thinker permits space for debate and nuance. Petras permits none.

    Meanwhile, Joseph Anderson, you’re tilting at windmills. Of course Palestinians have the right to armed resistance.

    But nonviolence is hardly reducible to a white liberal’s proscription of non-white struggle. Have you heard of Gandhi and MLK? They overthrew massively powerful regimes via disciplined nonviolence struggle.

    The Palestinians might have fared better if they’d learned the lessons of those two achievements, probably the two greatest popular victories of the last century.

    Recognizing Gandhi and King doesn’t mean people can’t and shouldn’t shoot back when they have to. But why cast such aspersions on non-violence? It has performed quite well, when it’s had a chance.

  20. bozh said on January 5th, 2009 at 12:48pm #

    michael dawson,
    imo, UN is morally incorrect by recognizing israel of any size. such a ‘solution’ may enbolden other folks to do to another folk what nonshemitic europeans have done to date (more to come) to palestinians.

    in addition, UN wld not allow return of palestinians to their homes; thereby violating our second-dearest panhuman right: right to abide in one’s habitat or to return to it regardless why one had left it.

    also criminals wld never be punished but rewarded for their enorm crimes.
    this is what chomsky clearly stands for. europeans w. a cult have chosen their enemies. and they will destroy europeans of expalestine.
    ‘jews’ can be saved only by one state solution.

    an donly after rabin, dayan, peres, sharon are found guilty of crimes.
    anything else, to me, is just patching old pants. thnx

  21. Suthiano said on January 5th, 2009 at 1:05pm #

    Creation of state of Israel by UN violated Chapters XI and XII of the UN Charter entailed in UNGA Res. 181 (II).

    In typical fashion, U.S. appealed to UNGA Res. 181 (II) in argument for creating State of Israel, while at the same time undermining the letter and spirit of that very resolution w/ regards to Palestinians… then spending next 60 years making sure Palestinians are denied basic rights.

  22. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 5th, 2009 at 6:31pm #






    I said that it would be THE GREATEST MORAL BLOW TO ZIONISM/ISRAEL for progressives/leftists to acknowlege the *RIGHT* of the Palestinian people — and any brutally (and, especially, homicidally) oppressed (and dispossessed) people — to employ armed resistance *IF THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD CHOOSE*. And they can choose *both* nonviolent and armed resistance (as most people who were/are colonized did/do, including the Palestinians) — but *BOTH* are *ILLEGALIZED* by the alien, colonial state of Israel.

    Short of actual arms and material support, what greater moral support can you give to a brutally (and, especially, homicidally) oppressed people — AND WHAT GREATER DENUNCIATION OF THEIR OPPRESSORS — than to say that what the oppressors have done and are doing is so brutal that you acknowledge the oppressed society the moral right to ARMED RESISTANCE?




    Here we go again — a “superior” ARROGANT WHITE LIBERAL from on high, lecturing a Black leftist grassroots intellectual activist about Black and Brown people:

    MICHAEL DAWSON (Jan 5th, 11:44am) “Have you heard of Gandhi and MLK?”

    First of all, Gandhi said that nonviolence would not have worked in apartheid South Africa when he was there (that’s why he *never tried* it there) — and the Sharpeville Massacre later proved that to the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

    Second, MLK said that nonviolence would not have worked against the Nazis. [Even int’l sanctions didn’t work, when it was too late, past that point that conservative and capitalist eliments in Western imperialist countries *supported* Hitler, because Hitler, as yet another mass-homicidal white-supremacist, just wanted Germany to regain and get what *they* had and/or wanted: colonies, subjugated minorities, capitalist corporatism, repressed (and preferably nonunion) workers, etc.]. And you should *note* that MLK *never* joined a pacifist organization. King thought that demanders of absolute universal nonviolence were *superfically idealistic* (as I said before, Blacks folks don’t even have to look up and see what color demanders of absolute universal nonviolence are). King didn’t confuse “the Dream” with *reality*.

    Gandhi and King used nonviolence as, primarily, a *tactic* — because there was a chance that it could work in obtaining independence in India and certain racial civil rights reforms in America. Both Britain and the U.S. made boisterous claims about being “a democracy” with “equality” and pounding their chests about being the democratic “leaders of the free world!”

    Apartheid South Africa made *no* such claims — and it officially and openly *said* that ‘we believe in racism, at the open and official point of a gun, period’. And there were other significant reasons nonviolence could work with regard to gaining independence in India, and certain social and legal reforms in the U.S. (primarily “equal access” to and “desegregation” of public accomodations, certain public institutions, and somewhat increased access to the industrial, retail, and federal employment market).

    Even Malcolm “By Any Means Necessary” X — which actually meant, by *only* those means necessary, as far as tactics (Malcolm said, “the ballot or the bullet”, “Martin Luther King or the *alternative*”) — said that *nonviolence* should be used when nonviolence *works*: when one’s goals are achievable through nonviolent action.

    In fact, Malcolm X philosophically limited the use of violence for Black people in the *United States* to *self-defense* — and otherwise *nonviolent* means. Both King and X knew that unnecessary escalation to violence presented other potential problems within a people’s one’s own organized struggle, if consciousness and discipline weren’t carefully instilled — let alone the problems of a potential war. But in those Black/Asian European colonies where nonviolent independence was not possible Malcolm avocated *armed struggle*, and King acknowledged it was inevitable.

    Further, Black armed organized resistance advocates like Robert Williams (_Negroes with Guns_) and groups in the United States, like The Deacons of Defense” said that NONVIOLENCE WASN’T GOING TO WORK way out in the rural South when Klu Klux Klan gangs were comin’ after yo’ ass/community/town. You think that marching and singing “Kumbaya” and “We Shall Overcome” would stop the *Klan* from “Yeee-Ha” hoo-ridin’ riding with rifles, torches and dynamite through a small rural Black community?

    And it certainly wasn’t Gandhi or King alone that brought about, respectively, the end of British colonialism in India or the end of official and legal “Jim Crow” apartheid in the U.S.: there were other groups (organized or spontaneous) in both cases that believed in armed struggle/uprisings and showed, respectively, the British and the American government what they might face is they didn’t end colonialism or apartheid. As one nonviolent civil rights leader put it, “When we ‘respectable Negroes’ sat down at the white politicians’ conference table, we knew that the white politicians saw the invisible Black men with guns or holding bricks over their heads behind us.”




    (That’s why Bay Area Zionists just *hate* me: they *KNNNOW* I’m *SERIOUS* about freedom from oppression.)


    MICHAEL DAWSON: “Chomsky says cut off Israel financially”

    NOAM CHOMSKY (the darling, ‘Pied Piper’, *god & guru* of white progressives/leftists) on divestments, boycotts and sanctions against Israel:


    For more on this, also see:


    HOW CHOMSKY LIES — actually TO PROTECT ISRAEL as an ideologically Jewish/Zionist state
    by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA
    Wednesday Feb 20th, 2008 1:42 PM





    And otherwise, I *agreed* with Aaron Aarons excellent analysis (Jan 3; 8:51am) about Petras’ intellectually, politically and morally fallacious appeals to (especially, *American*) “patriotism”.



  23. Deadbeat said on January 5th, 2009 at 10:18pm #

    Thanks John for an excellent deconstruction of these “closet” Zionist. The so-called “debate” on Democracy Now! today was absolutely disgusting.

  24. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 6th, 2009 at 2:02am #

    Deadbeat: “Thanks John for an excellent deconstruction of these “closet” Zionist. The so-called “debate” on Democracy Now! today was absolutely disgusting.”

    (Did you mean Joseph?)

    Yep, AMY GOODMAN is happy to waste precious airtime and our valuable extended time hosting debates between progressives/leftists and NUTTY right-wingers.

    But, AMY GOODMAN WILL *NEVER* HAVE A DEBATE *ON THE LEFT* BETWEEN TWO *PROGRESSIVES/LEFTISTS* debating, for example, closet Zionists, or Zionism itself at all(!!), or the Israel lobby, or the fact that the Israel lobby had *a great deal* to do with the war in Iraq and threatened war with Iran (Scott Ritter once ‘blindsided’ her by pointing this out, but then she moved on to another issue *right away*), where, instead, “a war for oil” was used as *an easy, facile, propaganda COVER STORY* tossed out — like throwing fish to trained (leftist) seals — by closet Zionist icons, authors, public lecturers and radio commentators — to and by people like Noam Chomsky or Antonia Juhasz (“The Tyranny of Oil”) and other leftists.

    (I think that most Black leftist intellectuals are usually more intellectually and analytically open or skeptical than even white leftists — although certainly some white leftists too don’t have to be automatically dictated to by popular white leftist icons as to what to uncritically think. And most Black leftist intellectuals just don’t have the uncritical emotional investment in white leftist lecture circuit and radio icons that most white leftists have — so we’re just not going to automatically and uncritically believe what the icons say. And we’re often more intellectually sensitive to and aware of “the dog that didn’t [intellectually] bark” — which first made me suspicious, way back when, that CHOMSKY IS A CLOSET *ZIONIST*.)

    I publicly asked Antonia Juhasz once at a public conference and later *twice*, respectively, on a Pacifica radio call-in show (I had to follow-up on her bullsh*t a 3nd time due to her microphone advantage) what *proof* or *direct compelling evidence* she has that “Big Oil” (as she indiscriminately and monolithically put it) called for, or was behind, the war on Iraq. Neither time was she able to give me an answer — but I mentioned several prominent and undeniably credible people who said that the *Israel* lobby was. Indeed, buried in the middle of her book, Antonia Juhasz even admitted (in one lone isolated sentence, I guess to cover her a**) that SHE HAS *NO PROOF* OR DIRECT COMPELLING EVIDENCE: her entire case is *circumstantial* (propagating the closet Zionist cover story)!

    It’s like supposedly “proving” some gang member shot someone by just saying/outlining that the former was in a gang and he had a police record! But, even people with criminal records are sometimes *framed* by the cops and the mainstream media in order to divert public attention, or to let someone else get off free, or to cover sloppy/lazy investigations, or to end the public debate, or just to ‘close the book’ on the case for expedient reasons. And from the govt, the police, or the Zionists, and often the mainstream media, the first (and often 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th) story from them is almost *ALWAYS* a *LIE*, or a lying revision of a lie.



  25. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2009 at 6:48am #

    My apologies Joesph. I was typing too fast because I was awestruck by your response to Dawson. It is the kind of truth-telling that is sorely lacking. The Democracy Now segment had a “correspondent” in Gaza “debating” some Zionist NGO flack based in Washington DC. Every other word from the Gaza correspondend mouth was a “condemnation” of Hamas’ rocket retaliation of Israeli brutality. The “condemnation” weaken his position as his argument degenerated to “proportionality”.

    It was very late into the “debate” that the topic of the Israeli blockade of Gaza emerged. But the general impression is that the Palestinians induced the wrath of the Israelis because they “fired rockets” at Israel. Not once was it stated that the Palestinians has a RIGHT to SELF-DEFENSE. Only Israel has that “right” according to Democracy Now! It was an extremely disgusting dialogue and presentation.

    Thanks Joesph. Your kind of “for real” commentary is what is needed. These RACIST (aka Zionist) especially on the Left must be outed and condemned because their rhetoric has effectively demobilized any real confrontation of this racist ideology and has allowed Zionism to spread especially within the United States.

  26. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2009 at 8:02am #

    Very weak argument to ignore oil. It’s one thing to “out” Zionists in the left; it’s quite another to ignore reality.

    The problem when people obsess over an ideology is that it consumes their world view so they are diluted all facts into one little “ism”.

    Such is the case with Deadbeat. While I agree completely with his view of the DN “debate yesterday on Gaza (Phyllis Benis should be thoroughly outed for the most obstructionist AO in the country), that does not in any way change the role of oil as the central motive of American plutocrats.

    One simply needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, DB.

  27. Deadbeat said on January 6th, 2009 at 8:17am #

    Max Shields DISTORTS with the following…

    Very weak argument to ignore oil. It’s one thing to “out” Zionists in the left; it’s quite another to ignore reality.

    No one ever stated that oil played no role. What I have stated for during my time here on DV is that the Left has used their “intellectual” cache to DENY ZIONISM role in the war on Iraq and its influence upon U.S. political economy.

    “Oil” is being used to cloak and obscure Zionism’s role. Joesph Anderson had done an excellent service to “out” Antonia Juhasz who is using “oil” to cloak’s Zionism’s influence. The same is true with Naomi Klein’s book “Disaster Capitalism” who book was release to divert attention away from Zionism.

    However it is WELL DOCUMENTED that “oil” was not in favor of a war on Iraq. They view these incursion as creating bad relationship with oil producing nations that in the end HARM their ability to do business. What the “Left” and other Zionist are doing is to over emphasize the role of “oil” in order to obscure the influence of Zionism and the “Israel Lobby” upon the U.S. political economy.

    This rhetoric of “Big Oil” is being used to confuse activist and thereby diminish and weaken any real confrontation to Zionism. This is especially important because Zionism much be confronted in order to resolve the Middle East conflicts and to bring peace to the region. Until Zionism is confronted as a RACIST ideology there will be no change. Therefore any rhetoric or “intellectual” diversions must be outed. Thus Joseph Anderson’s confronting Antonia Juhasz on her bullshit that is really a “intellectual” diversion is extremely important for the Left.

    The action by Joesph Anderson should not be distorted as Max has done in his response. No one is letting “oil” off the hook but “oil” should not be used to obscure and to excuse the RACIST ideology of Zionism that has infected the political economy of the United States and is destroying Palestinians.

  28. Suthiano said on January 6th, 2009 at 8:56am #

    Israel has been accused of deliberately attacking journalists (

    This fits with previous actions during 2006 war in Lebanon.

    Also fits with Israeli desire to monitor and interrupt web discussions of what is going on.

    Classic totalitarian mindset in trying to eliminate other stories… makes it that much easier to believe own.

  29. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 6th, 2009 at 8:57am #

    Max Shields: “Very weak argument to ignore oil.”

    If you have *some emotional need* to believe that, Max, then I’m not your psychiatrist.

    Then, why couldn’t Juhasz answer the question, Max?

    A claim without the facts/documentation/proof or direct compelling (rather than merely incidental) evidence is merely _JUST ONE’S SUBJECTIVE OPINION_.

    And to use one word to explain virtually every military conflict in the entire world (as Antonia Juhasz does in her book) is _SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS_.

    And *just because* someone *says* something is so, doesn’t, in-and-of-itself, make it true.

    So, then, go ahead! — *YOU* answer the question Max Shields (*you’re* a ‘really brilliant’ guy, aren’t you?):

    What *proof* or *direct compelling evidence* do you have that “Big Oil” (as Juhasz indiscriminately and monolithically put it) *CALLED FOR*, *OR WAS BEHIND*, the war on Iraq and the threatened war on Iran?

  30. Suthiano said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:10am #

    Haaretz is quoting sources at the UN who say U.S. rep. Khalilzad has been ordered by the State Department to “torpedo any initiative proposed by the Arab bloc which is designed to grant the Security Council the status of an official arbiter that will have direct involvement with disentangling the Gaza crisis.”

    These are the policies of U.S. and Israel: undermine international treaties, laws and customs so that none can be applied to own actions. Do so in a way that allows these countries to profess interest in piece.

    IMHO, I believe “oils” role in the Iraq war was similar to the role of companies like “Raytheon”, Lockhead Martin etc… Big oil is one sector of “military industrial complex”….or in other words, U.S./Zionist inherent expansionism (required for economy), which requires fighting wars (good for economy), which also requires rebuilding (good time to give old friends big contracts)… Big Oil is one of more powerful parts of economy, so in that sense corporations/plutos at head do have sway. my guess is that some of these ppl already understand greater objectives, some just greedy business men.

    Oil is a part of the picture. It is not a “cause”, but merely a part. Like water.

  31. bozh said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:24am #

    while i do not know how many ‘jewish’ or ashkenazic leftists are what i call “minizionistic” or ” miniimperialistic”, i still dare suspect that 98% of them are for a twostate nonsolution.

    this wld weaken our fight not only against imperialism/aggressions but also special case of land theft, usually called “zionism”.
    and especially in view that there are few of them in US. is it 5-10mn?

    it can be seen that oil sales since US invasion pertain only to who is making more money out of them.
    it can be assumed that almaliki/iraqi al-nobiliti/litterati will be well oiled.
    some amers will also get richer from oil. so oil matters; like any other source.
    oil wld be of strategic importance only if arabs were democracies, armed as well as israel.
    wow! alack, alas, weh for israel!

  32. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:26am #

    TO: Deadbeat, on January 6th, 2009 at 6:48am ; and Deadbeat, on January 6th, 2009 at 8:17am.

    THANKS, Deadbeat — for both posts!

    Your 8:17am comment was *EXCELLENTLY STATED*.

    And had the especial value of being intellectually elucidating, enlightening, and very well written for the benefit of others, well beyond Max Shield’s capacity (and his desire to just soak up and waste other, more intelligent, people’s time).

    I wasn’t going to waste my time with him and his insipid replies (as I once said under another article before), but I just couldn’t *resist* and *enjoyed* putting a direct question to him that I *knew* he *couldn’t* factually answer (anymore than Juhasz could)– hahaha…!!

    [Well, I’m off to the office this morning, so I’ll be out of touch for a while if you post something else soon.]

  33. Shabnam said on January 6th, 2009 at 1:18pm #

    It is not enough to say the driving force behind the Iraq war was pro Israeli Lobby. We have to give reasons behind the Zionist war. It is true that the driving force for this war was “energy security.”
    This energy security, we were told, was for the empire but the evidence so far doubts this. However, when we say ‘energy security for Israel’ the evidence so far makes more sense.
    Israel felt has to be independent from Arab states to meet its energy requirements which are necessary for its ultimate goal of “the greater Israel”, an expansionist policy towards WORLD DOMINATION.
    Joe Klien said: “ The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives — people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd at Commentary — plumped for this war [in Iraq], and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties.”
    Klein was a supporter of Iraq war in the beginning to turn against it later. So even Klien thinks The Zionists were behind the war for the interest of Israel.
    The fact that some oil companies might derive benefits from the U.S. takeover of Iraq does not mean they were the driving force. Two motives for such a war have been suggested: one is to benefit the American oil industry, and the other is to enhance the hegemonic power of the United States by giving it control of the oil.
    Control of Iraqi oil for American global strategic interests would be a long-term plan and would presuppose a permanent American occupation. The claim that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was predicated on the need to advance American global power is also undercut by the fact that few foreign-policy experts outside the neocon orbit saw Iraq war to fulfill this goal. American power has been damaged greatly.
    In an op-ed piece in the August 15, 2002, issue of the Wall Street Journal titled “Don’t Attack Iraq,” Scowcroft contended that Saddam was not connected with terrorists and that his weapons posed no threat to the United States. In addition, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advocated American global dominance in his 1997 work, The Grand Chessboard was against the war, expressed the concern that a unilateral attack on Iraq would undermine America’s global interests.
    Thus, Israel was the primary beneficiary of Iraq war, and desirable for neocons The neocons were more organized and more powerful group in the empire and were backed by rich Zionist Internationalists from Wall Street who was able to push US into a war to improve Israel’s strategic position in the region and beyond to be closer in establishing “the greater Israel” necessary for World Domination.
    Ever since 1948, Israeli politicians have been dreaming of the reopening of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline and they tried it with Saddam Hussein himself. In 1982, Syria closed the Kirkuk pipeline to support Iran in its war where has been forced upon Iran by the US, West and Arab states. Yitzak Shamir suggested to Baghdad that Saddam should export its oil through Haifa. He refused. Two years later Israeli came up again by endorsing a Bechtel project to build a pipeline Kirkuk-Aqaba which Donald Rumsfeld wanted Saddam to accept but he turned it down. It is only with the vote of the Iraq Liberation Act under Bill Clinton in October 1998 that the question of the transport of Iraqi oil was again on the agenda.
    Policy of dual containment where was designed by Martin Indyk, a Zionist pro Israel from “The Washington institute for the near east policy,” an Israeli think tank, responsible for death of more than 650,000 Iraqi people, majority were children, and establishment of “No Fly Zone” where partition of Iraq took place, Kurdistan in the north, where one of the most important Israel strategic objective has come very close to reality.

    Israel sees the Kurds as potential strategic allies, as an insurance policy against Arabs and Iranian alike. Israel wants to boost the status and power of Kurds in the new Iraq, in the hope that they would either have a key role in Iraq policy decision or to have an independent state to help Israeli’s goal of establishing ‘the greater Israel’ towards world domination. Since its inception, Israelis’ policy never has been based on ‘peace’ or sharing the land with Palestinian, the indigenous people and the owner of Palestine, rather to take Palestine by FORCE committing war crimes in implementing its expansionist policy. Syria also is for partition, in Israelis’ mind, to expand the Kurdish territory, the most trusted Israeli’s puppet. Creation of Kurdistan WAS NOT THE UNITED STATES’S POLICY OBJECTIVE BUT IT HAS BEEN ISRALIS’ OBJECTIVE SINCE ITS CREATION IN 1948.

  34. Max Shields said on January 6th, 2009 at 3:52pm #

    Deadbeat, this is the first I’ve every read anything from you that indicated you think oil has any role at all. Congratulations, you’re nearly on your way to a full recovery.

    As far as Big Oil being in favor of the Iraq invasion, I think that’s rather dubious. Two of big oils key players were running the invasion show: George W. Bush and Dick Chenney. I think it was Chenney who had those secret meetings with Big Oil back in 2001/2 timeframe (I could be off a bit). No, these guys are very tight.

    But maybe your sources are so certain that so-called Big Oil said, now way to the invasion.

    That’s not even my point. My point is that oil is the central reason for US interest in the ME. Let’s put it this way, if George HW Bush had not invaded over oil (Kuwait), followed by the 8 years of embargo and air raids by Bill Clinton, it’s a pretty sure thing that G.W. Bush wouldn’t have been so quick to enter into the Iraq fray. The situation was set up by oil. But the mere fact that the ME has been such a contentious place (aside from Israel/Palestine) harks back to FDR and the hand-off with the Brits, et al.

    The ME is of major US imperial strategic interest. And it aint because of the camels.

    This in no way detracts from the Zionist murders. As I said, we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

  35. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:01pm #



    (Speaking of someone in need of *therapy*: Max Shields…)

    So, then, GO AHEAD! — *YOU* ANWER THE QUESTION, MAX SHIELDS (*you’re* a ‘really brilliant’ guy, aren’t you?), the question that Antonia Juhasz couldn’t answer from her entire book!:

    What *PROOF* or *_DIRECT_ COMPELLING EVIDENCE* do you have that “Big Oil” (as Juhasz indiscriminately and monolithically put it) *CALLED FOR*, *OR WAS BEHIND*, the war on Iraq and the threatened war on Iran?


    A claim without the facts/documentation/proof or direct compelling (rather than merely incidental) evidence is merely _JUST ONE’S SUBJECTIVE OPINION_.


    (There’s significant oil off the coast of Vietnam: is *that* the reason that the U.S. went to war there too?)


    I say again: It’s like supposedly “proving” that some gang member shot someone by just saying/outlining that the former was in a gang and he had a police record! That wouldn’t fly in any legal tribunal or logic & analysis course.

  36. lichen said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:38pm #

    Some people need to keep their hands off the caps-lock button.

  37. The Angry Peasant said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:39pm #

    This Joseph Anderson guy seems a bit nuts. Uninformed, too. Watch a few documentaries, dude. So many ex-CIA officials, FBI officials, former government employees, cabinet members, White House spokespeople, cabinet members and so on have all said it was about controlling the oil. Yes. No news there. This is given to most informed, non-sheep type people. Anyone knows this. Even your average American idiot at least highly suspects it. And no, Vietnam wasn’t necessarily about oil, but it was about our interest in maintaining American influence and control in the region, which is more or less why we start every war we start, Iraq included.

    Now, if our seminar on U.S. Foreign Policy 101 is over, go back to your office in Airhead, California. And Max, better think about a restraining order. This guy’s a bit frightening (or drunk, I suspect) and he hates your guts.

  38. The Angry Peasant said on January 6th, 2009 at 10:11pm #

    Look, the whole zionism argument is compelling, but it’s only one piece of a puzzle. Max is right: Oil is the biggest issue with American think tanks and war-planners. The U.S. is the military giant on this planet. We spend more on our military than all other nation combined. Our military is all over the world, and it is the expess intention of the military-industrial complex to grow and expand—partially to further Israel’s zionist agenda but mainly to just plain old control the world, militarily and economically. The U.S. wants a global order, with itself as head. Thi, of course, cannot be accomplished if the oil reserves that power the tanks, guns, planes, jeeps, etc. run short. THAT is why we are in Iraq. Zionism is Israel’s agenda. Yes, we support it fully, but it isn’t the United States’ main prerogative. If it were, you’d be seeing a lot more jamulkas in Washington, I’d guess. We support Israel because they are a loyal asset; an extension of our western influence in a region which we feel needs to be kept in check lest an organized movement actually materialize against us there. But the U.S. is a Christian—painfully Christian—nation, primarily. Zionism and its influence pervades, naturally, but not to the degree some people have convinced themselves of. (Back me up here, Max)

  39. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 6th, 2009 at 11:50pm #

    lichen said on January 6th, 2009 at 9:38pm #:

    “Some people need to keep their hands off the caps-lock button.”

    Like Thomas Jefferson said when he signed the Declaration of Independence,’ I just want to make sure that *some/certain* people can *READ* my writing’ [and to make it *OBVIOUS* when they try to *EVADE* my counter-question] — since they obviously failed to *READ* it before.

  40. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 7th, 2009 at 12:36am #

    The Angry Peasant: “Watch a few documentaries, dude. So many ex-CIA officials, FBI officials, former government employees, cabinet members, White House spokespeople, cabinet members and so on have all said it was about controlling the oil. Yes.”






    I COULD GIVE YOU THE HISTORICAL COUP DE GRACE ABOUT *OIL* BEING THE ACTUAL REASON, as opposed to an after-the-fact assumed “benefit”, FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ — or you could read it in Jeffrey Blankfort’s, “A War for Israel”, in the political journal “Left Curve”, available online — but I don’t want to let just another _GRADESCHOOL DEBATE CLUB IDIOT_ sssuck up my time, like Max Shield too: I’ve got a *life*.







    What *PROOF* or *_DIRECT_ COMPELLING EVIDENCE* — OTHER THAN *POLITICIANS* AND GOVT OFFICIALS ON AMERICAN *TV* (HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!…) — do you have that “Big Oil” (as Juhasz indiscriminately and monolithically put it) *CALLED FOR*, *OR WAS BEHIND*, the war on Iraq and the threatened war on Iran?



  41. Shabnam said on January 7th, 2009 at 7:17am #

    Any fool knows the driving force for Iraq primarily was to improve Israel’s position in the Middle East through partitioning of the regional countries, to construct ‘non-Arab’ ally and improves Israel energy security on American expense. Of course, the Zionist Jews promised an illiterate man who knows shit about the history of the Middle East in name of George Bush that to improve ‘American power’ it goes through countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, all enemies of Zionist mass murderers. These fools do not even read what other Zionist pro war said about Iraq war:
    Joe Klien said: “ The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives — people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd at Commentary — plumped for this war [in Iraq], and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties.”
    Or do not pay attention to ‘oil man’ such as Gorge Bush, the father, and Brent Scowcroft where both were against the War and Scowcroft in an article wrote: “Don’t Attack Iraq,” where made it clear that this IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. These fools do not want to believe that the Zionist mass murderers run their fucking foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa. Zbigniew Brzezinski – who has been presented as American empire builder by the Zionist Noam Chomsky – has also told these fools that a unilateral attack on Iraq would undermine America’s global interests. But these fools do not get it.
    Today, from the facts on the ground everyone knows that the Iraq war did not improve empire’s ‘control over the oil’, did not expand American power in the region, but has undermined ‘American power’ and its credibility all over the world where American such as George Bush is treated with their dirty SHOES, JUSTLY. On the other hand Israel through FIFTH COLUM FRIEND like Leslie Gelb, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, an accomplice in 650,000 dead in Iraq during Clinton, the most Zionist administration so far , pushed for a bill to partition Iraq and creation of ‘Kurdistan’ as a Zionist puppet, a strategic goal since 1948 Nakba. The Zionist mass murderers have a good grip over the US foreign policy and will use it as long as these fools are silent and cooperative with expansionist policy of Zionism. We want nothing but the demise of ‘American power’, the sooner the better. There is a proverb: a wise enemy is better than an ignorant friend.

  42. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 7th, 2009 at 12:49pm #

    * Time for another intellectual head-whoopin’, “Angry Peasant” (you too, Max Shields)! *

    The Angry Peasant: “This Joseph Anderson guy seems a bit nuts. Uninformed, too. Watch a few documentaries, dude. So many _*EX-CIA OFFICIALS*_ … _former government employees_ … have all said it was about controlling the oil. Yes. … Even your average American idiot — [THAT’D BE *YOU*, oh Angry Peasant] — at least highly suspects it. … Now, if our seminar on U.S. Foreign Policy 101 is over, go back to your office in Airhead, California. And Max, better think about a restraining order. This guy’s a bit frightening (or drunk, I suspect)…”

    Here ya go, oh “Angry Peasant”:

    Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq

    “Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel’s security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons’ own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word “domination” anywhere in the vicinity of the word “Israel,” as in “U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East” or “the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,” and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.”

    [read more here: — and that’s just *one* of their numerous articles about Israel, the Israel lobby, the Iraq war, and constantly threatened war with Iran]

    “Kathleen Christison worked for 16 years as a political analyst with the CIA, dealing first with Vietnam and then with the Middle East for her last seven years with the Agency before resigning in 1979. Since leaving the CIA, she has been a free-lance writer, dealing primarily with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her book, “Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy,” was published by the University of California Press [A HIGHLY REPUTABLE PUBLISHER OF SCHOLASTIC AND ACADEMIC BOOKS] and reissued in paperback with an update in October 2001. A second book, “The Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story,” was published in March 2002.

    Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit.”


    Then there’s:

    “The People Who Pushed the War”
    – by Kathleen and Bill Christison

    [I don’t think they’re talking about “Big Oil”.]


    Then there’s Scott Ritter — *he’s* a former govt official: Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and former Marine Corps intelligence officer and lead analyst:

    I already told you what Ritter said, that the Israel lobby had *a great deal* to do with the war in Iraq and threatened war with Iran.

    “In his book Ritter claims that *ISREAL* is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran. He also accuses the U.S. pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and outright espionage. Commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps, he served in this capacity for twelve years. He initially served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps”


    Then there’s a whole bunch of *Jewish* writers who admit that the war in Iraq and threatened war in Iran was greatly for Israel. Here’s just a few:

    A War for Israel
    – by Jeffrey Blankfort


    Phyllis Bennis, of the Inst. for Policy Studies,, in Washington, D.C., said that, “The *only* people pushing for war against Iran is the Israel lobby.” — and she’s one of those closet ‘left’ Zionists that I intellectually and morally ‘hate’ so much.


    Israel Shamir, an *Israeli* Jewish historian, scholar and writer said that the war in Iraq was primarily for Israel.


    Joe Klein, journalist, commentator/columnist, author, and currently a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, was already quoted in an above post.

  43. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2009 at 1:15pm #


    Your bri,nging up strawmen with Klein and Benis. I’ve already said Benis is the worst thing that’s ever happened to progressives and the so-called American anti-war movement. And Klein is even worse.

    Again, the issue is not these faux progressives/liberals/whatevers, the point is history and US history in particular. We can all connect dots with regard to the ME and have it all lead to Israel, but much of that is pure speculation with regard to why we’re in Iraq.

    Even Deadbeat has come around to acknowledging some role for oil. Civilizations run on oil NOT isms. All the isms in the world won’t give you electricity or allow you to build homes, etc. etc.

    Isms have one purpose to create fear for the purposes of domination. Racism is not something that just happens because one person is born of a particular color vs another; or minority vs majority. Racism is a tool of empire. It is used to divide and rule. Zionists use racism regarding Palestinians for the same purposes. It isn’t that Zionism is racism, it’s that Zionists USE racism to pursue domination. The purpose to dominate is to control vital resources (like oil).

    So, all the hocus-pocus really as a pathological, deadly rationale.

  44. bozh said on January 7th, 2009 at 2:31pm #

    imo, american social structure is unique in some aspects. it had been built over 300 years. and it was manufactured by an idelogical master plan; ie, an ism. even slavery was based on ideology.
    imo, the bible, constitution, education, theft of land, etc., are founded on ideas or ideology.

    one can deduce from known facts that the main idea was for the rich to rule in perpetuity. to obtain it, ideas arose such as that the ruling class must control totally ‘education’, media, religion (it being totally free to lie, hate,etc) and right to ownership of even labor.

    imo, ruling class in US has obtained an iron grip on power; it’ll never let it go.
    not without struggle or even terror if need for that arises. to do all that one has to have a plan, ideas; in short, an ism.
    and pen is at times mightier than sword.
    in short, US had built the best fascist structure.
    industry does run on oil. but no land complained in ’02 that it wasn’t getting enough.
    so why wage war for oil at all if that was the case. pumping and selling oil is a business; thus, it only pertains to who makes more money out of it.
    maybe, it’s US which is profiting from iraqi oil more than any other land; thus, one can say US invaded iraq also for oil.
    after all somebody has to pay for that war? so, people who drive are paying for it.
    at one time barrel of oil was selling $146. somebody made lotsof money and some people lost money. thnx

  45. Max Shields said on January 7th, 2009 at 2:57pm #


    I would differ on the ideology vs slavery. Slavery was an economic tool. Intelligent energy (slaves) were used in the same way horses and later tractors have been used. But intelligent energy (slaves) have certain advantages over animals because they can do many things without the yanking of a rein; they can see and respond with intelligence. Remember, the use of intelligent energy/slaves has been around since antiquity and rarely have anything to do with “race”. In some cases, farmers who ended up in debt (or serfs) became slaves.

    This is not unique to US history; but much of Europe had been moving away from the use of slaves when the US colonists were still in the slave trade for agricultural work.

    Energy is the very basis of human economics. The kind of energy and its ability to magnify human life is what we’ve seen as humans moved from one source to another. Oil built the current Western world with its metropolis, it’s huge industry and skyscrapers and endless stream of mostly worthless material goods. Look at a city, any city and there is nothing before the eye that was not created by oil, that could not otherwised be without that specific energy source. Other sources cannot fully duplicate what oil has been able to do.

    It is our dilemma and the sooner we understand it the sooner we can act accordingly. A sustainable world is one where the underlying economics behaves in a measured way against the inescapable limits of life-giving nature.

  46. The Angry Peasant said on January 7th, 2009 at 3:09pm #

    Okay, now that you’ve repeated my words seventeen times, I suppose I’ll respond. Israel is an evil zionist regime with an agenda. Namely to—along with the U.S.A.—control the world. I agree. I agree that a hell of a lot of the motivation for our trying to conquer Iraq has to do with the zionist agenda. I’m just saying don’t forget the oil motivator. It definitely played a huge part. Oil is finite and (even though the price of a barrel is down right now) getting more expensive. It’s in the best interests of oil companies for the U.S. to seize all the oil reserves it can. Remember that Cheney, the Bush family, and many other wonderful Washington folks have their fortunes invested in oil. These people are looking out for #1. The Israel thing comes second, although the threat is very real.

    At any rate, we agree that both things are huge problems.

  47. The Angry Peasant said on January 7th, 2009 at 3:41pm #

    Okay, Anderson, I read the link you provided at I now quote directly from the article written by Kathleen and Bill Christison:

    “…These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil reserves up for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All of these factors—the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian fundamentalists, and oil—probably factor in more or less equally to the administration’s calculations on the Palestinian/Israeli situation and on the war with Iraq.”

    THERE! We’re ALL right!!

  48. DanE said on January 7th, 2009 at 8:10pm #

    I guess this is what you call a “live thread”, with fresh “comments” still being posted almost a week now since Dr Petras’ article originally appeared here.

    I’m gratified however that some of the more idiotic Trolls have apparently lost interest & moved on to post their boring zionistical balderdash elsewhere. It’s interesting to speculate on what motivates a “MeBozo Retchy”. My guess is he/she has been assigned by one ZPC department or another to the task of disrupting dialogue between parties seeking to understand the role of Zionism in globalized power politics, with the hope that such parties will be distracted from study and investigation into attempting to engage these ZPC operatives in rational discussion, thus wasting large quantities of our precious time.

    But that’s only a guess, I’m not a mindreader. In any case the result is the same: mucho wasted time.
    Unless of course there are a bunch of “student stage” bystanders trying to make sense of it all. If I knew for sure that words posted as comments on this thread were being read by a lot of fresh minds not totally locked into preconceptions, I’d be encouraged to participate more in these online raps. But when confronted with pages of softheaded soft-Zionthink, “Big Oil Did It” blah blah I get discouraged. I find myself wondering how many intelligent f resh minds are still scrolling down to read all the nonsense.

    I find myself wondering if something like a Moderated Listserve, or maybe a DV Annex, something like a Dedicated Link to a Moderated Online Space, dedicated to rational discussion of certain topics between parties who share certain conclusions about what The Problem is…

    Before I forget, let me note that I appreciate “Swan”s comment in particular. Thanks also to DB1K & Joe A for the focus on Antonia Juhacz.

    Right now the ANSWER Coalition seems to be the leading force I see organizing protests vs Izzy’s criminal assault on Gaza. Alas the same people are promoting lecture appearances by Ms Juhacz. Richard Becker when asked his opinion of Walt/Mearsheimer and of Petras’ view responded that “US Jews just don’t have that kind of power”.

    So it seems to me that to counter this well-funded, skillfully crafted, multilevel Disinformation Apparatus there is a need for an organized collective effort of some kind. The voices of those who Have A Clue need to be multiplied and amplified. There should be an upsurge of interest in these questions, but with all the misinformation out there, new people coming to the issue need to be offered something other than the usual canned propaganda.

    Petras is probably the best single writer commenting on the current conjuncture; Blankfort & the Christison’s are likewise to be recommended. Lenni Brenner’s books helped me a lot, as did the late Israel Shahak, Rabbi Elmer Berger’s AJAZ Bulletins.

    Okay, before I start to ramble,

    I’m AOT

  49. The Angry Peasant said on January 7th, 2009 at 9:36pm #

    Okay, DanE, so you’re a bit higher on the enlightenment ladder than the rest of us in DV. Splendid. Let me just say this: Occasionally people differ in their views when attempting to piece together a puzzle. Our current/possibly finally ended clash over the motivations of the Bush administration and its corporate backers to attempt to conquer Iraq is hardly a frivolous spat. It’s a search for truth. There are lots of grey areas to sort out out there, and having as clear a picture about what we’re facing as we can is indeed quite important. Yes, occasionally these debates degnerate into squabbles, but that’s the nature of differing opinions. And if we all agreed on every single little point, then there would be no need for this site having comments.

    So, if you can find a political/social web site out there that caters to 100% like-minded folks who already have all the answers, go with our blessing and join your fellow philosophical adepts.

    Personally, a veil was lifted for me when you referred to the atrocity happening in Gaza as “Izzy’s criminal assault on Gaza.” Seriously. All that suffering; children being bombed, and you give the monstrosity a cute nickname? All righty, then.

  50. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 8th, 2009 at 3:41am #

    RE: Max Shields said on January 7th, 2009 at 1:15pm.

    **ANNNNNNGHT!!!** [buzzer sound] …:


    That, as they say in court, is materially NONRESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION.

    (All you’re responding with is what professors call engaging in *filler*.)



    I’M DONE (for the time being anyway) USING YOU TO *AMUUUSE* MYSELF — AGAIN.

    (You don’t think I actually take you seriously, do you, Max? As I told Deadbeat, I just enjoyed showing that you, indeed, *COULDN’T* _factually_ answer the question.)


    THEN ALL I SAY ABOUT YOU MAX IS (my paraphrasing Ice Cube), LET A FFOOL BE A *FFOOOLLL* …!

    (It’s not *my* job to educationally raise you…)

  51. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 8th, 2009 at 4:58am #

    Angry Peasant: “It’s in the best interests of oil companies for the U.S. to seize all the oil reserves it can.”

    “seize all the oil reserves it can”!! …: THE U.S. CAN BARELY _”SEIZE”_ IRAQ AND *AFGHANISTAN*! — A *THIRD* WORLD COUNTRY AND A *’FIFTH’* WORLD COUNTRY.

    Juhasz was *really* silent, when I mentioned this after she said the same thing (actually she said that the U.S. wanted to go after and seize *all* the world’s oil reserves ) — or as Zbigniev Brzezinski once said, “An idea devoid of reality is *fantasy*!

    Angry Peasant, quoting fm the Christison article: “All of these factors—the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian fundamentalists, and oil—probably factor in more or less equally to the administration’s calculations on the war with Iraq.”

    I guess you flunked out of math in the 3rd grade. If, according to the C.’s, they all factored *EQUALLY*, then that — by definition — means that OIL was not only *NOT* THE(E) REASON: it wasn’t even THE(E) *MAJOR* REASON.

    (Anymore than “oil” was the reason for U.S. constantly-threatened — well, at least until lately — war against Iran, which has even *MORE* proven oil reserves than Iraq!)




    (I could indeed explain, with one *should-be-obvious* — well, *duh-uhh*… — sentence, “the oil factor”, regarding Iraq, but then that would take away my *fun* in toying with you and Max — and letting you two *wind yourself up*!)

    SO, THERE! We’re *NOT* “ALL” right.

  52. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 8th, 2009 at 5:05am #

    P.S. — Okay, I’m done with you too, oh “Angry Peasant”.

    (I’ve had enough laughs for the time being.)

  53. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 8th, 2009 at 5:41am #

    DanE: “Richard Becker when asked his opinion of Walt/Mearsheimer and of Petras’ view responded that “US Jews just don’t have that kind of power”.”

    As I said (at least elsewhere) before…,

    Actual (typically white-American) leftists (like Richard Becker, if he really said that about American Jews) in the U.S. often don’t understand (actually they don’t really have any true idea by farrr) how the Israel lobby (and its mechanisms) works in the U.S. political and mainstream media system, because actual leftists have almost never been in political office (especially in higher office) or actually shared official political power (especially in higher office) in government in the United States. So, never having any *practical* experience in American politics, American leftists often don’t have a *practical* understanding of how the American political and media system works. Such leftists often rely, instead, on their politically naive, facile, abstract, or one-note kneejerk theories alone — often, they claim, of what “Marxist theory” *supposedly* “says”.

    (Black leftists are typically not so naive and abstract, because they must have a *practical* perception of how this country works in order for them to even literally survive.)

    And, usually about, supposedly, what “Marx” said: apparently Marx said “the Israel lobby is not possible”: it’s like freezing all scientific knowledge about the world based on what *Newton* said. Even Britain’s Tariq Ali believes, on this basis [and I don’t know whether he is pro-Zionist or not], that the power of the Israel lobby is, supposedly according to “Marx”, “not possible”. When I merely publicly *mentioned* my analytical commentary, “The Left and the Israel Lobby”, to a panel that Tariq Ali was on in a San Francsico bookstore, the first knee-jerk thing he said was, “Let’s be careful not to be anti-Semitic!” — without even hearing me out and intellectually evaluating my comments!: that’s anti-intellectual.

  54. Michael Dawson said on January 8th, 2009 at 12:34pm #

    Bozh, I’m would not have been in favor of the creation of Israel, either. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and religious states are especially dangerous things.

    Nevertheless, the imposition of UN 242 would be a huge breakthrough at the present time. Would the Palestinian people vote in favor of it, if it were guaranteed and came with reparations and reconstruction and security from more Israeli incursions? My sense is that they, including Hamas, would make this trade-off, if it were on the table.

    Meanwhile, reversion to pre-1967 goals, while understandable, seems certain to end in mutual destruction.

    As to you Joseph Anderson, feel free to keep going around raving about Jews, shitting on your allies, and refusing to think past the end of your own nose. I’m not a white liberal, for starters. And you are the one who dismissed non-violence out-of-hand. I never said it was viable in all conditions.

    Are you an actual FBI agent, or are you just doing their work for free?

  55. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 12th, 2009 at 3:51am #

    Yo DAWSON!

    So, you got your little arrogant namby-pamby liberal white ass intellectually *WHOOPED* FOR ALL TO SEE!! — by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 5th, 2009 at 6:31pm.

    And then you come back with typical *CRUUUDE*, *PPA-THE-TIC* (even closet) Zionist (apologist) anti-Semite-baiting (Michael Dawson *PPA-THE-TICALLY* said on January 8th, 2009 at 12:34pm: “…Anderson…raving about Jews…”) — and *you’ve* got the nerve to call Petras “a scoundrel”?

    (1) You *AIN’T* my ally, ya little Chomskyite closet Zionist apologist. So, that would put you too on the let’s-get-busy end of my “we shall overcome”.

    (2) Who *gives* a damn about what *you* have to say in your little namby-pamby liberal abstract parlor debates. It’s not like any *Palestinians* give a damn what *you* have to say (as a Palestinian professor friend of mine once said, “Do you ever hear *me* praising Chomsky?”) — or even any *anti-Zionist Jews* (including the two anti-Zionist *Israeli* Jews, now living in San Francisco, with whom I’ve recently made friends and who’ve been going to the protest demos/marches against Israel there: they’d ALL have little use for you too).

    (3) I’ll give you *ANOTHA* INTELLECTUAL ASS-WHOOPIN’ *AGAIN* too, anytime, if I feel like it. (I’ll treat you just like I do Max and Peasant: if I respond to you at all, it’ll be just to intellectually kick your ass for *LAUGHS*.)