truthaction.org

[Scott N]

In 1982, the Israeli strategic planner Oded Yinon penned a policy report calling for the balkanization of the entire middle east. He wrote:

"Iraq is first. Rich in oil, and internally torn, it is guaranteed as the
initial target. Its dissolution is even more important than of Syria. Egypt will then be torn apart, like a second Lebanon. ...The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural for dissolution. The matter is inevitable, especially in Saudi Arabia."

A few years earlier, an American strategic planner named Miles Ignotuis detailed
the "rapid deployment and strike force" prepared to seize "Saudi oil fields, installations and airports." He argued that a “real boogeyman” was necessary to frighten the American populace before such a scheme could be put into practice.

“The London Sunday Times confirmed:

"The National Security Council compiled a detailed review of a top secret Department of Defense plan to invade Saudi oil fields. The plan code, named Dharan Option Four, has been drawn up by the Pentagon and provides for a U.S. attack on oil fields that contain 40 percent of the world’s known reserves."

“Intelligence and military analyst Robert Tucker addressed the feasibility of seizing Arab oil fields by direct military intervention in Commentary in January 1975, in his article entitled "Oil: The Issue of American Intervention": "Without intervention," he concluded, "there is a distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing more than a superficial resemblance to the disaster of the 1930s."

He described secret U.S. plans of long standing for "intervention in an area which, if effectively controlled, would contain a sufficient portion of present world oil production and proven reserves to break the present price structure by breaking the core of the cartel, politically and economically.

"The Arab shoreline of the Gulf," he concluded breathlessly, "is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors." (Schoenman)

We can go back indefinitely, but let’s stop at 1958 for the time being:

“In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year).” (Chomsky)

The American state does not require “Zionist infiltration” to engage in imperialism. If a particular state reaches a critical quantity of power in relation to other states it will attempt to expand that power. As Napoleon famously said, “Ambition is never content, even on the summit of greatness”.

This thesis is confirmed by the entire history of civilization. Indeed, of the eight recently developed primary states, six were created by conquest.

The Military Industrial Complex did not arise from some flaw in the American character, nor indeed from Zionism. It arose, simply put, because capital requires more capital, power more power still. Powerful states act out. “Small states are virtuous only because of their weakness.” (Bakunin).

Israel did not create this juggernaut; she is indeed an essential partner and participant in the war on terror myth and obviously benefits from it to no end, but the MIC will keep on humming along regardless. Israel’s goals, or at least the goals of the hardcore Jewish supremacists who formulate Israeli policy, gel neatly with that of the American power elite at present. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that American policy in the middle east (with the exception of Palestine) would be drastically different in the absence of a Zionist state. This is crucial to understand. If we concentrate all of our attention on Zionism we will ignore the roots of the problem.

There was an interesting controversy in Leftist circles (especially amongst Leftist Jews) in the wake of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay "The Israel Lobby". Having struggled for so long to bring light to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, usually to no avail, the majority of leftists welcomed the paper as a ray of sunshine. A few voices, however, attempted to put things in a broader perspective. Joseph Massad wrote:

“While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and full of awe-inspiring well- documented details about the formidable power commanded by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its allies, the problem with most of them is what remains unarticulated. For example, when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

Why would the US and its repressive agencies stop invading Arab countries, or stop supporting the repressive police forces of dictatorial Arab regimes and why would the US stop setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in Arab capitals to run these countries' affairs (in some cases the US shadow government runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest detail with the Arab government in question reduced to executing orders) if the pro-Israel lobby did not exist is never broached by these studies let alone explained.

What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies. Is the pro- Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not.”

Finkelstein more or less agreed, arguing that it was not a question of either/or. (this “either/or” thing seems to be a major problem – some truthers seem incapable of entertaining to ideas in their heads simultaneously, even when the two ideas compliment each other).

The "either-or" framework -- the Lobby or U.S. strategic interests -- isn't, in my opinion, very useful:

(1) Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. If for different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis -- and Israelis projected themselves as -- experts on the"Arab mind." Accordingly the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years (months?) this or that Arab country needs to be banged up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.”

The Israeli influence making things worse. There is certainly no doubt about that. Israel does not have a “right to exist” in its present form any more than a serial killer has the “right” to enter my home, steal all of my possessions and kill my family. I do not believe in a “two-state” solution. I believe in a directly democratic “state” in “Israel” and “Palestine” where religion and race have no bearing on individual and collective rights. The same applies to my home country.

Ultimately, however, the Mearsheimer/Walt piece is actually an excellent example of the sort of elitist, backward nationalism that characterizes Israeli policy itself. It does not concern me whether Israel is a liability for the US “national interest”. The “national interest” has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of 90% of the population. In the case of Israel, I’m far more interested in the rights of Palestinians than whether American support for Israel negatively affects her image on the world stage. If soft-imperialist critiques from the establishment help end US support for Israel – more power to them. Brzezinski warning of a potential false flag attack on Iran was a welcome development even though we all know he’s human slime.

What is often missing in similar soft-imperialist critiques of Israel is the same sense of perspective. Any perspective at all.,

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that I’ll be viewed as an Israeli apologist for writing this thread. But you’d be wrong to think I’m trying to shield Israel from the wrath of the 911 truth movement. Quite the contrary, those familiar with my posts know that I have long tried to highlight the Israeli role in 911, both in my writing and my video work. The problem I see is that the pendulum appears to be swinging so far in the other direction that the arguments are no longer rational. Atta’s pork chops – meet the wandering Jew. If you don’t agree with the premise that Israel and alleged “dual-loyalty” Jewish people are responsible for nine-tenths of the world’s ills you’re a “disinfo shill”.

In many ways I’m reminded of Eric Hufschmid and Wing TV, though I won’t stoop to labeling people “disinfo agents” simply because I disagree with their tactics or ideologies.

“ZIHOP” – our “outside job” by Mossad in conjunction with “dual loyalty Jews” and (perhaps) some otherwise decent upstandin’ Murikan folk in the upper echelons caught with their pants down thence blackmailed by Jews – is an absurd premise. It’s cartoon stuff.

I’m supposed to forget about the countless non-Zionist false flag operations prior to 911? I’m supposed to think Andrew Marshall is cowering in fear of Binny Netanyahu, wringing his hands over his failure to stop the attacks? I’m supposed to think Mossad would go up against her sugar daddy’s 14 plus alphabet agencies without a green light? All those strategists itching for conquest and ongoing Keynesian support in the wake of Glasnost needed Zionists to yank their chain? Really? Is Dick Cheney a crypto-Jew? He’s not interested in oil or geopolitics or suppressing dissent in the homeland but glorious Zion?

Not. Bloody. Likely.

Zionism is quickly becoming every bit the boogeyman as Al-Qaeda and the “NWO”. Instead of turbans and all-seeing-eyes we have skull-caps and menorahs. They hate our freedoms. I think that’s the allure – blaming an “alien” or “other” allows one to keep faith in one’s own governing institutions. It’s comforting, just like the official myth. When you’ve become this ugly anything is better than looking in the mirror.

Zihop is a limited hangout.

[Nicholas]

Wow. This is brilliant. Thank you.

I've been wanting to make many of these points, also with regard to the Iraq invasion: the logical culmination of 30 years of U.S. policy developments, from Nixon through every administration until Bush Jr. Many ignore (or are ignorant of that history) and want to sell it as some kind of trick Doug Feith pulled on the hapless Bush. Who appointed Feith?!

What explains why antiwar.com/Raimondo can play so blind to every piece of evidence regarding 9/11 - in fact, do the full-ridicule routine we know from the official CTs - except and unless it involves Jews? The same is true of counterpunch, of course.

[chrisc]

[siddhartha]

Excellent article.

[Arabesque]

[YT]

Great work, Scott. From what I've seen it seems clear that Israeli elements most likely had a hand in the planning and execution of the attack but to waylay this highly probable involvement into an Israel Only agenda (where Americans could only have taken part to the extent that they were Israeli infiltrators or otherwise controlled by Israel) is, like you say, absurd and an extreme form of limited hangout.

We've seen this playing out where those pursuing this agenda will denigrate and seek to avoid following any line of investigation or questioning that doesn't appear to meet the needs of fulfilling this agenda. And indeed, I think this is just one potential avenue of limited hangout and we most definitely need to be on the watch for and avoid ANY of them - whether that manifests in blaming 'incompetence' or only a few key (or worse, not so key) players in the Bush Administration, blaming only Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, or blaming only Israel.

We need a thorough, independent criminal investigation of the crime and let the chips fall where they may.

[Alek Hidell]

The question of whether the American establishment or other global elements were in charge of 9/11 (and everything else) hinges on just what the American establishment is. Few would argue that the plantation owner revolutionaries of 1776 were an American establishment. (They were deeply in debt to foreign creditors, but the revolution gave them an excuse to stop servicing their loans. If they had lost the war they would have been doubly hung as traitors and deadbeats.)

Certainly Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were Americans to the core and not in service of any foreign power. But what about later? We have a quaint idea that the US is really run by New England blue bloods whose ancestors came over from England in the 1620s and are 12th generation Americans. The Bush family plays into this role. In the popular culture the stereotype was Thurston Howell III on Gilligan's Island. Is this really accurate?

There is a strong argument that following the US civil war, European financiers regained control of the US economy and political system. The famous American titans of industry who garnered great wealth in the late 19th century were funded by the big venture capitalists of their time, who were European. If a new money American family is a client of an old money European family, are they really part of an independent American establishment? If the decisions on how to use American power are being made overseas, or by Americans whose primary loyalty lies overseas, is the empire really an American empire?

As the 20th century progressed, US presidents increasingly became dependent on European born people (or their children) as advisors. Foreign born Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski were both advisors to 1960 presidential campaigns (Zbig>JFK, Kissinger>Nelson Rockefeller). When their candidates are in office, they act as near viceroys. Forty-eight years later, they are still advising presidential campaigns (Kissinger>McCain, Zbig>Obama). Isn't that bizarre? Is there no native born talent?

There are a lot of opinions about who is the ruling class inside the US. Vanity Fair tells us their opinion every year. The list speaks for itself. But, you can do a google search on the title below and get the original article and numerous third party commentaries on it.

THE VANITY FAIR 100
The 2007 New Establishment
Our annual power ranking

[chrisc]

[Col. Jenny Sparks]

[johndoraemi]

This whole thing smells of a straw man.

You have not exonerated the Israelis, nor explained the massive Mossad operation, parts of which were exposed.

You set up a false premise that only Israel was to blame, therefore making it easy to caricature and dismiss.

This is classic straw man fallacy.

Our system isn't all one or the other. It's a collection of like minded interests. To fail to see that is to fail at being relevant.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

[chrisc]

[Nicholas]

Alek Hidell (aka supposed Oswald alias):

Why don't you cut the suggestive questions, wherein we are all supposed to pretend we're not inferring what you are likely saying (about the Rothschilds, the Queen, the Protocols, the Masons, the "collectivists" or whatever combination of that plus other boys' clubs you think is the Rosetta stone of history) and just say it outright?

It's not exactly a secret that English capital financed both sides of the Civil War and the industrialization of the U.S., so you don't need to cast it in some mysterious conspiratorial light. How did that history continue? Do you remember the part where U.S. wealth and industries ultimately dwarfed the British, took over the financing of a declining and finally bankrupt British Empire during the world wars, and leveraged a takeover of that Empire's leftovers? If not, I recommend reviewing the years from 1865-1956.

Furthermore, I see lots of native-born assholes in charge, and I don't see why it's so miraculous that a few foreign-born assholes can't play functions within the system. In fact, as the son of immigrants, I'm inclined to say some rather impolite things about nativist reactionary hicks who go looking for foreigners to blame, but I'll control myself.

Here's a little mind-experiment: let's say Kissinger had developed a conscience in 1970 and started advising peace and withdrawal from Vietnam. Would his magic foreign-born influence have swayed Nixon and the Pentagon to suspend the bombing? How do you think the rest of his career would have gone? What does this tell you about hegemonic systems and their dynamics?

Finally, Andrew Jackson ain't no "American to the core" to me, unless you're talking about the America of racism, opportunistic plunder and genocide, which I have to admit also exists.

[Scott N]

[johndoraemi]

Mea culpa.

Danse,

I shouldn't just respond to long articles without quoting specific things.

It looks like we're in agreement.

I don't like the "limited hangout" title. It seems dismissive. We need to follow wherever the evidence goes.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

[funhouse1970]