Gilad Atzmon er israelskfødd, jødisk jazzmusikar som bur i London. Du finn
fleire av artiklane hans på heimesidene http://www.gilad.co.uk
The Protocols Of The Old Fathers Of Zion (Verse 2)
Gilad Atzmon
In the last weeks there have been some very serious rumours, probably
originated in Israel, claiming that G. Bush's latest speech concerning the
need for 'Palestinian reforms' was sent to Jerusalem for final proofing and
corrections not less than twenty eight times. Whether this is the case,
whether it was twenty-eight times or just seven, whether it was physically
corrected in Jerusalem or just followed some guidelines that were drawn by
the Jewish lobby in Washington, is not the real issue anymore. It is more
than clear that the American administration is completely biased when it
comes to the Israeli- Arab conflict. This very one-sided approach should be
scrutinised. These days when American policy makers endorse far right
nationalistic views, the US administration reveals itself voluntarily as the
biggest enemy of world peace, and the American president is searching
desperately for new allies to form a coalition to support his phony 'war
against terror', it is hardly surprising to discover that the Jewish state
and Zionists lobbies are fairly active behind the scenes. It all makes far
more sense when you find out that America's current divorce from humanism is
closely associated with Israeli interests. A brief study of the history of
Israel will reveal that from its very early days Zionism specialised in
tracing dark political motivations and interests in order to abuse them to
the very limit. Zionism is a very singular political method aimed at
perfecting the transformation of world disasters and human pain into Jewish
gain. Already in the first Zionist congress, in Basel (1897), Herzl, the
first and most famous Jewish Zionist, illustrated this method. According to
Herzl, Zionism could promise redemption for the Jewish people as long as it
fit into a larger colonial agenda of any of the greater colonial
superpowers. Herzl himself travelled between the European political centres,
promising full collaboration and support from the Jewish people in exchange
for land in which to locate the Jewish state. This very basic motivation to
associate with the world superpowers is an evident factor throughout the
history of Zionism. Somehow, Zionists always volunteer to serve the colonial
interests of any leading power. This fundamental tendency to join forces
with superpowers led to an internal debate within the Zionist movement
concerning the independence of the whole Zionist adventure. Since Zionism
religiously presents itself as a devoted servant of larger colonial forces,
it is not clear whether Zionism can possess any sense of autonomy. After
the creation of the state of Israel this very question turned into a
political debate. Since the Zionist movement insisted on presenting the
world with the Idea of a Jewish sovereign state, it is clear that many of
the most crucial developments in the history of Israel and Zionism were
influenced by major global changes. Since Israel associates its fate with
major dominating forces there is a growing concern among Zionist politicians
regarding the independence and the autonomy of Israeli decision-making.
Those concerns are well justified. Throughout the history of Israel we can
detect different cases of obvious conflict between Israel and its source of
colonial hegemony. From time to time, Israel fails to comply with its
supporting superpower. These kinds of conflicts led to the divorce from the
British Empire (1947) and from the French hegemony (before the '67 war).
Moreover, more than once Israel got itself into face to face conflicts with
the US. Until now it has been Israel that had to bow and eventually to
accept American views. Somehow, this time it looks a bit different. For the
very first time it looks as if it is America, the world supreme superpower,
that should be concerned. This time it is America that is about to lose its
sovereignty. Now, it looks as if Zionist lobbies control American foreign
politics. After so many years of independence, the United States of America
is becoming a remote colony of an apparently far greater state, the Jewish
state. Yes Israel, a very small place in the eastern corner of the
Mediterranean Sea. If you try to look for it on your globe at home you will
probably need a magnifying glass. The idea that Zionists have taken over
America might sound bizarre in the first instance but we must remember that
this kind of strange scenario does happen. Last month I heard Israel
Shamir's observation regarding this very issue. In a very open manner he
said that no one would be surprised to hear that during different phases of
the British Empire the world was governed by a very close group of 'Eton'
graduates. "Some times" he added, "great empires are taken over by very
marginal groups". We might have to acknowledge that this is the case with
America. American foreign policy is dictated by a very marginal group of
Zionist activists, even by the state of Israel itself. Good news for Israel,
quite an amazing achievement for a microscopic state. But is it good news
for the American people? Is it good news for the world? The history of
Zionism provides us with manifold stories of great empires that were misled
in believing that coalition with the Jewish state will serve their own
interests. In the long run those decisions proved to be unreasonable,
irrational and even disastrous. The most famous one is probably the 'Balfour
Declaration' (1917). It was in the midst of WW1 when the British foreign
minister announced the empire's support for turning Palestine into the
"national home for the Jewish people". At the time there were less than
60.000 Jews in Palestine leaving peacefully among a total population of
600.000 Arabs. What led the British Empire to such a strange declaration?
What led the world leading superpower at the time to commit itself to such
an unreasonable affair based on support from a marginal ethnic group (less
than 10% of the entire population)? If there had been some deep colonial
strategic or any other rational thought behind 'Balfour's declaration' they
proved to be very misleading. Soon Jews flood into Palestine. Native Arab
Palestinians start to show their severe dissatisfaction. Conflict becomes
inevitable. When Britain tried to repair Balfour's damage it was too late
('The White Paper' 1939). The Jewish right wing terrorist and paramilitary
resistance were about to teach the mandate forces a lesson in Yiddisher
brutality. From a British point of view, the alliance with Zionism turned
into a disaster. It was 2 years after the 2nd WW when the Zionist pushed the
British colonial forces out of the region. A very similar pattern of
unfortunate thought led both decaying empires Britain and France to join
forces with Israel in the Suez operation (1956). Following Nasser's
nationalisation of the 'Suez Canal Company' both France and Britain were
looking for a military operation that would retrieve control over the Suez
to the west. Clearly, Israel wasn't a part of this conflict but as an
'obedient servant' of colonial western thought Israel as usual offered its
military assistance for any imperial aggression. As long as the aggressor
promises to inflict pain over its Arab neighbours. The Suez Operation was
launched with an IDF operation on 29 October. Two days later both Britain
and France joined the party. The operation provoked an outraged American
response to the aggressive coalition. On November 9th, less than ten days
after the operation had started, Israel bowed to American pressure and
announced its immediate withdraw from Sinai desert. For Britain and France
this unsuccessful affair symbolised the end of their colonial era. More than
anything else the Suez Operation indicated the loss of European influence in
the region. Again, from a colonial point of view, the association with
Zionism was counter-productive. The Europeans learnt their lesson; they
became very suspicious of Zionist political affairs. At the same time we
have to admit that the Americans have not yet learned theirs. The American
people have not yet seen that a coalition with Israel puts their life at
great risk. The American people fail to associate September 11th and the
hopeless American support of Zionism. I assume the reason the American
people fail to acknowledge such a straightforward connection can only be due
to the fact that Zionist lobbies have managed to comprehensively dominate
the major sources that control American public opinion: both in culture, in
media and in finance. Ted Turner the owner of CNN, the world's leading TV
news network had to go out of his way to persuade the Zionist lobbies that
he was in a mental state when he 'mistakenly' referred to Israel as a
"terrorist state". It is very apparent that Israel enjoys full protection in
the American media. The question to be asked is who is going to protect the
Americans from their motherland Israel? While the American people take
their time to answer this crucial question we can stretch our intellectual
faculties by contemplating the following questions. How is it that the great
American nation, the world's leading superpower, has become dominated by a
narrow lobby from a miniature foreign state? Do the American and the
Israelis really share the same interests? And if they do can someone
enlighten us as to what those interests are? Are the American people aware
of the fact that their becoming a direct target of Islamic terror is of
prior interest to Israel? On reflection, it must be terrifying that such a
small lobby from a tiny state is so eager to push the rest of the world into
endless confrontation. Do we really need all this? http://www.gilad.co.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 14-07-02 MEST