By: Alan Hart
September 20, 2009
Dear President Obama,
A photo op with Netanyahu and Abbas is no disguise for the fact that on the matter of getting a real peace process going in the Middle East, “Yes, we can” has become “No, we can’t”. And there’s no mystery about why. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rejection of your call for a complete settlement freeze is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. It is that Zionism – a colonial enterprise pure and simple – is not interested in peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.
I understand completely that the limits of what you can now do are set by the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress on matters to do with Israel. But that will remain the case only if you continue to play the game by the rules of your pork-barrel system. You could change the rules. How? By going over the heads of Congress, and those of your Zionist minders, and talking directly and honestly to your fellow Americans and the world. You have the perfect opportunity to do just that when you make your first address on the platform of the United Nations in New York this coming Wednesday.
A main point to make to your fellow citizens is that it’s not in America’s own best interests to go on supporting Israel right-or-wrong. The short answer to those who ask why is this. It can’t be in America’s best interests to have 1.4 billion Muslims as enemies, especially when the vast majority of them would prefer to be America’s friends. Anti-Americanism is not a natural phenomenon. It’s the product of America’s arrogance of power and the double standards of American foreign policy, double standards which are at their most visible in support for the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel right-or-wrong.
I am aware that there is an alternative view. America in particular and the West in general must have enemies in order to keep the Military Industrial Complex going (on taxpayers’ money) as a major creator of wealth and jobs. But this, I hope you’ll agree, Mr. President, is the view of Mad Men. In your country they are called neo-cons, a term which includes die-hard American Zionists who, some think, should be charged with treason for putting the interests of a foreign power first.
It was, of course, one of your most illustrious predecessors, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who named the Military Industrial Complex and warned Americans that they would have to be on their guard to prevent it acquiring “unwarranted influence” that could “endanger liberties and the democratic process.” As I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Eisenhower was also the first and the last American President to contain Zionism. (My own view is that President Kennedy most probably would have done if he had been allowed to live and served a second term; but there isn’t time to go into that now).
If I was writing the script for your address to the United Nations, I would have you quote the words President Eisenhower spoke to the nation in February 1957 when he was a in the process of reading the riot act to Israel. As you’ll recall, Israel conspired with Britain and France to make war on Eygpt for the purpose of taking back the Suez Canal which Nasser had nationalized and, the conspirators hoped, creating the conditions that would lead to Nasser’s downfall. (Real life British 007’s were in Cairo with orders to assassinate him if the opportunity arose). Israel occupied the Sinai desert and Sharm el-Sheik and was telling Eisenhower that it would withdraw only if its conditions were met. Eisenhower said this (my emphasis added):
Israel insists on firm guarantees as a condition to withdrawing its forces of invasion. If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and gaining national advantage… If the UN once admits that international disputes can be settled using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organisation and our best hope for establishing real world order.
As it happened the clock was turned back on President Johnson’s watch, after he or somebody very high up in his administration gave Israel the greenlight to attack Eygpt in June 1967.
It might be, President Obama, that you are one of those who still subscribe to the notion that Israel went to war then either because the Arabs attacked first (that was Israel’s first claim) or were about to attack (Israel’s second claim), and that the Zionist state was therefore fighting a war of no-choice or self-defense. As the documented truth of history proves, that was Zionist propaganda nonsense. The Six Days War was a conflict of Israeli choice or aggression. (So far as Israel’s military and political hawks were concerned, it was the opportunity to complete the unfinished business of 1948/49 and create Greater Israel. President Johnson was actually opposed to Israel expanding the war to Jordan and Syria and grabbing more Arab territory, and it was to blind him about Israel’s intentions to do so that defense minister Moshe Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty, the state of the art American spy ship).
The truth of what actually happened and why invites, I say demands, only one conclusion. The major powers, led by America in the Security Council, ought to have demanded, with the promise of sanctions if necessary, that Israel withdraw from the newly occupied Arab territory without conditions.
Because, at Zionism’s insistence, the definitive article “the” was dropped from its text, Security Council Resolution 242 gave Israel scope to attach conditions to its withdrawal. From then on Israel had, effectively, a power of veto over any peace process.
Hope for peace might still have been rescued if the Security Council had said to Israel something like: “We will not allow you to build so much as one settlement on occupied territory. If you defy the Council on this matter, we will use all enforcement measures as necessary to oblige you to comply with international law.”
The consequence of the Security Council’s American-led surrender to Zionism was the creation of two sets rules for the behaviour of nations – one set for all the nations of the world minus Israel, the other, exclusively, for the Zionist state. (It can be argued that under the neo-conned regimes of President George “Dubya” Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, America and Britain played by the rules for Israel, but that’s another story).
It follows, Mr. President, that if you really want to be serious about ending the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, you must insist not only that Israel freeze all settlement activity (that’s only a sideshow), but that it be obliged to comply with international law, not that of the jungle.
I fully understand that going over the heads of Congress and your Zionist minders to tell your fellow citizens and the world the truth could be a dangerous business. It could even cost you your life. But I have great faith in the so-called ordinary people of America. As I sometimes say and write, they are (not their fault) the most under-informed and mis-informed and therefore gullible people on Planet Earth. But deep down they are also the most idealistic. In my judgment, telling them the truth about who must do what and why for justice and peace in the Middle East would enable you to create a constituency of understanding that, in turn, would enable you to break the Zionist lobby’s grip on Congress.
In conclusion I’ll share with you one of my dreams. The Jews, generally speaking, are the intellectual elite of the Western world. The Palestinians, generally speaking, are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership they could change the region for the better and, by so doing, give new hope and inspiration to the whole world.
With respectful good wishes,
PS While I was writing this letter, news came that you had turned down the request of seven former directors of the CIA to halt the investigation into allegations of the abuse of suspects held by the agency on your predecessor’s watch. You apparently said, “Nobody is above the law”. With respect, Mr. President, you are wrong. Israel is. And that, as I’ve said above, is the single most important aspect of the matter you must address if your commitment to justice and peace in the Middle East is real and “deep”. Pictures of you with the rejectionist Netanyahu and the largely discredited Abbas prove nothing.
Alan Hart is an author, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Independent Television News, and former BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East.