From Tel Aviv and the pages of Haaretz comes an article which cannot be published inside the continental boundaries of Ex America, at least not by a non-Jew in any major news outlet. Perhaps the article below "The Mystery of America" provides some support to what I wrote last month in the essay "Endstation Palestine"...

    The enabling crux of the problem is that Gentile politicians in Washington cannot enunciate any criticism of the Israeli agenda, because they are scared to death of being branded "anti-Semitic", and, as a consequence, of losing their jobs. By default, therefore, it is up to American Jewry itself to step forward and break with militant Zionism. This may be a wildly unrealistic hope. Nevertheless, it is the only possibility  for any peace in the Middle East. The Gentiles have shown themselves to be too craven, brainwashed, suborned, pigheaded and lazy to act wisely and in their own interests. This fact is the controlling reality of our age, the “end of history” insofar as America is concerned.

         Because the "Israel Lobby' maintains an unassailable choke hold on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, one is forced to conclude that unless American Jews come to their senses and recognize the error of their ways in their blind support of Zionism, the Washington bipartisan establishment will never be persuaded that enough is enough. All Presidents of the United States, most Senators and most Congressmen will continue to pander to AIPAC and will continue to live in fear that their political careers will be terminated for deviating from the pro-Israel party line. Aspirants to the U.S. Presidency and to the  Senate and Congress will vigorously promote the prevailing unjust and inequitable status quo, because they see it as the required ticket to getting elected.

True, Gideon Levy is not to my knowledge an American Jew, but he certainly is suggesting that "the Jewish Lobby" release its unassailable choke hold upon U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Will it happen? That appears most unlikely. But who in their right mind can disagree with the general thrust of Levy's arguments? He seems to blame "America", which is after all only a vague idea. Instead, Levy should reproach his fellow Jews in America. Bush, Cheney, and the Israel First stooges on Capitol Hill are playing the part of “useful idiots” and simply dancing to the music provided. If the tune were changed, they would change too, in an instant. They are not so much running dogs of Zionism as dancing dogs.

=============================================================
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m || Tel Aviv, Israel

Last update - 10:18 October 10th, 2006

The mystery of America

By Gideon Levy

It happens once every few months. Like a periodic visit by an especially annoying relative from overseas, Condoleezza Rice was here again. The same declarations, the same texts devoid of content, the same sycophancy, the same official aircraft heading back to where it came from. The results were also the same: Israel promised in December, after a stormy night of discussions, to open the "safe passage" between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This time, in what was considered the "achievement" of the current visit, Israel also promised to open the Karni crossing. Karni will be open, one can assume, only slightly more than the "safe passage," which never opened following the previous futile visit.

Rice has been here six times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself? It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? [Comment: it is not a mystery; it is a scandal. It is well known why Washington does nothing.] How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?

What happened since 1956, when the U.S. made Israel withdraw from Sinai overnight with a single telephone call, immediately after the "Third Kingdom of Israel" speech by the strongest Israeli leader of all times, David Ben-Gurion? Now, as the occupation continues for years, with a government no less dependent on the good graces of the U.S. than in the past, why is America a bystander?

Countless trips by presidents and secretaries of state, peace initiatives and peace plans aplenty, from the Roger's Plan to the Road Map, via "reassessment," fruitless talks and flowery declarations, pressure and promises, discussions and decisions - and nothing has happened. And in the background, a fundamental question echoes, without a response: Is America at all interested in bringing about a solution in the Middle East? Is it possible that it does not understand how crucial it is to end the conflict?

As things appear, America can and does not want to. No government in Israel, and surely not the most recent ones, which are terrified of the American administration, would stand up to a firm American demand to bring the occupation to an end. But there has never been an American president who wanted to put an end to the occupation. Does America not understand that without ending the occupation there will be no peace? Peace in the region would deliver a greater blow to world terrorism than any war America has pursued, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Does America not understand this? Can all this be attributed to the omnipotent Jewish lobby, which causes Israel more harm than good?

The declared aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is to bring democracy to the region. [Comment: the spreading of democracy is the most preposterous cover story ever. Does Washington support "democracy" in Palestine? Of course not.] For this reason, ostensibly, the U.S. also went to war in Iraq. Even if one ignores the hypocrisy, self-righteousness and double-standard of the Bush administration, which supports quite a few despotic regimes, one should ask the great seeker of democracy: Have your eyes failed to see that the most undemocratic and brutal regime in the region is the Israeli occupation in the territories? [Comment: by "the Bush Administration" does Gideon Levy mean the Zionist Jew who is in charge of America's foreign policy in the Middle East and who works out of the White House? If so, then the answer is that the Bush Administration is in favor of Israel's decades-long occupation. Elliott Abrams has been an enthusiastic supporter of it his entire adult life. That's why Karl Rove put Abrams in the White House...to keep the "Jewish Lobby" happy and pro-Bush.] And how does the White House reconcile the contradiction between the aspiration to instill democracy in the peoples of the region and the boycott of the Hamas government, which was chosen in democratic elections as America wanted and preached?

The U.S. also speaks loftily about peace. At the same time, its president warns Israel against any attempt to forge peace with Syria. Here America is taking a stance that not only fails to advance an accord but even undermines it. Ever since it began to give Israel a free hand to impose the brutal occupation in the territories, it has become a party that bequeaths undemocratic values to the entire world. Where are the days when there was still concern in Jerusalem about the U.S. reaction before each military operation? Israel then thought twice before every liquidation and each arrest. Every demolition of a Palestinian home and each nocturnal groundbreaking of a settlement raised fears about how Uncle Sam would react. And now - carte blanche. There is a blank check for every belligerent action by Israel. Should this also be called an effort for peace, for democracy?

The recent years have not been good for America. From "the leader of the free world," it has become detested by the world. Not only do South Africa, Asia and Africa feel strong animosity toward it, most of the public opinion in Europe has also turned away from it. Is anyone in the administration asking why the world loves so much to hate America? And what implications will this growing global feeling have on the strength of the U.S. in the years ahead? Can the dollar, the Tomahawk and the F-16 provide an answer for everything?

In the Middle East, the U.S. has an opportunity to fundamentally change its image, from a warmonger to a peacemaker. And how does the U.S. respond to the challenge? It sends Rice to tell the excited Ehud Olmert how she falls asleep easily on her unnecessary and ridiculous flights to and from the Middle East.