The Lobby Represents the Most Dangerous Faction of the US Ruling Class
Clarifications on "The Lobby"
We have a new voice contributing to the exploration of themes related to evaluating the role, or significance, of the pro-Israel Lobby within the US - a perennial concern among activists within global, regional and local liberation movements and also among readers and contributors to this website.
The new leg of our discussion here comes from Seth Farber, Ph.D. a prominent anti-Zionist author and human rights activist. Dr. Farber is the author of
Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel (Common Courage Press, 2005),
a book that includes contributions from among the leading American Jewish critics of Zionism and of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians: Noam Chomsky,Norman Finkelstein, Marc Ellis, Adam Shapiro, Phyllis Bennis, Rabbi Weiss; a diverse group of Orthodox Jews, atheists, cultural Jews, a Buberesque theologian, Gandhian activists -
united by their opposition to Zionism and their indignation at fellow Jews (Israel and its American supporters) for the dispossession of the Palestinians that began with the expulsions and ethnic cleansing of 1948.
Seth Farber is also a significant figure in the movement against the authoritarian excesses of Psychiatry (more commonly known as the "anti-Psychiatry movement"). As a Psychologist who is a strong critic of the mental health system, he has much to say about freedom and sanity with strong ramifications on the burning question of who, really, defines "Reality". And how?
In this article Dr. Farber joins our conversation to comment and clarify some of the arguments about the role of the pro-Israel Lobby that were published on other pages here. He makes references to:
"Blaming the lobby", by Prof. Joseph Massad:
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1246
and,
an article by author Jeff Blankfort, titled
"Yes, Blame the Lobby: A Response to Prof. Joseph Massad"
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1246#comment-11760
More Comments, and links to Related Reading materials follow below.
Petros Evdokas
petros@cyprus-org.net
* * *
The Lobby Represents the Most Dangerous Faction of the US Ruling Class
July 3, 2008
To: ttetpos@yahoo.com, ActionGreens@yahoogroups.com
Hi Petros,
While you praise Professor Massad's article–a couple yrs old–you fail to acknowledge that Jeff Blankfort's article cogently argues that Massad is demolishing a straw man–not the anti-Lobby argument put forward by the left.
A major problem is that while you include Blankfort's response, the version of Blankfort's article is so poorly formatted that it does not distinguish Massad's argument from Blankfort's responses–making it difficult to understand for those not familiar with the argument.
Let me pick a couple points with the appropriate differentiations.
Massad: Blocking all international and UN support for Palestinian rights, arming and financing Israel in its war against a civilian population, protecting Israel from the wrath of the international community should also be blamed not on the United States,
the studies {wrongly} insist, but on Israel and its lobby.
Blankfort responds: The authors [Walt and Mearsheimer] are essentially correct. Every US president since Richard Nixon, with the Rogers Plan in 1969, has made an effort to get Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967, not out of any love for the Palestinians, but because Israel’s continuing occupation of those lands, from the Sinai to the Golan Heights, was creating unnecessary problems in a region where maintaining stability of the regions’ oil resources was and remains a necessity. Every one of those plans was undermined by the Lobby.
In rebuttal of the argument that a Palestinian state would be threat to the US, Blankfort writes: “Prof. Massad offers no reason why the US could not support a
truncated Palestinian state and why the US supports Israel’s maintaining the occupied territories despite the efforts of every president from Nixon to Clinton to get Israel to give them up.†Note that Presidents are constrained by the Lobby's control over Congress.
On this point Norman Finkelstein agrees with Blankfort–he otherwise disagrees: US imperialism has no interest in maintaining the Occupation in its current form. But Israel and the Lobby do. I disagree with Blankfort about Bush Jr–he needs no prodding from Israel. (His base consists largely of Christian Zionists.) Blankfort gives copious examples where the US bowed to Lobby pressure.
Massad’s strongest point is as follows: "Additionally, and in line with this logic {the logic of right-wing anti-Lobby argument}, controlling Arab economies and finances, dominating key investments in the Middle East, and imposing structural adjustment policies by the IMF and the World Bank which impoverish the Arab peoples should also be blamed on Israel, and not the United States."
Blankfort and left-wing Lobby critics tend to overlook the devastating impact of US arms industry on Arab economies. However I agree with Blankfort that, specific military policies implemented by Clinton and Bush Jr would not have been possible without the support of the Lobby and its agents.
Blankfort writes “Massad must certainly be familiar with the “Clean Break†paper that Perle, Feith, and Meyrav Wurmser, wrote for Netanyahu in 1996, calling for the overthrow of Iraq, Syria and Iran, which Mearsheimer and Walt mention. Is he not also familiar with the “Project for a New American Century,†another document drawn up by
pro-Israel Jewish neocons? Not familiar with the Office of Special Plans, set up by Feith and run by another Jewish neocon, Abe Shulsky, which was directed to provide the phony intelligence that would justify the invasion when the CIA staff was not prepared to do it. Is he not familiar with the admission by Philip Zelikow, executive director of
the 9-11 commission, who admitted that the war in Iraq was for “the security of Israel†but that would have been a “hard sell†to the American people? And, as for implementing and maintaining the sanctions, the advocacy of the lobby was equally evident.â€
As to 9-11, whatever insider factions were involved in this false flag operation obviously were committed to the same strategy for asserting US hegemony as were the authors of the documents on the “new Pearl Harbor.†It is in the light of a split within the US ruling class that the Lobby becomes a decisive factor in preventing the development of a less fanatical policy in the Mideast. It was also a split within
ruling class that led in the past to the assassination of JFK and RFK. Qui bono? Those who believe that US interests are best served by the policy outlined by the neo-cons–and that may lead shortly to an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office, and certainly if McCain wins the election.
It needs to be noted that the invasion of Iraq was opposed by a large segment of US ruling class. The Joint Chiefs of Staff testified in 2002 that it would be disastrous. Bush Sr had given reasons against it in his 1998 book. (We know now that in 1992 Cheney argued against it!!!) It was the neo-con and Cheney faction of ruling class that had seized the reigns of power under Dubya that was intent on invading Iraq and
implementing the entire neo-con strategy laid out in PNAC. In making their argument they of course phrased it in terms of what was in the US interest, not Israel’s. This faction is supported by the Lobby.
The other main faction of the ruling class, according to Jonathan Cutler in Z mag, is the Arabist faction. They favor maintaining US imperial hegemony primarily through military alliance with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. They tend to be “realists,†favor negotiations and maintaining the status quo and are opposed to risky US military
ventures. Baker is a strong spokesman for this faction–as is Gates who recently testified to Congress, according to Hersh–that he had no control over Bush... They argue that US interests are not served by the neo-con strategy of seeking to demolish every "enemy" of Israel.. Obama clearly identifies with this Arabist or realist [faction]–thus his praise for Bush Sr– and because of this he has had to be particularly abject in reassuring AIPAC that he will stand by Israel. Obama has no chance of winning support of the Lobby but had he not done this the Lobby would have politically destroyed him–just as they destroyed
Cynthia McKinney.
Obama’s genuflection to AIPAC is a striking example of how the Lobby is able to draw the entire American political apparatus to the right. If another terrorist attack takes place before the election it will be an effort of the neo-cons to avoid being ousted by an Obama victory.
There are disagreements within each faction–I am here simplifying in an effort to delineate the broad strokes of conflict within US foreign policy elite... But here is a critical point:
What policy is in the interest of US empire is SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION.
The neo-con faction always interprets augmented power of Israel as being strategically advantageous to US imperial interests. And the Arabist faction claims [that] more realistic policies that do not attempt to effect regime change throughout the Middle East are in US interest.
There is no reason to doubt that the neo-cons and the Lobby think their strategy is in the interest of US capital.
The right-wing argument that the Lobby is guilty of dual loyalty is naive–or at worst anti-Semitic–because it overlooks the ambiguity of any interpretation of what is in the US interests. Thus Massad is absolutely correct when he writes: “But the lobby is powerful in the United States because its major claims are about advancing US interests
and its support for Israel is contextualized in its support for the overall US strategy in the Middle East.†But he is incorrect by implying that what is in the interest of overall US strategy is not a matter of interpretation. Was invading Iraq in the interest of US imperialism? A highly dubious assertion. But the neo-cons still claim
it is–as does McCain.
There is one issue today that more than any other points to the powerful and reactionary influence exerted by the Lobby on US foreign policy: Iran.
There is no doubt in my mind that if not for the pressure of the Lobby the Democrats in Congress would have made an effort to restrain Bush from bombing Iran. Instead, they have facilitated it. Only the US military–not controlled by the Lobby–have opposed bombing Iran. The Lobby has been even more aggressive than Israel itself in ensuring that
every American politician defend Israel’s right to bomb Iran–which Obama has hastened to do. Israel cannot bomb Iran–that is militarily infeasible. That would have to be done by the US.
But the Democratic candidate for President does not even feel free to call for legislation demanding Bush consult Congress before taking any action–an amendment that was killed by Nancy Pelosi. No one in Congress dare oppose AIPAC–Is there any further proof needed that the Lobby is indeed one of the most reactionary and powerful forces on the American political landscape????.
Edward Said wrote “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC – has for years been the most powerful single lobby in Washington.. Who is going to stand up to this Moloch in behalf of the Palestinians [or preventing an attack on Iran], when they can offer nothing, and AIPAC can destroy a professional career at the drop of a checkbook? In the past, one or two members of Congress did resist AIPAC openly, but the many political action committees controlled by AIPAC made sure they were never re-elected.â€
Seth Farber, Ph.D.
http://SethHFarber.com/
* * *
Related Resources:
Many Truthers are familiar with having our sanity questioned on the basis of our investigation and assertions related to September 11 and the significance of that day's events. We know that Psychiatric coercion is sometimes applied to "cure" some of our people - how dare we challenge the assumptions of "consensus reality"? Dr. Farber's title
below is definitely an item of interest for all of us:
Madness, Heresy, and the Rumor of Angels:
The Revolt Against the Mental Health System
http://sethhfarber.com/work1.htm
Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel (Common Courage Press, 2005)
http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=326
and here
http://sethhfarber.com/work4.htm
The Most Apocryphal Relationship
"...Certainly, there's something in the relationship between the US and Israel that defies most analyses. It's impossible to classify that relationship in accordance to the views most often found among simplistic "anti-imperialist" analysts. The US does not simply rule over Israel as it does over other colonized states and countries."
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1140#comment-10973
Some of the articles mentioned above can also be found at these pages:
"Blaming the lobby", by Prof. Joseph Massad:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm
and,
an article by author Jeff Blankfort, titled
"Yes, Blame the Lobby
A Response to Prof. Joseph Massad"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Blankfort11.htm
"The Israel Lobby"
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
The above is a condensed version of the book titled
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Hardcover)
by John J. Mearsheimer, and Stephen M. Walt
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
* * *
Context of the Conversation ~ anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
In discussing what might be the best way to present the above material, we shared some thoughts about the context of the conversation. Here's some relevant fragments of our exchanges - I wrote to Dr. Farber (among other things):
"...Even though some of the readers and contributors to that website
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/
sometimes have hard time differentiating between antizionism and
antisemitism, most of its community are well- meaning people. It's
worth it to pursue these thoughts in public at that outlet, and to keep
promoting mindful critiques of the Empire and its "special
relationships".
Dr. Farber's response included this passage:
"There ARE a few genuine anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in this movement. John Kaminski is one example.
It disturbs me that his writings on 9–11 are so often circulated
considering his attitude towards Jews and admiration of Hitler–of which
he writes openly on his website.. He is an admittedly talented writer,
but that is no excuse for tolerating a Nazi.
I was pleased to hear a year ago that Wayne Barrett criticized him vehemently on his show."
* * *
Here's two examples of John Kaminski's writing:
Jews don't believe in freedom of speech
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4825
and
Parasite Alert!
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5261
There are many 9/11 Truthers who for various reasons are not able to
see the blatant racism in those texts. Usually, the inability to see
that kind of racism is attached to one's own unchallenged
mental-emotional premises, presuppositions or unexamined personal
conflicts. Or, worse, there are several "Truth" outlets that knowingly promote that kind of material, consciously aware of its racialist Jew-hating doctrine.
It should be obvious to anyone with a heart and a mind that
anti-Zionist Israeli and American Jewish activists are the most
important asset and moral power possessed by the anti-Zionist movement.
To whatever degree the 9/11 Truth movement has positioned itself in
opposition to Zionism, we need to ensure that we also position
ourselves by a hundred times that degree in alliance with Jewish
opponents of Zionism.
Being careless about the difference between antisemitism and
antizionism reveals us to be unreliable allies. Being tolerant of
Jew-hating or antisemitic prejudice reveals us to be worse than
unreliable: it manifests a complicity with authoritarian and racist
doctrines that creates a political atmosphere in which vast crimes such
as genocide and ethnic cleansing are seen as "ordinary events".
Petros Evdokas
petros@cyprus-org.net
http://petros-evdokas.cyprus-org.net/Another-sort-of-Introduction.html
___________
What's Kaminiski got to do with anything?
No one to my knowledge has ever quoted or cited Kaminski here. But since you posted this to imply that this site has "jew-hating" leanings, I think we should examine Kaminski's article and find out what exactly you find "jew-hating" about it. In fact, I'm going to start at the end, because I suspect that is where we will get to the crux of the matter. This from Kaminski:
Now, given that this passage is embedded within what can best be called a screed by a less than talented individual, I am not about to endorse it wholesale, but I will use it as an example of the problem I have with your approach, Petros, which is so similar (exact actually) to the approach used by those who would hide the truth about 9/11 or anything else.
Unlike many, I have actually studied the issue of holocaust denial, and of the holocaust itself. I have not, in the process, examined the work of a single racist or anti-semite (unless you use the circular definition that anyone who questions the holocaust is an anti-semite, which I reject.) Included in the researchers and historians whose work I have read are David Cole, a Jewish revisionist whose life was threatened by the JDL after which he "recanted", Germar Rudolf, a German scientist jailed for his work on the forensic evidence (or lack thereof) for homicidal gassings, and Roger Garaudy, a French Marxist who spent time in a Nazi camp himself.
I have come to the firmly held conclusion that the essence of Kaminski's passage cited above is correct. The so-called final solution was not a plan of extermination but of deportation, that Zionists co-operated with the plan in a brutally cynical manner, and that the reason for inventing the crime was so that Germany could be accused and held accountable for war crimes that were not also committed by the allies. The myth was also created in order to galvanize support for the illegal and anti-Semitic state of Israel and has been used since to support not just Zionism in the form Israel but also to manipulate anyone identifying as Jewish, whether they be Zionists or not, and/or religious or not.
Such a perversion and falsification of history is not unique to Jeiwsh people, nor was it perpetrated by Jewish people exclusively. Secular myths are as common as supernatural myths and serve the same purpose--to manipulate people into behavior that is not necessarily rational but that is beneficial to the powerful--those who would control others by any means necessary.
This is the kind of nuance that your position precludes, if we are to judge by your blanket condemnation of what you call anti-semitism and jew-hatred. By citing Kaminski as an example of the kind of thing you think people here are OK with you are not only being intellectually sloppy, if not dishonest, you are dodging real debate.
I ask you therefore to tell us whether you believe that all who "deny the holocaust" are racists and/or "jew-haters". If your answer is yes, you should realize that you will be accusing me of racism and/or jew-hatred and that I will indeed take it personally and be offended. If you think instead that there are people (i.e. me) who without being racist or jew-haters have misinterpreted or misunderstood the subject of the holocaust, I would appreciate your showing why you think so based on your own analysis of the arguments made by people like Garaudy, Rudolf, and Cole--not by people like Kaminsky, David Duke, or any other straw men.
gReT
bump
same old comments not appearing problem... this is to see if this comment shows up in comment column on left.
bump
bump
> anti-Zionist Israeli and
> anti-Zionist Israeli and American Jewish activists are the most important asset and moral power possessed by the anti-Zionist movement
Would you wish to argue that white civil rights activists were the most important asset and moral power which the civil rights movement of the 1960s possessed? If you did, then I think Huey Newton and Malcolm X would differ with you on that point. While there is much that can be criticized about various groups and individuals who pass as "anti-Zionist" according to some general criteria, it's hard to see how imposing ethnic or religious quotas ala Affirmative Action would really address any problem substantively.
good point
as important as it was for white people to stand by those being oppressed in their name, it was clearly most important for the oppressed to stand up for themselves. on the othe rhand, i would argue that zionism (and its US counterpart in neoconservatism) victimizes jewish people as much as it does its non jewish victims, albeit in very different ways. while Palestinians lose their lives and land, jews trapped by the zionist mindfuck lose their souls and their friends. they are robbed of their right to engage with the world on the terms of a free, emancipated, and enlightened individual. zionism is hypernationalism, it is very much like nazism in that way. it is much farther evolved than fascism in the US under the Bush regime--9/11 was supposed to push us all the way into a zionist model. when you think about it, why not? we also founded a country at the expense of the lands native inhabitants, and built it up on a number of myths used to jusitfy further expropriation. those little girls who wrote messages on the bombs destined for Lebanese civilian targets can't be blamed for what they are being turned into. And as much as I would like to think that people should be responsible for not being idiots, a large number of jewish folks are being brainwashed into blindly supporting the 9/11 lie, and when people who they have tried to warn against 9/11 truth start to wake up and stop returning their phone calls, they are going to be victims not just of their closedmindedness but of a concerted campaign to make them unwitting tools of zionist criminals just as so many Americans are unwitting tools of the criminals lording it over them and using them as cannon fodder for their agenda.
Context of the Conversation ~ Who are we speaking to, and what
It should be obvious from the presentations and materials above that
examining the role of the pro-Israel Lobby in the daily functions of
the US and global Empire, evaluating the degree of influence it exerts,
etc, is not a matter of absolute values, but of interpretation
according to context.
This applies both to agreement and disagreement. If the background -
the underlying foundations - of the context are not articulated, not
made transparent, there's only miscommunication (at best).
For example, among antisemites or crypto Jew-haters, the idea is
becoming popular once again in current times (as has often happened in
history) that "the Zionist entity" has "taken hold of", has "taken
control" of the Motherland and is "forcing" on her political behaviours
in the domestic and international arenas that are "not natural" to the
Motherland. Among those people, the image of the US pro-Israel Lobby is
that of a "foreign power", an alien entity consisting of the hated
"Other". Among them, the term "zionist" is a clever (or naive)
substitute for "the Jew". Any discussion with such a crowd that
does not address the underlying foundations of the context - and there
are plenty of them in the 9/11 Truth movement - is condemned to
irrational evaluations and either unsupportable conclusions,
inconclusive findings, or unresolvable disagreements.
The story is entirely different among individuals and organizations
that are united by an active opposition to both Zionism and
antisemitism, and to all forms of racism. The mental-emotional bonds of
the alliance render both the agreements and the disagreements among us
to a different status. Whether communication takes place or not, is
often influenced by other elements of the context such as "who are we
speaking to?", or "what is the objective of the presentation?" And,
even more important, "what is the degree of relevance in our agreement
or disagreement?"
For example, when Prof. Joseph Massad and Dr. Farber write in ways that
help to place the US pro-Israel Lobby in the context of the Imperialism
and class structure, at times they sound as if they are in agreement
and at times in disagreement. What is the significance of those
apparent agreements and disagreements? Massad's material is helpful for
re-orienting Arab and international anti-Zionists,
including those of progressive, liberal, or moderate politics and even
those of national-liberation oriented, "centrist" politics to examine
whether their leadership has over-rated the role of The Lobby
and under-rated the role of Imperialism; there are dire implications in
policy over this, especially when a population's survival depends on
it. For example, should the Iraqi or Palestinian leadership orient
their communities toward befriending US Imperialism while trying to
outdo the influence of the US pro-Israel Lobby, or should they orient
their communities toward rejection of Imperialism as a system,
acknowledging that The Lobby is only one feature of Imperium (yes, an
important one), but whose nature is irrelevant to whether their own populations should strive for self-sufficiency, direct democracy, Socialism?
On the other hand, when authors like Dr. Farber, Jeff Blankfort, John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt place emphasis on the role of the US
pro-Israel Lobby they do so in ways that have implications primarily
for the American and Israeli Jewish opponents of Zionism, and very
closely, have implications for the whole of the American Left, the
progressive, liberal, radical, and moderate community of activists.
What seems to be a disagreement, is actually a parallel development:
each author within their own community, are identifying, naming and
opposing the elements of Empire that have become dominant to a degree
that's dangerous for all of Humanity.
Other "disagreements" or "agreements" must also be seen in context. For
example, my admiration and estimation of anti-Zionists like Seth Farber
or Mitchel Cohen - a lifetime freedom fighter against all forms of
oppression and illegitimate authority - will never diminish, even if we
may occasionally disagree on details. I have a different evaluation
than Dr. Farber on whether Israel is capable of bombing Iran or not.
That kind of "disagreement" is irrelevant among allies, unless we were
both actively and responsibly engaged in making military preparations
for the defence and protection of Iran.
My own military experiences (both as a non-combatant caught in a war of
ethnic cleansing, and as a military officer in another period) give me
a different perspective of what is possible in the military arena. It
is entirely irrelevant here.
The important thing about Dr. Farber's assertion on this point is not whether it is feasible for Israel to bomb Iran, but what exactly is
the role of the US ruling class, the US Government, and of the US
pro-Israel Lobby, on that perspective. Dr. Farber is absolutely correct
on that.
Things that appear as "disagreements" turn out to have a lot more
substance as "agreements" when the context of the dialogue is clear and
there is a solid unity of political and spiritual principles that
inform the dialogue. And conversely, things that appear as "agreements"
- for example the eager condemnation of Zionism by crude Jew-haters as
well as by anti-authoritarian internationalists, anti-racist, or
solidarity activists - become manifest not only as "disagreements" but
actually as a heavily charged minefield over which we sometimes hurl
bombs, blades, epithets as well as arguments, when the true context of
the apparent "agreement" is revealed.
It's all in the context. When it is founded on broad, clearly defined
principles of unity that embrace all of Humanity, and when the goals of
equality, justice and liberation for all are experiencible in the shared context, everything is possible.
Or, as the actor George C. Scott said while in the role of Dr. Jake
Terrell in the movie "Day of the Dolphin", loosely based on the
mind-blowing work of Dr. John Lilly: "There are infinite possibilities."
Petros Evdokas
petros@cyprus-org.net
http://petros-evdokas.cyprus-org.net/Another-sort-of-Introduction.html
___________
Somewhat Related
By a bizarre twist of fate, that excellent quote ("there are infinite possibilities", ) from the movie
"Day of the Dolphin"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069946/ ,
is related both to a False Flag operation and to a conspiracy by dark forces within the US Government (depicted in the movie), and
to Consciousness research that was carried out by Dr. John Lilly that
showed us in practical terms how Reality is truly constructed of
"infinite possibilities" woven into a fabric of nodes which our
individual and collective awareness, if properly cultivated, is able to
resonate with.
More on Dr. Lilly:
http://www.johnclilly.com/
As Lazlo Toth wrote, "A Revolution of Consciousness is the Solution"
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1242#comment-11758
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Â Â
> What seems to be a
> What seems to be a disagreement, is actually a parallel development: each author within their own community
This whole bit reads like an indirect assertion that only Jews should be allowed to discuss the role of the Israel lobby within their own gated community, while non-Jews should find something else to talk about. Was that what you meant, or is there another meaning that isn't clear? What if someone tried to argue that only white Europeans should discuss the record of European colonialsim? Blacks should stick to talking about the human rights abuses in Africa. Would you rationalize that as part of a context of conversation? If not, then you might wish to strive towards better clarity so as not to give misimpressions.
> should the Iraqi or
> should the Iraqi or Palestinian leadership orient their communities toward befriending US Imperialism while trying to outdo the influence of the US pro-Israel Lobby
In general, I would wish that more people in the world would spend less time bending over to touch their heels when approaching the US. But with that much said, it does need to be pointed out that this was exactly what Nelson Mandela did in the anti-apartheid campaign, and none of the liberals faulted him for this. The question has to arise, why is it that so many liberals, most of whom unthinkingly adopted the view that having Mandela be invited to Washington was a triumph of sorts, are now suddenly overwhelmed with concern that Palestinians seeking to break Israeli apartheid may be acting too chummy towards Washington? Isn't that another odd reversal of sorts in the logic that is applied?
If one means this seriously as a critique of the tendency to lean towards Washington, it would likely be more beneficial to move away from Palestinian issues and go back over the way that Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress, and the South African Communist Party, acted as the frontmen for capitalist stability in South Africa. The Palestinians have simply attempted to duplicate patterns which they have been taught are likely to work, those patterns being well outlined in the anti-apartheid campaign of the 1980s. It doesn't serve much purpose to attack them for that while people continue to regard the anti-apartheid movement as a victory of sorts. Doing so will only give the impression that another double-standard is being set up to favor Israel.
> dual loyalty is naive–or
> dual loyalty is naive–or at worst anti-Semitic–because it overlooks the ambiguity of any interpretation of what is in the US interests
But is that really an absolute conflict? It's normal that when some ambiguity exists on an issue, say you need to choose between two restaurants both of which are good, that some ulterior criterion will enter the issue to better decide it. You might have a special liking for a particular neighborhood in which one restaurant is located, or you may have some bad memories of the spot where the other one is. It's not uncommon to bring in such outside criteria to make up one's mind on an issue where some ambiguity exists.
Abstractly, one might be able to make general strategic arguments going either way about how closely should the US government back Israel. However, any reasonable set of profiles drawn up of Israeli backers on the political scene, whether Abe Foxman or Jerry Falwell, will immediately show a strong strain of ideology running in favor of backing Israel, an ideology which does not even really pretend to have any strategic plan of action that might appeal to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rather this is an ulterior motive which exists outside of strategic calculations but which can influence the outcome of a strategic debate at times when some ambiguity exists.
The only real point seems to be that in such places where an overwhelming strategic argument exists against following ideas promoted by Israel-pushers, such in the debate over whether or not to invade Iran, the strategic argument has the potential to trump the lobby. That's true. But it doesn't mean that every other instance where the lobby gets its way is best interpreted as the byproduct of a general strategic calculation. The most one may assume is that strategic calculations may have been vague enough in that instance so that perhaps some other criterion may have been able to decide the issue.
What is 'Holocaust Denial'?
What is 'Holocaust Denial'?
By Barbara Kulaszka
In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to the supposed danger of "Holocaust denial." Politicians, newspapers and television warn about the growing influence of those who reject the Holocaust story that some six million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the Second World War, most of them in gas chambers.
In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, "Holocaust denial" is against the law, and "deniers" have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some Jewish community leaders have called for similar measures in North America. In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the "League for Human Rights" of the Zionist B'nai B'rith organization, says: [1]
“The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself.â€
Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"?
Six Million?
Should someone be considered a "Holocaust denier" because he does not believe – as Matas and many others insist – that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It found that "the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions." [2]
Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as "deniers." Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.
Human Soap?
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that the Nazis did not make soap from the corpses of murdered Jews? After considering the evidence – including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets – the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that "in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap." [3]
In 1990, though, Israel's official Yad Vashem Holocaust center “rewrote history" by admitting that the soap story was not true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?," said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. [4]
Wannsee Conference?
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he does not accept that the January 1942 "Wannsee conference" of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong – and a "Holocaust denier" – because he declared: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail." [5]
Extermination Policy?
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. [6] As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: [7]
“In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution’ have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.’ In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.â€
A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into "intentionalists" and "functionalists." The former contend that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter hold that Germany's wartime "final solution" Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. [8]
Auschwitz
So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be "denial." But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in History: “…From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz , but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones." [9]
Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz – allegedly the main extermination center – are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: "Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945." [11]
Is it "Holocaust denial" to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]
Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote: [14}
“… Many questions remain open ... All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.â€
Gas Chambers
What about denying the existence of extermination "gas chambers"? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that “most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.†[15}
Höss Testimony
One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Höss, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. [16]
It is now well established that Höss’ crucial testimony, as well as his so-called "confession" – which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal – are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death. [17] Höss' wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement – which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law – Höss claimed the existence of an extermination camp called "Wolzek." In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease. [18] Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Höss was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family.
Forensic Investigations
In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer calls for "excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs" to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by American execution equipment consultant, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on-site forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as claimed. After a careful study of the alleged killing facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, an analysis of samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas chambers showed either no or minuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the active ingredient of Zyklon B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews at Auschwitz. [19]
A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter's finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers. [20]
The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas no or only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the camp's disinfestation delousing chambers.
Another forensic study was carried out by German chemist Germar Rudolf. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples, the certified chemist and doctoral candidate concluded: "For chemical-technical reasons, the claimed mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged 'gas chambers' in Auschwitz did not take place ... The supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose..." [21]
There is also the study of Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl, a respected expert witness in numerous court cases, and former president of Austria's professional association of engineers. In a 1992 report he called the alleged mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers "technically impossible." [22]
Discredited Perspective
So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Those who support criminal persecution of "Holocaust deniers" seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal's findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited.
For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as "deniers." But the truth can't be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe's Jews during World War II.
Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers and classrooms.
Notes
1. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), Jan. 22, 1992.
2. Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT "blue series"), Vol. 22, p. 496.
3. IMT "blue series," Vol. 22, p. 496.
4. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 25, 1990; See also: M. Weber, "Jewish Soap," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991.
5. The Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8.
6. See: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zündel (Toronto: Samisdat, 1992), pp. 192, 300, 349.
7. C. Browning, "The Revised Hilberg," Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3, 1986, p. 294; B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 117.
8. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 24-25.
9. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in History (Pantheon, 1988), p. 365.
10. Nuremberg document 008-USSR, in IMT "blue series," Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.
11. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 441.
12. Y. Bauer, "Fighting the Distortions," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million," The Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; " Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million," The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.
13. J.-C. Pressac, Les Crémetoires d'Auschwitz: La machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993), p. 148. See also: R. Faurisson, "Jean-Claude Pressac's New Auschwitz Book," The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994, p. 24.
14. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), p. 366.
15. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), pp. 362-363.
16. IMT "blue series," Vol. 1, pp. 251-252; Nuremberg document 3868-PS, in IMT "blue series," Vol. 33, pp. 275-279.
17. Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235-237.
18. See: R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confession of Rudolf Höss," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389-403.
19. See, for example: B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 469-502. See also: M. Weber, “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth,†The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93, pp. 421-428
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p421_Weber.html )
20. “An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers’,†The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 207-216.
21. G. Rudolf, Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den 'Gaskammern' von Auschwitz (London: 1993) ( http://www.vho.org/D/rga/ ); The Rudolf Report (in English) ( http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/ )
22. "The 'Lüftl Report'," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay is adapted from a text first published in 1992 by the Canadian Free Speech League.
About the Author
Barbara Kulaszka is a Canadian lawyer who practices law in Brighton, Ontario. She is best known for her work in free speech cases. During the 1988 “Holocaust trial†in Toronto, she served a co-counsel (with Doug Christie) for defendant Ernst Zundel. In 1999 she was awarded the “George Orwell Award†by the Canadian Free Speech League.
#2014 01/2007 (Revised)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay, and others in this series, are available in handy leaflet format, ideal for wide distribution. They can be ordered, postpaid, at these prices:
20 copies, $2.00 :: 50 copies, $4.00 :: 100 copies or more, 5 cents each.
Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739 — Newport Beach, CA 92659 — USA
ihr@ihr.org
Home Support the IHR Contact Us Journal of Historical Review Books & Tapes Search
© 2005 Institute for Historical Review
It might help for you to
It might help for you to elaborate on how you do or don't view the role of the White Citizens Council and related agencies from that time-period of the civil rights movement. Some facts jump to mind that are worth giving your opinion on.
In the first place, we know that Martin Luther King was sponsored in his early years up to about three years before his assassination. Theordore Pappas, PLAGIARISM AND THE CULTURE WAR, is an excellently sourced book which shows, among other things, how King's dissertation was not only plagiarized from another student's work, but that the Boston University faculty was surely aware of this fact from the very start and chose to cover it up. King was promoted by a sector of the ruling class which saw a need to establish a well-moderated civil rights that would keep things on a leash. In the last three years of his life King increasingly departed from his former stage role, and this led to his assassination.
But how would you make King's obvious promotion from above fit in with a picture that includes the White Citizens Council and related organizations across the South of that time. Should we adopt the view that, since the WCC were clearly also a manifestation of another sector of the ruling class of the USA in that time, there is therefore no further need to distinguish the WCC as any type of separate agency apart from the promoters of Martin Luther King? Should they all be amalgamated together in a uniform whole without any further distinctions being drawn? How do you deal with this as issue and how does it compare or differ with your approach to the view that some Israel-lobbying agencies are distinct in their own right?
> Blankfort and left-wing
> Blankfort and left-wing Lobby critics tend to overlook the devastating impact of US arms industry on Arab economies
I would have to disagree with that description of Blankfort's position. What I get from reading Blankfort is that he is rather saying that any matters which relate to the US arms industry and Arab economies are sufficiently general that the same practices could be easily reconciled with a multitude of potential policies pursued towards Palestine. Since all of these different Palestine options could be made to fit with the more general picture, those more general practices involving the arms industry and Arab economies do not provide us with any explanation for why the specific policy taken towards Palestine. To understand that specific question, Blankfort argues, we do need to look away general stuff about the arms industry and Arab economies and instead look at groups which take a very specific interest in the Palestine issue. That's Blankfort's argument. It's not that he overlooks the above, but simply asserts that doesn't begin to answer the specific questions about policy towards Palestine.