|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Grubach
From OREGON
DAILY EMERALD Professor to discuss Holocaust denial
First Previous Next Last (13 of 13 posts) Posted 05/21/2003 I would like to take this opportunity to explain the
Holocaust revisionist position to your readership, and to
correct Deborah Lipstadt's distortions. The traditional view of the fate of European Jewry
during WWII, commonly known as the Holocaust, contains the
following propositions. There was a Nazi plan to exterminate
all the Jews; homicidal gas chambers were used to implement
this plan; and approximately 6,000,000 were
murdered. Holocaust revisionists do not deny that atrocities
were committed against Jews during WWII. However, they
contend there was no Nazi plan to exterminate world Jewry,
the "Final Solution" being no more no less than their
expulsion from Europe. The Nazis did incarcerate Jews in
concentration camps, but there were no "gas chambers" for
mass murder in them. And finally, the claim of 6,000,000
murdered Jews is an irresponsible exaggeration, as the
number killed was far less. One of the most important pieces of scientific
evidence showing that the "Auschwitz gas chambers" did not
exist is the forensic study of the German chemistry expert,
Germar Rudolf. You can read his entire expert report at
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html Holocaust skeptics do admit that large numbers of Jews
were shot by the German Army during their campaign to stamp
out anti-German guerilla warfare and Communism on the
Eastern Front. Certainly, many more were killed in
anti-Jewish pogroms in Nazi-occupied areas. And finally,
many Jews did die of starvation, disease, and exhaustion as
a result of Nazi forced labor policies. The revisionist
estimates of the total number of Jewish deaths from all
causes ranges from 300,000 to 1,500,000. Contrary to the
claims of Deborah Lipstadt, Holocaust revisionists do not
deny that the Jews suffered a tragedy during WWII. Deborah Lipstadt's traditional view of the Holocaust
is an ideology in the Marxist sense of the term--a distorted
body of ideas, untrue in the main, that is continually
promoted because it serves the political, social and
psychological needs of a power elite. In this case, the
Holocaust ideology serves the goals and aspirations of the
Jewish-Zionist establishment, the power elite that Deborah
Lipstadt so closely identifies with. As the Jewish political
scientist, Norman Finkelstein, has noted, through the
deployment of the Holocaust ideology, "one of the world's
most formidable military powers [Israel], with a
horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim
state,' and the most successful ethnic group in the United
States [the Jews] has likewise acquired victim
status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious
victimhood--in particular, immunity from criticism, however
justified." Paul Holocaust revisionist historian Paul Grubach replies to David Gehrig Holocaust distorter, David Gehrig, has made a number of
false and/or misleading statements about myself and the
Holocaust revisionist movement that I would like to
correct. He calls Paul Grubach a "Nazi apologist." This is
patently false. As a patriotic American, I am a firm
believer in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and
thus, I reject totalitarian Nazism. It is matter of public
record that I oppose Nazism. You can read my article about
this at http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/tr08notnazi.html
I am of 1/4 German and 3/4 Slavic descent; thus, according
to many Nazi ideologues, I would be a member of an "inferior
race" because of the preponderance of "Slavic genes" in my
makeup. My late father, whose record I admire, was a
decorated Marine combat veteran who lost his toe at
Bouganville fighting against Nazi Germany's allies, fascist
Japan. The reason that I've hitched my wagon onto the Holocaust
revisionist movement is because the traditional view of the
Holocaust is an outrage against the truth, and because I am
sick and tired of seeing the Holocaust ideology being used
by Jewish-Zionists as an ideological battering ram against
the non-Jewish world--more specifically, Christians,
non-Jewish whites, Europeans in general, and Palestinian
Arabs. Gehrig's labelling of Paul Grubach a "Nazi apologist"
tells us more about his own intellectual impotence and
insecurity than about Paul Grubach and the revisionist
movement. Gehrig cannot answer in a rational and scholarly
manner my arguments, so he resorts to false accusations. Holocaust distorter Gehrig then makes the claim that
"Paul Grubach is looking for attention." You are darn right,
Gehrig, that I want attention given to the debate between
the Holocaust revisionists and believers in the traditional
view of the Holocaust. I want readers of the OREGON DAILY
EMERALD to know the truth about the Jewish experience in
WWII. I want the readership to know about the lies and
exaggerations that have been included in the Holocaust
ideology. An article about Deborah Lipstadt's attacks upon
the Holocaust revisionist movement started this debate in
the OREGON DAILY EMERALD, and I am prepared to finish
it in this forum. Gehrig then points out that I wrote for the revisionist
JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW. He writes that the
editor of this journal "is a former editor of the newsletter
of the National Alliance, an overtly antisemitic neo-Nazi
organization." This is an excellent example of the "guilt by
association" fallacy. The JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL
REVIEW has attracted intellectuals from all parts of the
political spectrum--leftists, centrists and rightists. For
example, The JOURNAL has published the work of the
French anti-Nazi leftist Serge Thion. What Gehrig fails to
note is that the Institute for Historical Review--the
sponsor of the JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW--was at
one time under the directorship of revisionist activist and
author Michael Hoffman II. It is a matter of public record
that Mr. Hoffman has condemned Nazism in his books. What
Gehrig tries to hide from his readers is that the majority
of Holocaust revisionist scholars reject Nazism. David Gehrig is intellectually impotent. He cannot answer
nor refute Holocaust revisionist arguments and evidence, so
he resorts to ad hominem attacks, false charges and
emotionally charged rhetoric in order to divert attention
away from the fact that his traditional view of the
Holocaust is a distorted ideology whose days are truly
numbered. Holocaust revisionist historian Posted 05/11/2003 I wasn't planning on replying to the Nazi apologist
Grubach, but since he seems to have replied to my previous post twice and is
apparently looking for attention, I'll make one last response here and then
invite him to continue the discussion in another open forum. There is indeed an
open forum for debate about the nonsensical claims of Holocaust deniers.
It's an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup called alt.revisionism. Even Bradley
Smith, founder of CODOH, posted there for a while, until an extraordinary
calamity happened: he was asked to back up his extravagant claims -- about a
grand international Jewish fraud in every government Western or Eastern --
with actual evidence. Naturally, he fled instantly to the safety of his own
sandbox. If you are really interested in open debate, Grubach,
then that's the place to go, rather than here. Again, naturally, I don't expect
to see you there. If you prefer to make excuses about why you couldn't
_possibly_ engage in open debate on alt.revisionism, well, let's just say it
won't surprise me. Holocaust deniers don't do any better in open debate than
flat-earthers, and for the exact same reason: they're just so incredibly
wrong. In fact, that's what got me interested in the perverse
rhetorical phenomenon known as Holocaust denial in the first place. It's kind
of like a modern day version of Lewis Carroll -- the Holocaust deniers think
that if they take their bull excrement and dress it up in a lab coat, it
will somehow smell less like bull excrement. And, lo, the world was not
fooled, yet the Holocaust deniers never get the clue about what a joke
they really are. But if they're a joke, they're a Nazi joke. Study the
history of Holocaust denial and you'll discover that, for example, the editor
of the denial periodical Journal of Historical Review -- where
essays by Paul Grubach have appeared -- is the former editor of the newsletter
of the National Alliance, an overtly antisemitic neo-Nazi organization
founded by the very same man who pseudonymously wrote the novel that inspired
Tim McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Building in Oklahoma
City. Funny how Grubach leaves that part out. By the way, speaking of what Grubach leaves out -- in
1993 I saw a pamphlet from CODOH written by its founder, Bradley Smith,
claiming -- among other credentials -- that he had taught history at Harvard.
Last I checked the CODOH site, he's now down to claiming only to have
graduated high school. David Gehrig Professor to discuss Holocaust denial
"Denying the Holocaust" author Deborah
Lipstadt will address instances of denial and litigation at
8 p.m. in the EMU Ballroom Campus/City Culture Reporter April 28, 2003 It has been almost six decades since the Holocaust, but
some people still deny it ever happened. Deborah Lipstadt will speak about her legal battle with a
Holocaust denier at 8 p.m. today in the EMU Ballroom, part
of the local commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and
Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, was
involved in a six-year fight with English historian David
Irving, who has questioned whether 6 million Jews really
were killed by Nazis during World War II. Irving sued Lipstadt for libel when she called him a Nazi
sympathizer in her book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing
Assault on Truth and Memory." The professor said the trial
was especially taxing because it took place in an English
courtroom. "In England, in terms of libel, one is guilty unless
proven innocent," she said in a telephone interview. "The
legal battle consumed my life for six years. In many times,
it was a long and disturbing fight." Oregon Hillel Director Hal Applebaum said Lipstadt is one
of the world's leading authorities on Holocaust denial. "Holocaust denial is out there -- people and groups say
it never took place," Applebaum said. "We should not forget,
lest it happen again." Lipstadt said people deny the past for differing reasons.
One of them she calls "inconvenient history." "When history is troublesome, you can try to rewrite it,"
she said, adding people such as Irving are motivated to
rewrite terrible events because of personal biases such as
anti-Semitism. "This guy has said some racist things," she said. Lipstadt said there could have been many implications had
Irving won the trial. She said if people could believe the
Holocaust never happened, some would believe Nazis were good
people. Some people in the United States have used such
thinking to ignore the slaughter of American Indians and the
cruelty of the Ku Klux Klan, she said. The verdict "felt great because so many survivors had
been moved by this," she said, adding that for people who
weathered the Holocaust, the victory was about remembering
lost loved ones as well as reaffirming history. The author is currently finishing a new book about the
trial, and HBO is producing a movie for next year. Half an hour before tonight's lecture, members of the
University's Jewish Student Union will begin their annual
"reading of the names," where students read names of
Holocaust victims out of a book for 24 consecutive hours at
the EMU Amphitheater. Because the list is so long, only the
names of people who perished in Germany will be read. "So many Jews in Europe perished that for many of them,
all that's left are statistics," JSU Director Daniel Gruber
said. "What we are doing is remembering them." Gruber said he expects only one letter of the alphabet to
be completed in 24 hours. Students interested in signing up to read names for 15
minutes should contact JSU at 346-4366. Professor to discuss Holocaust denial First Previous Next Last (2 of 3 posts) Posted 05/05/2003 Deborah Lipstadt has made a number of false and/or
misleading statements about the Holocaust revisionist
movement. For example, she says many Holocaust revisionists
are supporters of National Socialism. In the late 1980s, an
expert on political extremism, Laird Wilcox, estimated that
the minority (up to 25%) of Holocaust revisionists were
neo-Nazi apologists, which means that at that time, the
majority of Holocaust revisionists were not supporters of
Nazism. In the decade that followed Wilcox's estimate,
revisionism has attracted a much wider audience which surely
reduces this figure significantly. You can read my entire
article that refutes the canard that "Holocaust revisionism
is a Nazi movement" at http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/tr08notnazi.html Lipstadt also claims that "many deniers are also virulent
racists." First, of all, this is hypocritical on her part to
make a charge like this. As the Jewish journalist, Dan
Guttenplan, has noted, Lipstadt was quoted as writing: "'We
know what we fight against: anti-Semitism, and assimilation
[of Jews with non-Jews], intermarriage [between
Jews and non-Jews] and Israel-bashing." In other words,
Lipstadt opposes the assimilation of Jews with non-Jews,
intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews, and she supports
the racist, ethnically segregated, apartheid Israel where
Jews dominate and oppress Palestinian Arabs. Thus, she is
hypocritical for labeling certain Holocaust revisionists as
"racists," when by contemporary definitions of "racism," she
could be rightfully labeled a "racist" herself. You can read
my articles exposing her hypocrisy at
http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/comment/tr08lipstadt.html Many Holocaust revisionists believe in self-determination
and self-preservation for European peoples. For this,
Lipstadt wrongly labels these revisionists as "racists." You
can read my article that exposes that exposes what I believe
to be the real reasons as to why she won't debate Holocaust
revisionists at
http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/tr08nodebate.html From the OREGON
DAILY EMERALD Posted 05/09/2003 This is a revisionist response to David Gehrig's attack
upon myself and the revisionist movement in general (posted 5/6/03). Mr.
Gehrig writes: "[The Holocaust revisionist movement]was already sputtering
and dying before Irving's self-induced immolation put the last nails in
the coffin, never having gained any currency outside the professional
Jew-baiting crowd--represented here by Paul Grubach." In other words,
he is claiming that my fellow Holocaust revisionists and I are "evil
individuals that hate all Jewish people." Mr. Gehrig's statement tells us more about David Gehrig
than about me and the revisionist movement. Gehrig cannot answer nor refute in
a rational manner Holocaust revisionist arguments, so he resorts to "last
refuge of a scoundrel"--the charge of "anti-Semitism." Many revisionists, such as myself, are intellectual
critics of the enormous power and influence that the Jewish community yields
throughout the Western World. We critique the traditional view of the Holocaust
because we believe it to be an outrage against the truth, and we are sick
and tired of seeing it being used as an ideological battering ram against
non-Jewish people, such as Christians and Europeans in general. We are sick and
tired of seeing it being used to "justify" the oppression and dispossession of
Palestinian Arabs. Responsible Holocaust revisionists are quick to point out
that Nazism did indeed commit atrocities against Jews, but we are also
quick to point out that the Holocaust ideology has been greatly exaggerated.
By showing people the truth about the Jewish experience in WWII--that is,
by stripping away the false propaganda and mythology--we hope to bring more
peace and understanding to the world. Paul Grubach
THE
ZIONIST CAMPAIGN FOR WAR WITH IRAQ IN REVISIONIST PERSPECTIVE
By Paul Grubach
One of the goals of Historical revisionism is to bring to the public’s attention the part played by low profile, shadowy forces in getting nations involved in wars. Only rarely will one ever see a discussion in the North American mainstream media of the role played by Zionist interests in getting the United States involved in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
At the outset, it must be clearly seen that Jewish Zionists perceived Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as one of Israel’s most dangerous enemies. Hence, wouldn’t it be nice, so this Zionist logic went, to goad America into utilizing all of its military might to destroy one of Israel’s worst enemies? Simply put, many Jewish Zionists have long relished the thought of America doing Israel’s “dirty work.” This was revealed in an article that appeared in Cleveland, Ohio’s main Jewish community paper, CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS: “Some normally outspoken Jewish activists are deliberately muting their most fervent wish—that the [Bush] administration deal with the Iraqi military threat in a decisive way—out of fear of an anti-semitic backlash that could be a by-product of a costly and protracted Persian Gulf War.”1 The PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland, Ohio) pointed out that Israel’s contemporaneous Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, actively encouraged the U.S.-led alliance to continue the war effort until Iraq’s military machine was destroyed and Saddam was removed from power. The article added: “In pursuing their [Israeli] interests, Israeli officials have sometimes played down the difficulties Allied forces face in fighting Iraq.”2
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful of all political lobbying organizations in the United States. In a rare but quite candid WALL STREET JOURNAL article, it was pointed out that AIPAC’s efforts were crucial in gaining Congressional approval for President George H.W. Bush’s war plans. But even more importantly, the article revealed this immensely powerful Zionist organization worked “behind-the-scenes” and consciously disguised its efforts to garner Congressional approval for the war.3
CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS stated: “Most Jewish groups lined up behind the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to support publicly the president’s policy. How hard they actually worked is unclear. Many senators and representatives reported getting calls from Jewish leaders and constituents…The effort was kept low-profile largely out of sensitivity to possible accusations of turning the [pro-war] resolution into an ‘Israel vote.’”4 In politics, when a concerted effort is kept low profile, it means that an attempt is being made to hide the effort from public scrutiny. These pro-war efforts were kept low profile in order to hide from public scrutiny how certain Jewish-Zionists were pushing for a Gulf war.
This intense desire on the part of certain Jews to get the U.S. to destroy Iraq’s military capability helps to explain why liberal, anti-war Jewish individuals and organizations suddenly switched into hard-line pro-war hawks. The Jewish Congressman, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D. N.Y.), typifies this element. He had a history of anti-war activism. He opposed the war in Vietnam and the military operation in Grenada. He has described himself as a “peacemonger.” Yet, when it came to war against Israel’s enemy, Iraq, he voted in favor or President Bush’s war plans and called for firm resolve against Iraqi aggression.5
Michael Collins Piper, former columnist for the now defunct SPOTLIGHT, made this observation: “Who engineered congressional approval of the resolution that backed President George Bush’s drive for war against Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein? None other than Rep. Stephen Solarz (D.N.Y.), the Israel lobby’s chief legislative tactician on Capital Hill.”6
Yes indeed, it was ardent Jewish-Zionist Stephen Solarz---liberal critic of the Vietnam war and U.S. military action abroad—who helped form a pro-war pressure group, the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf.7 That Zionist interests had a decisive impact upon his pro-war behavior was revealed by a comment that he made on January 17, 1991 at Georgetown University, one day after U.S. air strikes against Iraqi targets began: “Enough Jews have been gassed in our century. For that reason alone our [military] strike last night was justified.”8
At the 85th Annual Dinner of the American Jewish Committee, he again admitted that the “overwhelming thought of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust” was the ideological driving force behind his pro-war activism.9 As the Jewish critic of political Zionism, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, has pointed out, this is a stock-in-trade Zionist tactic—using the Holocaust doctrine to “justify” military action against Israel’s enemies.10
Certain sources have noted that the Jewish vote in Congress giving President Bush the authority to make war was split: about half of the Jewish legislators voted for it, and half voted against it. They then drew the erroneous conclusion that this in itself “proves that the interests of Israel had nothing to do with the Congressional war resolution.” According to this line of reasoning, each Jewish member of Congress was “voting his conscience for what is best for the United States.”11
These sources fail to take into account the complexity of the situation. There were in fact two conflicting forces operating upon these pro-Zionist Jewish legislators. Their Jewish identification with Israel was goading them to vote in favor of the war resolution. However, there was also another opposing force at work here. During the late 1980s and 1990s, there was a consistent, mounting criticism of the pervasive Zionist influence upon Congress and society in general. Indeed, political commentators like Patrick Buchanan were bold enough to publicly criticize Israel and “its amen corner in the U.S.” who were beating the drums for war. These Jewish legislators were well aware of this criticism, and were also aware of the possibly fatal political consequences if all Jewish legislators voted in a bloc in favor of Bush’s war plans; the public’s attention may very well have focused upon the inordinate influence that alien Zionist interests have over Congress.
The Jewish legislators who voted against Bush’s war plans may have said to themselves: “If all of the Jews in Congress vote in favor of Bush’s war plans, and ultimately, this Gulf war turns into a disaster, the political backlash could be fatal. It could mean an end to our political careers and Zionist influence upon Congress. Therefore, I think it is in my own and Israel’s best interests if a good portion of we Jewish legislators vote against Bush’s war plans.”
And yet, there may even be a better explanation as to why the Jewish vote in Congress was split—it may have been planned that way. As the now-defunct The Spotlight noted: “…legislative votes are frequently planned well in advance by both Republicans and the Democrats. This permits legislators with public relations problems to cast ‘politically correct’ votes, while at the same time being assured the outcome of the balloting will be exactly expected as expected.”12 The Wall Street Journal noted that there was quiet relief among Jewish groups when it became known that “…the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel.”13 One Jewish lawmaker commented that it wasn’t such a bad idea that the Jewish vote in Congress was split.14 By consciously splitting the Jewish vote, two objectives could be obtained. Not only could the war resolution get passed. But just as importantly, public opinion would remain largely unaware of the linkage between the pro-war resolution, the interests of Israel, and Zionist influence upon Congress. With a split in the Jewish vote in Congress, Zionist politicos could surreptitiously “discredit” the claims of the critics that Zionist interests wield too much influence upon Congress.
In this case, American Zionists faced a severe dilemma. On the one hand, they had to somehow satisfy their most fervent wish of getting America to destroy Iraq’s military might. Yet, on the other hand, if the American people ever became aware of the fact that an alien Zionist element was working to have American soldiers sent to die for the state of Israel, the result could be politically fatal. This is why many Jewish efforts to get America involved in the Persian Gulf war of 1991 were kept low profile; this why AIPAC disguised its crucial role in gaining Congressional approval for the war; this is why that much of the pro-war propaganda issuing forth from many Jewish sources was couched in the rhetoric of “patriotism” and “the American national interest.” According to many of these Jewish sources, Saddam Hussein was the “new Hitler” bent on destroying America. Hence, as the propaganda went, fighting Iraq was in the best interests of the US. Behind this “patriotic” propaganda and rhetoric lurked so many Zionist interests. As admitted in Cleveland Jewish News, it would have been severely threatening to Zionist interests if large numbers of Americans started asking the question: “Should Americans die for the interests of Israel?”15
Historically speaking, this clandestine method of promoting Jewish interests has been a standard stock-in-trade tactic of many Jews. For example, in 1936 Hollywood Jewish writers and executives had a meeting where they formulated plans for dealing with Nazi Germany. The Jewish producer, David Selznick, along with attorney Martin Gang were present. Gang recalled how Selznick wanted to deal collectively with the Hitler regime. “What stands out in my mind was David Selznick, who wanted to do it in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it…Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.”16
Sometime after the end of the Persian Gulf war, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, admitted his country’s reason for joining the war effort was to protect the state of Israel: “The ultimate ambition of Saddam Hussein was to launch an attack on Israel, which is why Canada took a stand to avoid this eventuality.”17
In all fairness, there were some elements within the Jewish community that were very much against American involvement in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. And I would be quick to point out that Jewish elements were not the only ones pushing for war. There were very powerful WASP and Arab elements behind this push for US involvement in the war. But these admissions in no way nullify the historical fact that Jewish-Zionist elements were an integral part of a coalition of forces that drove America into the Persian Gulf war.
II. Political Zionism and the Probable US Attack Upon Iraq in 2003
It is now January 2003, and the United States is once again on the brink of war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. As we shall soon see, once again, it is the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their Gentile allies that are a major driving force behind this push for war with Iraq. Although the evidence in support of this claim in abundant, it is rarely discussed in the mainstream US media—a tribute to the enormous power of the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their ability to censor the news. In fact, political pundits that work for Jewish-owned, pro-Zionist newspapers attempt to mislead the people by prodding them to believe that the Jewish-Zionist power elite is not a driving force behind US war plans against Iraq.
In regard to the probable US attack against Iraq, the Jewish-Zionist power elite has appeared to have changed their tactics. It makes no sense at all for them to deny that a US attack upon Iraq in 2003 would serve Israeli-Zionist interests. It would be both pathetic and pointless for Zionist representatives to spend time trying to “disprove” the claim that Israel would not benefit from an US attack upon Iraq. No matter what the outcome of a US attack upon Iraq, Israel is the nation that has the most to gain from the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Indeed, this was pointed out by panelists at a Bar-Ilan University (Israel) seminar entitled “The Regional Implications of a US attack on Iraq.”18
Yes, Zionists admit, a US attack upon Iraq would serve Israeli-Zionist interests, but it would also serve the interests of everyone else--so we are told. This is why, so their tune goes, it is not Zionist forces that are pushing for a US attack upon Iraq, but rather “concerned patriots” who realize what a danger to world peace that Saddam Hussein really is. It is important to note that the Bush administration and its Zionist allies attempt to make people believe that, somehow, going to war with Hussein’s Iraq is in the best interests of everyone. (As the psychologist Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, this is an age-old Jewish tactic—making sectarian Jewish interests appear to be congruent with the interests of the Gentile world.19) And just as importantly, even those in the US media who argue against war with Iraq will go to great pains to cover up how Gentile and Jewish Zionists associated with the Jewish lobby are pushing the US into war with Iraq.
For example, consider the case of Elizabeth Sullivan, Foreign Affairs Correspondent for the pro-Zionist, Jewish-owned PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland), Ohio’s most important newspaper.20 Although Ms. Sullivan is on record as being opposed to a war with Iraq, she nevertheless goes to great lengths to hide Zionist involvement in promoting a US attack upon Iraq. Her rationalizations are typical of what one will find in mainstream US newspapers. I wrote her the following email: “Congratulations on your fine editorial in the Plain Dealer (9/9/02), which opposed a US attack on Iraq. I have only one criticism. You failed to mention (out of fear of the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby) that one of the primary reasons that we have problems with dictators like Hussein is because of unbridled US support for Israel and political Zionism. If the US were fair and neutral in the Middle East, then a lot of our problems with the Arab-Muslim world would end. If we would stop giving Israel the supplies to oppress the Palestinians, then dictators like Hussein would lose much of their appeal among the Arab-Muslim masses.”21
Ms. Sullivan responded with a line of political thinking that is probably representative of the Jewish-influenced, pro-Zionist media as a whole: “Thanks for your note. Of course I dispute part of the premise. We're not on the warpath because of Jewish lobbying pressure but because of a wider geostrategic view that has alighted on Saddam Hussein as a rogue dictator we have the capacity to subdue. Yes, the war on terrorism has blinded us to the downside of Israel's war on Palestinian terrorism and made us even less of an honest broker in the region than we were. But to suggest the Jewish lobby is driving the aircraft carrier would be a big mistake. I take issue with your wording, too. Broadened American sympathy for Israel of late stems from the murderous spree of suicide bombings, not from some nefarious ‘lobby’."22
Her claims are flatly false. The distinguished British journalist, Robert Fisk, pointed out in the highly respected British newspaper, INDEPENDENT, that: “Only THE NATION among all of America’s newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration, and the Bush plans for the Middle East—which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world—fit perfectly into Israel’s own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney—the arch-hawk in the US administration—and John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.”
Fisk continues: “Michael Ledeen, described by THE NATION as one of the most influential ‘Jinsans’ in Washington, has been calling for ‘total war’ against ‘terror’—with ‘regime change’ for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Perle advises the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld—who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as ‘the so-called occupied territories’—and arranged the anti-Saud ‘kernal of evil’ briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the departure of the dying King Fahd.”
Continuing with this line of thought, Fisk adds: “Jinsa’s website says it exists to ‘inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East’. Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute—who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of ‘terrorism’—joins the US Defense Department as an Iran-Iraq ‘expert.’”
Fisk then reveals the Jewish director of JINSA:
“According to THE NATION, Irving Moskovitz, the
California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the
Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as director of
Jinsa.”
Finally, Fisk points out that President Bush will not reveal to the American public the influence Jinsa has on his foreign policy: “President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations…”23
Even THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE confirmed that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a dedicated Jewish-Zionist, is the main Bush administration advocate for war on Iraq. Here is how the article describes this “Israel-centric” official: “Student deferments kept him out of the military draft during the Vietnam War…In the first days after Sept. 11, when Secretary of State Powell and others within the administration contended it was too early to put Iraq on the agenda—that there was a war to win in Afghanistan first and that there was no evidence Iraq was complicit in the attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers—Wolfowitz argued that Iraq was at the heart of the threat…”
The article in the Jewish owned and pro-Zionist magazine continues: “…leaving aside the offensive suggestion of dual loyalty…you hear from some of Wolfowitz’s critics, always off the record…that Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man…as a teenager he spent his father’s sabbatical semester in Israel…his sister is married to an Israeli…he is friendly with Israel’s generals and diplomats…he is something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement…”24
Thus, contrary to what Foreign Affairs correspondent Sullivan claims, Jewish and Gentile Zionist functionaries and associates of the Jewish lobby are in fact “driving the aircraft” and they are in fact leading the US “on the warpath” with Iraq. Keep in mind that Sullivan is a Gentile that writes for a pro-Zionist, Jewish owned CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, and she would not dare expose the enormous role that the Jewish-Zionist lobby plays in foreign and domestic affairs. For if she did, her career in journalism would be in serious jeopardy.
Consider Sullivan’s other claim: “Broadened sympathy for Israel of late stems from the murderous spree of suicide bombings, not from some nefarious ‘lobby.’”
This is false and I think she knows it. The former Congressman Paul Findley wrote a classic study of the nefarious Jewish-Zionist lobby that does in fact exist in the United States. Titled THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT: PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT THE ISRAELI LOBBY, it shows how the lobby funds pro-Israeli Congressmen, and how opponents of Israel and Zionism are targeted for attack and defeat.25
The July 2, 2002 issue of THE WASHINGTON TIMES carried a story on how Jewish-Zionist sources targeted for defeat Black American Congressmen who were critical of Israel and Zionism: they refused to vote for pro-Israel resolutions, so the Jewish-Zionist sources funded their opponents. In this way, they rid Congress of Black individuals who are critical of Zionism, and fill Congress with Black individuals who are pro-Israel.26
And of course there is more. Israel’s ambassador to the US is on record as supporting a US strike against Iraq. Utilizing the age-old Jewish tactic of making sectarian Jewish interests appear to be in the interests of “all Gentiles,” he claimed that “we would all benefit” by an attack upon Iraq, because a regime change in Iraq would supposedly cause the Palestinians and Iran to be “drawn toward democracy.” 27
The Israel correspondent for the New Republic, Yossi Klein Halevi, revealed that if “you ask almost any Isreali Jew—left, right or center—whether the United States should attack Hussein, and the answer is unequivocal: The evil must be uprooted.”
Continuing with this vein of thought, he asserts: “True, we [the people of Israel] have an obvious interest in ridding the Middle East of a formidable enemy. But so does the rest of the world—and especially the Arab world—even if it does not realize it.” (PD, 9/17/02, p.B9)28
We are told by the Bush administration that Hussein allegedly has weapons of mass destruction, and he may use them against the United States. Thus, in order to prevent this scenario from coming to pass, the US must act now.29 Can President Bush and company be believed? Does Hussein’s Iraq really have the willingness and capability to hit the United States?
There is expert opinion against Bush’s claims. According to a Scripps Howard article, defense experts believe Iraq is capable of developing a nuclear weapon within three months to a year if it could smuggle in nuclear material, but it’s unlikely to have a missile that could hit the United States. Nor is it likely to strike against the United States with any nuclear, biological or chemical weapon even if Iraq could, because of the certainty of swift and devastating retaliation, these same experts claim.30 Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said some information that could weaken the Bush administration’s case against Iraq remains classified.31 If not the US, then who does Hussein’s Iraq really threaten? Not Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Indonesia, Angola, Nigeria, China, or Japan—they have nothing to fear from Iraq. The one country that has something to fear from Iraq is Israel.
General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander,
acknowledged that President George W. Bush’s war plans serve,
first and foremost, Jewish-Zionist interests.
“Those who favor this attack now tell you candidly, and
privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat
to the United States. But
they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear
weapon to use it against Israel.”32
Indeed, as far back as August 16, 2002, Israel was urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Israeli officials claimed that their intelligence organizations gathered evidence to show that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons.33
There is no question that there are a host of different reasons as to why the United States may go to war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Certainly, the desire to control and manage Iraq’s oil reserves is a significant reason. But it cannot be denied that one of the most important reasons as to why the US will probably attack Iraq is because of Zionist-Israeli interests.
Why should the United States go to war to serve Israeli-Zionist interests? Why should mostly non-Jewish White, Black, and Hispanic Americans—who make up the vast majority of the US armed forces--have to risk their lives for the Jewish state of Israel? It is ironic that one of the major figures in the Bush administration pushing for an attack upon Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, is an American Jew who acquired a student deferment to keep him out of the military draft during the Vietnam War.34
There is a far better way to deal with Iraqi dictators like Hussein. The US should be more fair and neutral in the Middle East. This may very well alleviate many of our problems with the Arab-Muslim world. If the US would stop giving Israel the supplies to oppress the Palestinians, then dictators like Hussein would lose much of their appeal among the Arab-Muslim masses.
By the mere fact that these issues and questions are almost never broached in the mainstream media is a tribute to the ability of the Jewish-Zionist establishment to skew the transmission of the news.
In Israel, Zionism created an Athenian democracy for Jews but second-class citizenship, even feudal servitude for non-Jews. Modern Israel is a racially segregated, apartheid state where Jews lord over non-Jews, especially Palestinian Arabs.35
As the Jewish scholars Ian Lustick and Uri Davis have shown, far from working for an integrated society in which Jews and Arabs functioned as social and political equals, the Jews who founded Israel created a society in which Israeli Jews dominate ‘Israeli’ Arabs, a separate and unequal society in which discrimination is part of the established social order.36 For example, 93% of Israel’s territory had been (until the Supreme Court decision of March 2000) legally defined as land which can be leased and cultivated only by Jews. Key institutions such as the kibbutz (collectivist Jewish settlements, mainly agricultural) are reserved exclusively for Jews, as Israeli scholar Uri Davis has reminded us in his thorough study, Israel: an apartheid state.37
Dr Lustick has pointed out that the Israeli military is by and large a segregated institution. Most Muslim Arabs, who constitute the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arab citizens, do not serve in the armed forces – they are not conscripted nor are they permitted to volunteer for service. This has important social consequences. In Israel, participation in the armed services is a prerequisite to social advancement and mobility. Cut off from the military, they are cut off from access to one of the main avenues of social advancement.38
Christians and Muslims cannot marry Jews in Israel, and if they are married elsewhere the marriage is not recognized by the rabbinical court in Israel.39
Consider the following facts about Israel, which by contemporary definitions of ‘racism’, make Israel a racist state. The Law of the Right of Return grants any Jew, but no-one else, automatic Israeli citizenship. The Nationality Law discriminates against non-Jews so stringently that many Palestinian residents of Israel (stuck there when Israel captured their land in 1948) were denied citizenship even though their families had lived in Palestine for many generations.40
If the US goes to war with Iraq, we are going to war to defend a racially segregated, apartheid state. This is ironic and hypocritical. Our mass media and government condemn those who advocate segregation here in the US or anywhere else in the world. Yet, we are going to war to defend a racially segregated state in the Middle East—a tribute to how the Jewish-Zionist power elite has corrupted our value system.
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute
