Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi on the Jewish Lobby in the United States

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Exposing the power of the Zionists in America has real implications.

Two weeks ago, I (Philip Giraldi is a former CIA and Army intelligence officer with over 20 years of overseas experience, journalist) wrote an article for Unz.com titled "American Jews Rule America's Wars." Where I tried to describe a few points and make a few comments regarding the consequences of Jewish political power in relation to some aspects of US foreign policy.

I also noted there that some individual American Jews and organizations with close ties to Israel, whom I have named and identified, are largely disproportionately represented in government, media, foundations, think tanks and lobbying, which is an integral part of the discussions. which lead to the development of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East.

Inevitably, these policies are distorted to represent Israel's interests and to seriously harm genuine American interests in the region. This tilt should not necessarily surprise anyone who has noticed or even been noted by a renowned sociologist. Nathan Glazerback in 1976.

The end result of Israel's strategic policy in Washington is the creation of negotiators such as Dennis Ross, who consistently supported Israel's position in the peace negotiations, so much so that he was even called "Israel's lawyer." It can also lead to wars, given the current level of hostility generated by these same individuals and organizations towards Iran.

This group of Israeli defenders is as responsible as any other body in the United States for the deaths of thousands of Americans and literally millions, mostly Muslims, in unnecessary wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. They also turned the United States into an active complicit in the brutal suppression of the Palestinians. That they never expressed any remorse or regret, and the fact that death and suffering do not seem to matter to them, are direct accusations of the sheer inhumanity of the positions they express.

Claiming that the American Middle East Wars were fought for Israel is not an anti-Semitic delusion. Some observers, including a former senior government official Philip Zelikovbelieve that in 2003 America attacked Iraq to protect Israel.

On April 3, as soon as the war broke out, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, under the headline "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neo-conservative intellectuals, most of them Jews, are pushing President Bush to change the course of history." The newspaper then said: “Over the past year, a new belief has emerged in Washington: the belief in a war against Iraq. This fervent belief was spread by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of whom were Jews, almost all of them intellectuals (partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), and who are mutual friends who support each other."

And as a sign of respect for Jewish property interests in Middle East politics, the US ambassadors to Israel support Israeli interests more than American ones. David Friedman, the current ambassador, said last week about protecting illegal Israeli settlements, which runs contrary to official US policy, claiming that they make up only 2% of the West Bank. He did not mention that Israel-controlled land, including the security zone, actually makes up 60% of the total area.

My suggestion to counteract their excessive lobbying in policy making was to keep Jewish government officials out of this position, as much as possible, from all policy issues in the Middle East. As I noted in my article, this was actually the norm with regard to ambassadors and diplomatic service officials in Israel until 1995, when Bill clintonviolated precedent by appointing an Australian Martina Indicafor this position. I believe that, in general, it is prudent to avoid placing people in workplaces where they are likely to have a conflict of interest.

Another solution I have proposed to American Jews who are deeply attached to Israel and find themselves in a position where their policy for this country and its neighbors is to abandon accusatory judgments like a judge. It seems to me that, depending on the official's actual relationship with Israel, it would be a clear conflict of interest to do otherwise

The argument that such a person can defend American interests and also has a high level of concern about an alien nation with opposing interests is dubious at best. As George Washington noted in his parting remarks:

My article turned out to be quite popular, especially after the former CIA officer Valerie Plametweeted her endorsement and was brutally and repeatedly attacked, resulting in her having to apologize. Being a well-known public figure, Plame attracted a flood of negative information, in which I, as a co-author on Twitter, was also attacked. In every corner of the mainstream media, I was called a "well-known anti-Semite," "a long-time anti-Israel fanatic," and, ironically, "somewhat obscure."

The widespread criticism actually turned out to be excellent in terms of generating real interest in my article. Many people seem to have wanted to read it, although the attacks against me and Plame deliberately do not provide links to it. At the time of this writing, it has been opened and viewed 130,000 times and commented 1250 times. Most of the comments were favorable. Some of my old articles, including Israelis Dancing and Why I Still Don't Love Israel, have also found a new and significant audience as a result of the furor.

One of the consequences of my original article was that it showed that Jewish propaganda groups in the United States are disproportionately powerful, able to use easy access to the media and their politicians to shape policies that are driven by tribal considerations rather than by the interests of the majority. of the American people. Two professors, John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Stephen walt from Harvard, in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby, noted that the billions of dollars given to Israel annually “cannot be fully explained for either strategic or moral reasons … {and] are largely the result of the Israeli lobby - a loose coalition of individuals individuals and organizations that openly work to push US foreign policy in a pro-Israeli direction."

Those same powerful interests are systematically shielded from criticism by constantly updated statements of historical and seemingly eternal sacrifice. But within the Jewish community and in the media, this same Jewish authority often rises. This is manifested in the bragging about the many Jews who have gained high positions or achieved prominence in professions and business.

In a recent talk, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz put it this way: “People say that the Jews are too strong, too powerful, too rich, we control the media, we have too much of this, too much, and we often guiltily deny our power and our strength. Do not do this! We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country."

He also discussed how to punish critics of Israel: “Anyone who does [this] has to face the economic consequences. We have to hit them in the wallet. Never, ever hesitate to use Jewish power. Jewish power, be it intellectual, academic, economic, political, in the interests of justice - that's right."

My article essentially began by explaining that one aspect of Jewish power, its ability to freely and openly advance Israeli interests, simultaneously silences critics. I have described how any person or “any organization that seeks to be heard in foreign policy knows that touching a live wire from Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip into obscurity. Jewish groups and the deep pockets of individual donors not only control politicians, they own and control the media and the entertainment industry, which means no one will ever hear bad things about them again.”

With this in mind, I should have expected a step to "silence me". This happened three days after my article appeared. The editor of The American Conservative (TAC) magazine and website, where I have been a regular and highly regarded author for almost 15 years, called me and announced unexpectedly that although my article appeared on another site, it was deemed inappropriate and TAC accounted for break off your relationship with me. I called him a coward and he replied that he was not.

I don't know exactly who on the TAC council decided to crack down on me. Several of the board members who are good friends apparently weren't even informed about what happens when I get fired. I don't know if anyone put any pressure on the council, but there is certainly a long history of friends of Israel who can persecute and take revenge on people who rip off their masks and reveal the truth about them, as happened with the former defense minister. Chuck Hagel, who was fired and prosecuted for his reckless claim that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" in Washington. As Gilad Atzmon noted, one of the most notable features of Jewish power is its ability to suppress any discussion of Jewish power by the goyim

But despite the victory of TAC, I will survive, and that also contains some irony. The magazine was founded in 2002 By Pat Bucanan and early the next year his article was published entitled "Whose War?" In the opening paragraphs Buchanan tells the story:

Pat was absolutely right about money. He pretty much described the same group I wrote about and expressed the same concern, that is, that this process led to unnecessary war and will lead to even more, unless it is stopped by exposing and disclosing those who is behind her. Pat was like me and even worse with his candor. And guess why? The group that started the war, which has since been considered the greatest foreign political catastrophe in American history, is still here, singing the same old song

And TAC has not always been so sensitive to some of the seemingly unacceptable points of view, even in my case. I write about Israel often because I see it and its supporters as sources of detrimental influence on the United States and a threat to national security. In June 2008, I wrote the article "The Spy Who Loves Us" about Israeli espionage against the United States. She was featured on the cover of a magazine and included comments on the tribal instincts of some American Jews:

“In 1996, ten years after the agreement that ended the [Jonathan] Pollard [Israeli spy] affair, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Service warned defense contractors that Israel had“espionage intent and capability”here and was aggressively trying to steal military and intelligence secrets. It also mentions the security threat posed by people who have "strong ethnic ties" with Israel, stating that "placing Israeli citizens in key industries is a technique that has been used with great success."

Three days later, another boot fell. I was supposed to speak on October 2 at a panel discussion criticizing Saudi Arabia. The organizer, Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, sent me an email to tell me that my services are no longer required because "the conference will not be a success if we are distracted by discussing or defending the content of your articles on Israel."

Last Saturday morning, Facebook blocked access to my article because it “contains forbidden words”. I can safely assume that such blockages will continue and that invitations to speak at anti-war or foreign policy events will be in short supply, as the organizers fear and avoid any possible confrontation with Israel's many friends

Would I write the article differently if I wrote it today? Yes. I would clarify that I am not writing about all American Jews, many of whom are active in the peace movement, and such as my good friend Jeff Blankfort and Glenn Greenwald even figure among Israel's leading critics. My targets were individuals from the Jewish "establishment" and groups that I specifically named, and whom I consider warmongers. And I call them "Jews", not neoconservatives or Zionists, as some of them do not identify these political labels, and blaming the Zios or neocons is an evasion anyway. The spelling "neoconservatives" suggests some sort of separate or marginal group, but we are actually talking about almost all major Jewish organizations and many community leaders.

Many, perhaps even most, Jewish organizations in the United States openly declare that they represent the interests of the State of Israel. The crowds fueling fears about Iran are mostly Jews, and all are demanding that the United States go to war. This often means falsely claiming that Tehran poses a serious threat to the United States as a pretext for armed conflict. Shouldn't this "Jewish" reality be on the agenda when America's war against the world is discussed?

When all is said and done, the punishment that was accepted by me and Valerie Plame proves that I was right. Friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation and fear. If we suffer catastrophe in the world war with Iran, which we start to placate Benjamin Netanyahu, many people may start asking "Why?" But revealing the real reason behind criticism of what some American Jews have done is not only fraught with consequences, but also criminal liability, thanks to attempts by Congress to criminalize such activities.

We Americans will stand with courage when we begin to wonder what has happened to our country. And some more astute ones will even start asking why such a tiny "client state" is allowed to manipulate and destroy the world's only superpower. Unfortunately, at that time it will be too late to do anything.