The latest confusions, reversals and failures of U.S. policy in the Middle East all trace back to long-standing U.S. support for Zionism. Increasingly, as Bush ties himself ever tighter to the policies of Ariel Sharon, it comes down to Israel and the United States against the world, the recent administration claims of a right of "preemptive attack" on Iraq being just the latest example. Americans must examine closely to what they are being tied and where we are going, morally as well as politically.

Zionism is essentially Jewish nationalism rooted in 19th century racist, colonialist thinking gilded over with a "religious" patina. The earliest Zionists saw security for persecuted Jews in a "return" to Palestine and those early leaders were clear if circumspect to the point of deceit about having to displace the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to secure their goals.1 Zionism became serious about a century ago as east European Jews emerged from their village religious culture, although many early Zionist leaders were not religious Jews. The early Zionist movement was vigorously opposed by more assimilated western European Jews as well as most Jewish religious leaders; it gained support, although still a minority, on the break up of the Ottoman Empire and really got off the ground with the World War I British Balfour Declaration which promised Zionists a homeland in Palestine in exchange for certain services to the British. Palestinian Arabs, Muslim and Christian, were at the time the large majority in Palestine and the famous declaration contained the cynical and impossible condition (now forgotten) that the Jewish homeland was not to be at the expense of the majority Arab population of Palestine. In fact, the Zionist state which came into being was precisely at the cost of that majority of Palestinian Arabs. Today we are expected to forget this but not surprisingly the victims have had trouble with the idea and still do. Ariel Sharon intends to bludgeon them into submission to virtual slave status, at best, and "ethnic cleansing" at worst. The question is whether America should support this. Few want to face this question, least of all our political leaders.

The actual Zionist state came into being when authorized by the United Nations at the end of World War II, fueled by western sympathy for European Jews persecuted by the Nazis and a deeper traditional Biblical-based belief in the "right" of a Jewish "return" to the Holy Land. The subsequent hallmark characteristics of that state have been the accelerating "ethnic cleansing" of the majority Arab population, open defiance of many United Nations criticisms of its abuses of Palestinians, occupation of territory beyond its internationally mandated borders by violence (Israel has never defined its own borders), the utter destruction of large numbers of Arab villages within Israel2 and the planting of its own citizens in occupied territory in violation of international law. These actions are justified by Zionist claims of aggression by the Arabs who indeed initially did resist the Zionist takeover. As in British-ruled Ireland of past centuries this resistance to occupation became "disloyalty," or in this case "terrorism," and serves to excuse further dispossession. The British of course no longer rule in Ireland which may be instructive about the longer term effectiveness of such policies.

Such acts would certainly justify the label of "rogue state" if pursued by any other country. Shockingly, they have been supported by successive U.S. administrations and Congresses blinded by "passionate attachment" to the Zionist state. What has caused this to come to pass? The current rhetoric about the "war on terrorism" certainly doesn't explain it. The passionate attachment long predated the current intifada and the suicide bombers. The intifada and suicide bombings have of course provided a handy excuse for posturing about "wars on terrorism" by Zionists and their supporters, while ignoring the real causes of conflict.

A serious if often hidden factor in this long-standing support of Zionist goals in Palestine is the strain of Biblical fundamentalist religious belief running deep in the American Protestant tradition, the dominant religious tradition in the United States. As just one example of many which could be given, we note Woodrow Wilson (the selfproclaimed "son of the manse" in this case) promising to deliver Palestine to Jewish Zionist leaders after World War I when Jews constituted a small minority in that country and as an exception to his "crusade for democracy" elsewhere. His position was based on his religious beliefs and he was not alone. Similar views were held by many U.S. politicians and are still held by many. These views also had an ugly negative side of serious bias against Muslims, Arabs and specifically Palestinians, who were widely perceived as inferior, backward people, obstacles to Jewish inspired progress in the Middle East. Ludicrous though it may seem today in the light of current events, many thought that the Palestinians would benefit by the Jewish domination in Palestine and the Zionists who had no such intentions allowed this view to continue.3

Certainly a major factor in the passionate attachment was also sympathy for the Jews because of their mistreatment by the Nazis, the well known and constantly promoted "Holocaust." The Holocaust is still used to justify violations of Palestinian rights - even though the Arabs had no part in the Nazi mistreatment of the Jews. Jews, mostly from Eastern Europe initially, flooded into Palestine after World War II although at the time they were still a small minority in Palestine and owned little of the land.4 Alarmed Palestinian Arabs did not accept this invasion, protested and resisted (sometimes with violence) but obtained little sympathy from the victorious allies and they were overcome by the superior armed forces of the Zionists who also engaged in widespread terrorism, deliberately encouraged Arabs to flee, as modern revisionist Israeli historians now concede. Nevertheless, to this day the Zionist lies told at the time are often repeated; that the Arab states caused the exodus. Although this propaganda lie is now discredited in Israel,5 it is still often heard in the United States from Israel's passionate defenders. Palestinian expellees in 1948 constituted 54% of the then Arab population of Palestine. Several years ago the U.N. estimated that there were 4.6 million displaced Arabs in camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and a total of 5.4 million "refugees." All Palestinian Arabs are estimated to total 8.5 million, greatly outnumbering Israeli Jews (see Prior 1).

Many Palestinians were driven out of their homes, farms and businesses into refugee status and to this day are denied the right to return, against all rules of international law. Their properties were seized without compensation by a variety of means, ranging from crude to devious (e.g., from outright violent military expulsion to "legal" seizure of "abandoned property," claims of state security needs, etc.) all of which come down to one unpleasant description - seizure or theft.6 When forced to explain this many Zionists fall back on comparison with past colonialist usurpations by others, for example the treatment of the American Indians. Modern humanitarian consensus, international agreements and treaties, painfully worked out by the nations of the world in the aftermath of bloody modern wars, are simply ignored - or it is boldly claimed that they don't apply to Jews who see themselves as unique victims in world history and thus presumably entitled to oppress others. Some even claim divine authority for these acts and support of fundamentalist American Christians is important in this evil.

The Palestinian refugees, most of whom trace back their history in the land thousands of years, are denied the right of return to their homes, while any Jew, however remote his connection (if any) with Palestine, is entitled to enter Israel under the Laws of Return, usually with significant financial subsidies. This racist and illegal system is supported financially by the United States taxpayer who has given Israel financial and military hardware support now totaling about $100 billion, far more than any aid to any country, including the Marshall Plan aid to all of Europe after World War II. Americans so concerned about the financial health of the U.S. Social Security and Medicare systems ignore this huge outflow and it is seldom mentioned in the media.

All of this was accomplished under cover of a palisade of outright lies that continue to this day - that the refugees had left voluntarily, that the land was a desert before the Jews came, that there were few Palestinians, and other similar nonsense still widely supported by American Jews and many others.7 Some of the worst falsehoods are now recognized and discreetly ignored in Israel today but amazingly still appear routinely in the U.S. media and Zionist propaganda in America. "National security" lies are practiced from time to time in all countries but Israel surely leads the league in volume, crassness and external support! Many brazen examples can be given but some of the worst were the barefaced lies told by Abba Eban to the world and to his sympathetic American government contacts at the beginning of the 1967 war when he denied flatly that Israel had started the war, a fact now conceded by everyone, including most scholars in Israel. (The back-up lie is that it was all justified because of impending Arab attacks - another falsehood, itself now being slowly exposed in turn.)

The bottom line: the Zionist state was created at the cost of a huge historic and human injustice to the Palestinian Arabs, while western governments and the U.S. in particular averted their gaze. Political Zionism was not supported by most religious and secular Jews at the time of its development and this still holds true today among a minority of Jews worldwide who see Judaism as a religion not as a political movement.

The shocking fact is that all of this is known to many of the people in responsible places in our government. Nevertheless they try to avoid thinking about it and do not dare to mention any matter reflecting badly on Zionism because, in the case of the non-Jews in particular, they covet their positions and fear the consequences of incurring the wrath of the Zionist lobby. That lobby is very powerful in this country. It can and does unleash a highly effective intellectual and economic reign of terror against any public figure who dares speak out against Zionist injustices. Criticism of Israel is now routinely claimed by the Zionist lobby to be evidence of "anti-semitism" and no politician dares risk that accusation. The politically dead bodies of the few Congressmen and Senators who dared to question the Zionist steamroller litter the ground in Washington as a reminder.8 Every Washington politician knows this. And they also know there is no U.S. political downside for following the Zionist line. For this reason, with cause, Congress has been called "Israel occupied territory." Billions in "aid" flow yearly without a murmur.

Seldom discussed but also very important, Christian Biblical fundamentalism is still a major factor in U.S. attitudes. Fundamentalist American Christians in the millions now constitute the blindest of Zionist true believers, outnumbering by far the Jewish Zionists in America. The seriousness of this is illustrated by a recent example: a prominent U.S. political leader, Congressman Dick Armey, apparently a Protestant fundamentalist, recently called openly for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Palestine and it passed virtually without comment in the U.S. media. Can you imagine what would have been the reaction if he called for the removal of the Jews from Palestine? The motive of these Christian Zionists is mainly a primitive, literalist interpretation of certain parts of the Old Testament which causes them to believe that God is on the side of the Zionists in the Holy Land no matter what they do. Many Protestant Christian fundamentalists also expect the conversion of a remnant of the Jews to Christianity as a prelude to the return of the Messiah and the end of the world, a belief quietly ignored by Zionists who take what they can get from whatever source.

Finally, the American public is traditionally and tragically ignorant about foreign countries in general and little interested in foreign events, as often noted by outsiders who visit our shores. This ignorance and lack of interest makes it easy to propagandize Americans about foreign affairs. The Bush administration has benefitted from this in that its inept foreign policy seldom comes under serious criticism and blind, jingoistic support for anything claimed to relate to "the war on terrorism" is now the order of the day. Zionists have exploited this crude ignorance, never more than now. Ignoring their own long-term abuses and world condemnation, they claim to be motivated in their recent brutalities only by the new Bushian "war on terrorism." They have also recently become quite concerned to "reform" the Palestinian leadership, a hypocritical stance which impresses only the U.S. administration.

The result of this background of ignorance, religious fundamentalist dogma and lies is that successive U.S. administrations continue to support Israel with an almost hypnotic devotion - a startling modern example of George Washington's warning about "passionate attachment" to foreign countries. No other nation benefits from this extreme emotionalism. Not even Britain. A gigantic transfer of wealth from the United States to Israel occurs with virtually no Congressional oversight. The result has been the creation of a powerful Zionist military machine in the Middle East which bullies its enemies and creates new enemies for the sponsor of that machine, the United States. The constant wailing of the Zionist lobby that Israel is in danger of being "driven into the sea" by militarily powerful surrounding nations is regarded as somewhat of a joke in Israel, but not here it seems. The reality is that it is the Palestinians who are in danger of being driven out of their country - into the sea so to speak! The current Arab intifada, created by desperation, with its suicide bombings provides a convenient cover for the Israelis and the Bush administration to avoid dealing with the cause of this conflict - aggressive Zionism - and to shift public attention to "terrorism" which after all is the result of the problem, not the cause.

Many United Nations Security Council Resolutions critical of Israeli actions over the years have been blocked by the United States veto or are opposed by the U.S. in the General Assembly in ludicrous votes of 120 or so to 2, 3 or 4 with the three of four being the U.S., Israel and sometimes one of our puppets like Micronesia or the Marshall Islands. We have become a world laughing stock for these votes but few Americans know or care. It is in the United Nations that the "passionate attachment" is most apparent but unnoticed by the American public. At home the huge annual "aid" passes silently. Recently in the United Nations things reached a ludicrous stage when the United States reversed the position on a peace-seeking resolution it had sponsored originally when the Israelis decided they didn't like it. The U.S. also blocked a move to send U.N. peacekeepers to Palestine after the recent Jenin massacres, a move supported by virtually the entire world and one which would have saved many lives. The passionate attachment has a cost and it is the blood of innocent people, Arabs, Jews and others.

Our leaders often say that Israel must be supported because it is a democracy and an ally. We've heard a lot of that recently. Indeed Israel has many structures of a democracy: political parties, elections, a somewhat free press, etc., but on even cursory examination it is a democracy only for Jews. Legal and extralegal discrimination of various kinds against non-Jews is an accepted part of the system of that country, very much like the former South African regime.9 These include inability of non-Jews to own property, to move freely, and many others. Arabs inparticular are regularly subject to abusive, humiliating restrictions in their own land - not to mention the continued seizure of their property, deprivation of water, etc. These things are mostly ignored in our media, but when mentioned are excused on grounds that they are necessary for Israel's security. In fact they trace back to fundamental Zionist policies long predating the Arab intifada, etc. The reality is that "Israel's security" means that discriminatory rules are necessary to insure a xenophobic, racist state - a state in reality "for Jews only." The security of the majority is not a factor. Can you imagine the outcry if Ireland or Poland excluded minority non-Catholics who were formerly a majority but had been dispossessed, from ownership of property on grounds that this was needed to ensure state security and religious or national purity! Nor need we compare the similar racial policies of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, a comparison by the way often made by dissenting Jews in Israel. To the credit of Jews there is a vigorous dissent to Israel's immoral policies within Israel - but not in the United States!

All this leads one to ask: so some people think there are special rules for Jews? The answer seems to be yes, and many Jews and some non-Jews see nothing wrong with this although they prefer that the issue not be discussed as it is morally rather difficult to defend - unless of course one is a fanatical Christian or Jewish Zionist. Those folks are embarrassingly rather open about it as we hear from various famous television preachers.

The "alliance" is a one-way street. Israel is of little practical value as an ally and provides almost nothing in return. It used to be loudly claimed that they were a bulwark against Soviet penetration of the Middle East. They never were, quite the opposite, but in any case that excuse faded with the end of Soviet communism. And the promotion of Israel as bulwark against aggression by Iraq or Iran won't fly. As for the "war on terrorism," they are a handicap. One of the restraints on Bush's desired war on Iraq is fear of Israeli participation and its consequences. No use of bases in Israel is possible for obvious reasons and our blind support of Israel "right or wrong" causes many others increasingly to be wary of American "friendship." In the real world Israel has repaid our support with spying efforts against us, transfers of forbidden military technology to the Chinese communists, a murderous assault on a U.S. Navy vessel, "Liberty" (falsely claimed to be an error - a claim which no American military expert supports - one more lie in a long train of lies) and other examples. Because of U.S. ineptitude in foreign intelligence matters we have even become dangerously reliant on Israel for many such information in the Middle East where their interests manifestly are not ours.

How did this ridiculous "passionate attachment" to an alien, racist, aggressive and habitually lying nation come about? The long-standing bias based on Biblical fundamentalist views and its anti-Arab, anti-Muslim counterpoint is a deep factor.

As mentioned, a major factor is also "Holocaust" propaganda. Americans have been inundated with propaganda about this historic event for many years, mostly post-1967. Much of it is exaggerated if not outright false.10 Sixty years after the events we are flooded with "commemorations," government supported "museums" (actually propaganda vehicles) and other daily reminders of the supposedly unique victimhood of Jews. None of this is spontaneous from the American people. It is a skillful and devious manipulation of public consciousness by people with an agenda, that is the continued support of the Zionist state of Israel, come hell or high water!

The Holocaust has become for Jews and some others a quasi-religious dogma.11 As such it simply cannot be questioned even when false stories about it are revealed and faux-religious belief in it is used to stifle criticism of Israel. In many European countries it is a criminal offense to question any aspect of the Holocaust stories, no matter how far-fetched or untrue. Few Americans are aware of this offense against freedom of speech because the subject is studiously avoided by the U.S. media. These laws are no joke. Many have been jailed or fined under them and some Zionist supporters have called for such laws here. The Holocaust is indeed a potent weapon in the hands of Zionists.

When President Harry Truman gave the green light for Zionists to take over Palestine at the expense of its thenconstituted majority, the Palestinian Arabs (the current Bush green light to the evil Sharon shows how little things have changed), his most knowledgeable and objective advisors warned that it would lead to unending conflict in the area and would be to the long-term disadvantage of U.S. interests. In fact, this has come about. Truman candidly admitted that his decision was based on pedestrian domestic political considerations involving the support of U.S. Jews in elections and his personal religious beliefs. Is it possible to redeem this error and put the U.S. back on a course of supporting justice rather than money or power? The answer is of course, yes, but it is unlikely that those presently in power have the wisdom and courage to do so. However, there are signs that many Americans are waking up to the evil of our "passionate attachment" for Zionism. It can only be hoped that their voices will be heard. The wisdom of George Washington must prevail in this for the good of Jews, Arabs and Americans.


* * * * * *


If a reader feels that this article paints too negative a picture of Zionism and Israel as a brutal, devious and unjust group I can only plead that it is the conclusion I have reached only after long and thoughtful study and analysis. I didn't always have these views. I once followed the herd and didn't look too hard for the truth and justice in the Palestine disputes. I do not deal here with the undoubted evil and tragedy of the Palestine suicide bombings, etc. These are certainly adequately covered in the daily media in the U.S., although the things mentioned above are certainly not so covered. Consider this an attempt to restore some balance.


Notes, Doyle

1. Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel (London & New York: Routledge, 1999), particularly comments on The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzel, ed. Raphael Patai (New York: Herzl Press, 1960). Prior's book is one of the best studies of the subjects dealt with here including biblical analysis of Zionist claims.

2. Rashid Khalidi, Palestine Reborn (London & New York: Taurus, 1992). Khalidi estimates the utter destruction and plowing under of over 400 villages. Israeli sources reluctantly now admit this after concealing it for years. See also Khalidi, All that Remains: The Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992).

3. Lawrence Davidson, America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University of Florida Press, 2001).

4. Rashid Khalidi, op. cit. In 1939 Jews were 30% of the population of Palestine but held 5.7% of the land. In 1948 Arabs still far out-numbered Jews and still held a large majority of the land. This changed rapidly.

5. Benny Morris, "Falsifying the Record: A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948," Journal of Palestine Studies, 24:44-62.

6. Prior, op. cit. 30. Today 92% of the State of Israel is totally closed "legally" to non-Jews.

7. Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial (New York: Harper and Row, 1984). Peters' book, long exposed as fraudulent (see Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestini Conflict [London & New York: Verso, 1995]) is still cited by American Zionist apologist.

8. Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out; People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985). The recent defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia is just the latest example of many.

9. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London & Chicago: Pluto Press, 1984). See also Edward W. Said et al., "A Profile of the Palestinian People" in Blaming the Victims, ed. by Said and Christopher Hitchens (London & New York: Verso, 1988).

10. Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London & New York: Verso, 2000): "Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler's Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud."

11. Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1999).

MR. DOYLE, a lawyer from New York, now resides in Florida. He is married and has five children. Most of his work was as General Tax Attorney in the international area which led him to visit many countries.

Q: How will we know when the occupation or the invasion of Iraq was a success or a failure?

A: Oh, it was a success. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Beyond that is icing.

According to Pipes, the real lesson in Iraq is not the failure of American policy, but the ingratitude of the Iraqi people:

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them -- to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They've more or less written us out of the picture.

I am really sorry the Iraqi people have hurt Mr. Pipes's feelings. Clearly, the Iraqis failed to throw the requisite amount of roses at our feet for the favor we did them.

Mr. Pipes thinks that we should lower our expectations in Iraq. According to Mr. Pipes, we should only concern ourselves with destroying societies not rebuilding them. We've got smart bombs we should use them. The blue collar work of rebuilding a society that we bomb to oblivion should be left to the lowly Europeans or some other bleeding heart types:

Q: Does that mean a significant change in what we are doing now, in terms of policy. Should we announce withdrawals?

A: The number of troops is not my issue. It's the placement and role of the troops. For three years now I have been protesting the use of American troops to mediate between tribes, help rebuild electricity grids, oversee school construction, which seems to me to be a wrong use of our forces, of our money. The Iraqis should be in charge of that. We should keep the troops there, in the desert, looking after the international boundaries, making sure there are no atrocities, making sure oil and gas goes out, otherwise leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

Q: Is there anything major that the Bush administration should do now to make things go smoother?

A: We did something good in getting rid of the Taliban and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That is really the extent of our role, to get rid of the hideous totalitarian regimes.

In any event, the theory is good. It's the implementation that has gone wrong. Mr. Pipes's theory has withstood the test of reality:

Q: Do you generally agree with President Bush's Middle East policy - its goals and its methods?

A: I agree with the goals much more than the methods. I just gave an example of Iraq, where I believe the goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and trying to have a free and prosperous Iraq are worthy goals. I criticize the implementation. The same goes with democracy. I think democracy is a great goal for the region. I criticize the implementation; I think it's too fast, too American, too get-it-done yesterday.

Lest you start thinking that Mr. Pipes is unhappy that the implementation of his theory might have led to unintended consequences, think again. He, like Charles Krauthammer, loves a good civil war. Mr. Pipes enumerates all the good things a bloody civil war can do:

Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shiite differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of an American confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high.

Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.

Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq's political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."

Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Vali Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt

Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

It all makes sense to me now. We misunderstood Mr. Pipes when he said Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. When he said "cakewalk", he meant that defeating Saddam would be a cakewalk. The resulting chaos was not part of his thinking. In fact, the resulting chaos is not even our problem. It is all making sense to me now.

Before you dismiss Mr. Pipes as some right wing chicken hawk on the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider that he does have the ear of the President of the United States. The notion that America should rampage through the world without a care for the devastation this rampage may cause the societies which face our wrath is not a fringe notion - it has significant support within the Administration. In fact, it is the primary driving force behind Mr. Bush's stay the course policy in Iraq. If you genuinely do not care about the consequences of your actions, it is much easier to label your misadventures as successes. This, I think, in large part explains the strange and often disconnected versions of reality that come from the President and the Vice President. After all, according to Mr. Pipes:

We are engaged in a war, a profound war and long-term war, in which Afghanistan and Iraq are sideshows. The real issue is the war that radical Islam, a global phenomenon, has declared on us and that has already been underway for many years, and we're still at the beginning of it. That's the really major issue.

Now, if only the Iraqis understood their rightful role in this war of civilizations; if only they understood that they are cannon fodder in the cause of the greater good; if only they understood that Mr. Pipes, from his perch in front of a television screen, thinks the slaughter of innocents is good theater; then and only then, would they be more grateful to the United States for this great favor we have done them. Instead, they continue this nonsense of caring more for their own lives than the greater glory of Daniel Pipes's small but influential little mind.

A U.S. Televangelist recently announced that he will launch a new Christian pro-Israel lobby that is expected to be more powerful than the U.S.'s largest pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), according to Israel's daily Haaretz.

John Hagee, the founder and senior pastor of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas - which includes more than 18,000 members - announced his plans at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents 52 national Jewish groups.

He told Jewish community leaders that 40 million (out of the 50 million) evangelical Christians in the United States back Israel, adding that he is determined to use this power to help the state of Israel by launching a powerful Christian pro-Israel lobby.

More than 400 hawkish Christian community leaders, who are well-known pro-Israeli supporters, met in February to discuss the establishment of the new lobby. Other than Hagee, its leaders include evangelist George Morrison; fundamentalist Baptist minister Jerry Falwell; and Gary Bauer, president of the American Values organization.

Though Israel has always enjoyed a broad support among the American public, its most vocal and influential supporters were American Jews. But political analyst note that this began to change in recent years, as Christians took on an increasingly important role in American politics, particularly since George W. Bush recaptured the White House for Republicans in 2000.

"President Bush's election gave Christian conservatives a measure of influence with the executive branch of the United States government that they had not enjoyed since the Reagan administration," according to Robert P. George, a professor of politics at Princeton University and an astute Beltway observer. "Their influence is greater than it was with the administration of President Bush's father and, of course, they had no influence with Clinton."

Hence, according to George, "Christian conservatives are a force to be reckoned with in Washington. They are not in a position to dictate policy, but they almost always influence it on issues of concern to them." And, of course, one of those issues of concern is Israel.

Some analysts also say that the September 11 attacks reinforced many Christians' support for the Jewish state. "I think popular American support for Israel, certainly after 9/11, has gone back up again," says Glickman, a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture who served in the United States Congress for 18 years. "After 9/11, that support is firmer now than it was before" he said.

According to Hagee, the new Israel lobby is due to be launched in July during a Washington conference that will be attended by hundreds of U.S. evangelicals. He said that the group's activities would be a "political earthquake," as it would target senators and congressmen on Capitol Hill. A quarter of congressmen are evangelicals, Hagee said, adding that many American legislators represent regions that include a large evangelical population.

Hagee also plans to establish an effective network of key activists across the United States who can be reached within 24 hours for emergency lobbying efforts. He said he already appointed 12 regional directors who will be responsible for lobbying activities in their areas and that he plans to appoint representatives in every state and major city.

Hagee, one of 20 evangelical leaders who met with coma-stricken Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during his last trip to Washington, also said he would head a delegation of 500 evangelicals due to visit Israel this summer.

Hagee already discussed his project with Israel's consul general in New York, Aryeh Mekel, who said that the "evangelical population's support of Israel is very important."

Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Danny Ayalon, responded in a similar manner when he discussed the formation of the new lobby with Hagee last February. "We see Christians in the United States as true friends and important supporters on the basis of shared values, and we welcome their efforts to strengthen the ties between Israel and the U.S.," he said at the time.

Rabbi James Rudin, author of "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us," said that Hagee has been known for many years as an enthusiastic advocate of Israel, and is a typical right-wing Christian supporter of the Jewish country.

Rabbi Rudin's words couldn't be more true. Hagee once told Christian worshippers at the Cornerstone Church in Texas, that "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish state. Not since Camp David but since King David."

Pro-Palestinian groups say that this new alliance between Jewish groups and Christian conservatives in the United States could never bring a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, som left of centre activists like MJ Rosenberg of the Israeli Policy Forum fear that the new Christian pro-Israel lobbies may constrain the U.S.'s ability to act as a fair mediator between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

"It's more than damaging," he says. "It's frightening."

Hagee shared with HUMAN EVENTS his thoughts on the growing concerns about Iran's nuclear threat-to Israel and the United States.

Jerusalem Countdown is Hagee's latest work on the Middle East. He previously wrote From Daniel to Doomsday: The Countdown Has Begun and The Beginning of the End.

Hagee is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, a non-denominational evangelical church with more than 18,000 active members.

How long will it take before Israel and Iran engage in warfare?

Israel will engage Iran before the end of May!

What will an attack on Jerusalem mean for the United States?

You are assuming an attack on Jerusalem will be successful! Jerusalem is the spiritual home for millions of Jews and Christians in America. The very dust in the street is sacred in this holy city. Israel fully anticipates retaliation from Iran. Former IDF Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya'alon, expressed confidence that Israel's anti-missile systems could protect the country, whether missiles are fired directly from Iran, by the Hizbullah launchers amassed along Israel's northern border or through Kassam rockets being amassed within Judea and Samaria. "Israel is able to strike at Iran in a number of ways, not just through air strikes," Ya'alon added.

Should the United States be an aggressor against Iran?

It would be shameful for America, with all it's military might, to allow Israel to fight our fight!

Is the United States vulnerable to a nuclear attack from Iran?

America is very vulnerable to nuclear suitcase bombs, which have the capacity to kill a million or more people per explosion. Paul L. Williams, a former consultant to the FBI on terrorism, reports there are seven teams of terrorist now working in the United States. The seven areas that have been identified are New York, Miami. Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. These terrorist groups are working out of mosques and Islamic centers, which are protected by the law as "houses of worship."
While Iran can reach Europe with a missile, it does not yet have a missile with sufficient range to reach America.

Why must the United States put its own security on the line to defend Israel?

Iran is a threat to western civilization ... not just to Israel. Iran with nuclear weapons will be the world's worst nightmare. America and Europe will be blackmailed to bow to the Islamofacist agenda. The attack on 9/11 proved Islamics have the will to kill us, they are now searching for the power to kill us ... nuclear power.

Are the American people ready for another war in the Middle East?

Absolutely not! Many Americans want to "cut and run" from Iraq. Our fighting terrorist on their soil prevents them from being on our soil!

How will Ariel Sharon's stroke and subsequent demise impact Israel's view of Iran?

Israel's military intentions will be dictated by the nations need of security, not who is prime minister. Israel does not owe it to the world to commit national suicide for world peace!

How do you know the Iran poses as grave a threat as your book details?

Nothing is known for certain until the lazer guided bunker buster bombs are released and the missiles are launched. My sources in times past have been extremely accurate and their predictions, given to me in April of 2005, have once again come true.

How are Russia, France and Germany helping Iran achieve its goal of a nuclear holocaust?

Several years ago, former Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, sat in my office and told me that when he was Prime Minister he gave to America's intelligence community photographic proof that Russian scientist were helping the Iranians develop medium range missiles that had the ability to reach Europe and Jerusalem. Russia has been developing its relationships with the Islamic nations. I believe that relationship will develop in the future into Russia providing military leadership for radical Islamic forces against Israel. Russia's payoff is the oil from the Persian Gulf giving it the ability to become a super-power again. The Islamic payoff is the control of Jerusalem.

I have no direct knowledge of France and Germany's activity or lack thereof personally!

Will a Shiite-led Iraq partner with Iran?

I don't know!

Why can't radical Islam and Israel peacefully co-exist?

Radical Islam, as in Hamas, exists for the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews! The Hamas Charter is a declaration of death! Hamas will either destroy Israel or Israel will destroy Hamas. There will be no long term peaceful co-existence. The Hamas Charter mocks all forms of peaceful co-existence with Israel!

Despite his low-key demeanor and monotone delivery, Chomsky has been anything but reluctant. On closer examination, however, it appears that he has gained his elevated position less from scholarship than from the sheer body of his work that includes books by the dozens—30 in the last 30 years--and speeches and interviews in the hundreds.

In the field of US-Israel-Palestine relations he has been a virtual human tsunami, washing like a huge wave over genuine scholarly works in the field that contradict his critical positions on the Middle East, namely that Israel serves a strategic asset for the US and that the Israeli lobby, primarily AIPAC, is little more than a pressure group like any other trying to affect US policy in the Middle East. For both of these positions, as I will show, he offers only the sketchiest of evidence and what undercuts his theory he eliminates altogether.

Nevertheless, he has ignited the thinking and gained himself the passionate, almost cult-like attachment of thousands of followers across the globe. At the same time it has made him the favorite hate object of those who support and justify the US global agenda and the domination of its junior partner, Israel, over the Palestinians. Who else has whole internet blogs dedicated to nothing else but attacking him?

What is less generally known is that he admits to having been a Zionist from childhood, by one of the earlier definitions of the term—in favor of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and a bi-national, not a Jewish state—and, as he wrote 30 years ago, "perhaps this personal history distorts my perspective.?[2]Measuring the degree to which it has done so is critical to understanding puzzling positions he has taken in response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Given the viciousness and the consistency with which Chomsky has been attacked by his critics on the "right," one ventures cautiously when challenging him from the "left." To expose serious errors in Chomsky’s analysis and recording of history is to court almost certain opprobrium from those who might even agree with the nature of the criticism but who have become so protective of his reputation over the years, often through personal friendships, that have they not only failed to publicly challenge substantial errors of both fact and interpretation on his part, they have dismissed attempts by others to do so as "personal" vendettas.

Chomsky himself is no more inclined to accept criticism than his supporters. As one critic put it, "His attitude to who those who disagree with him, is, by and large, one of contempt. The only reason they can't see the simple truth of what he's saying is that they are, in one way or another, morally deficient."[3]

Although I had previously criticized Chomsky for downplaying the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on Washington’s Middle East policies,[4] I had hesitated to write a critique of his overall approach for the reasons noted. Nevertheless, I was convinced that while, ironically, having provided perhaps the most extensive documentation of Israeli crimes, he had, at the same time immobilized, if not sabotaged, the development of any serious effort to halt those crimes and to build an effective movement in behalf of the Palestinian cause.

An exaggeration? Hardly. A number of statements made by Chomsky have demonstrated his determination to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished or inconvenienced for the very monumental transgressions of decent human behavior that he himself has passionately documented over the years. This is one of the glaring contradictions in Chomsky’s work. He would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine.

Following through with a critique of his work seemed essential after reading an interview he had given last May to Christopher J. Lee of Safundi: the Journal of South African and American Comparative Studies and circulated on Znet.[5]

Quite naturally, the discussion turned to apartheid and whether Chomsky considered the term applied to Palestinians under Israeli rule. He responded:

I don’t use it myself, to tell you the truth. Just like I don't [often] use the term "empire," because these are just inflammatory terms... I think it's sufficient to just describe the situation, without comparing it to other situations.

Anyone familiar with Chomsky’s work will recognize that he is no stranger to inflammatory terms and that comparing one historical situation with another has long been part of his modus operandi. His response in this instance was troubling. Many Israeli academics and journalists, such as Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart and Amira Hass, have described the situation of the Palestinians as one of apartheid. Bishop Tutu has done the same and last year Ha’aretz reported that South African law professor John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in Occupied Palestine and a former member of his country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, had written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is "an apartheid regime" in the territories "worse than the one that existed in South Africa."[6]

Chomsky explained his disagreement:

Apartheid was one particular system and a particularly ugly situation... It's just to wave a red flag, when it's perfectly well to simply describe the situation...

His reluctance to label Israel’s control of the Palestinians as "apartheid" out of concern that it be seen as a "red flag," like describing it as "inflammatory," was a red flag itself and raised questions that should have been asked by the interviewer, such as who would be inflamed by the reference to ‘apartheid’ as a "red flag" in Israel’s case and what objections would Chomsky have to that?

A more disturbing exchange occurred later in the interview when Chomsky was asked if sanctions should be applied against Israel as they were against South Africa. He responded:

In fact, I've been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it.

Sanctions hurt the population. You don't impose them unless the population is asking for them. That's the moral issue. So, the first point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not.

Obviously not. But is it acceptable to make such a decision on the basis of what the majority of Israelis want? Israel, after all, is not a dictatorship in which the people are held in check by fear and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for their government’s actions. Israel has a largely unregulated, lively press and a "people’s army" in which all Israeli Jews, other than the ultra-orthodox, are expected to serve and that is viewed by the Israeli public with almost religious reverence. Over the years, in their own democratic fashion, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have consistently supported and participated in actions of their government against the Palestinians and Lebanese that are not only racist, but in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Chomsky made his position clear:

So calling for sanctions here, when the majority of the population doesn't understand what you are doing, is tactically absurd-even if it were morally correct, which I don't think it is. The country against which the sanctions are being imposed is not calling for it.

The interviewer, Lee, understandably puzzled by that answer, then asked him, "Palestinians aren't calling for sanctions?

Chomsky: "Well, the sanctions wouldn't be imposed against the Palestinians, they would be imposed against Israel."

Lee: "Right... [And] Israelis aren't calling for sanctions."

That response also disturbed Palestinian political analyst, Omar Barghouti, who, while tactfully acknowledging Chomsky as "a distinguished supporter of the Palestinian cause," addressed the issue squarely:

Of all the anti-boycott arguments, this one reflects either surprising naiveté or deliberate intellectual dishonesty. Are we to judge whether to apply sanctions on a colonial power based on the opinion of the majority in the oppressors community? Does the oppressed community count at all? [7]

For Chomsky, apparently not. But there were more absurdities to come:

Furthermore, there is no need for it. We ought to call for sanctions against the United States! If the US were to stop its massive support for this, it's over. So, you don't have to have sanctions on Israel. It's like putting sanctions on Poland under the Russians because of what the Poles are doing. It doesn't make sense. Here, we're the Russians.

First, what does Chomsky mean by saying "there is no need of it?" He was certainly aware, at the time of the interview that Israel, with its construction of a 25-foot high wall and fence, appropriately described by its critics as the "Apartheid Wall" was accelerating the confiscation of yet more Palestinian land and continuing the ethnic cleansing that began well before 1947 and there was nothing other than the weight of public opinion that might stop it.

Second, while there would be considerable support of sanctions against the US, if such were possible, would this not violate Chomsky’s own standard for applying them? Had he not moments before, said that the majority of the people must support them? He apparently has a different standard for Israelis than he does for Americans. And what the Palestinians may wish doesn’t count.

Then, having just told the interviewer that he did not like making comparisons, what can one make of his placing the relationship that existed between Poland and the former Soviet Union (Russia, in his lexicon) in the same category as that existing between Israel and the United States? He was referring to the implementation of sanctions by the Reagan administration against Poland in 1981 after the East Bloc nation had instituted martial law in response to the rise of the Solidarnosc movement. What role the Soviet Union had in that has been debated, but it should be obvious that there is no serious basis for such a comparison.

In retrospect, however, it was no surprise. In the Eighties, Chomsky placed Israel’s relationship to the US in the same category as that of El Salvador when the Reagan administration was backing its puppet government against the FMLN. Not embarrassed at having spouted such nonsense, he still repeats it. [8] Even then, he exhibited a gritty determination to deflect responsibility for Israel’s actions on to the United States. To point this out is not to defend the US or its egregious history of global criminality—which is not defensible—but to expose the deep fault lines that inhabit Chomsky’s world view.

In case I had missed something, however, I wrote him, asking if he wished to clarify what the Polish-Soviet relationship had in common with that of Israel and the US?

He declined to answer that question but with reference to my asking him about his avoidance of placing blame on Israel, he responded:

I also don’t acknowledge other efforts to blame others [presumably Israel] for what we do. Cheap, cowardly, and convenient, but I won’t take part in it. That’s precisely what’s at stake. Nothing else. [9]

"Cheap, cowardly and convenient" to blame Israel? If his primary desire is to protect Israel and Israelis from any form of inconvenience is not obvious from that private response, his public effort to sabotage the budding campus divestment program should leave no doubt where and with whom his sympathies lie:

In an exchange with Washington Post readers, Chomsky was asked by a caller:

Why did you sign an MIT petition calling for MIT to boycott Israeli investments, and then give an interview in which you state that you opposed such investment boycotts? What was or is your position on the proposal by some MIT faculty that MIT should boycott Israeli investments?

Chomsky replied:

As is well known in Cambridge, of anyone involved, I was the most outspoken opponent of the petition calling for divestment, and in fact refused to sign until it was substantially changed, along lines that you can read if you are interested. The "divestment" part was reduced to three entirely meaningless words, which had nothing to do with the main thrust of the petition. I thought that the three meaningless words should also be deleted... On your last question, as noted, I was and remain strongly opposed, without exception -- at least if I understand what the question means. How does one "boycott Israeli investments"? (Emphasis added). [10]

I will assume that Chomsky understood very well what the caller meant: investing in Israeli companies and in State of Israel Bonds of which US labor union pension funds, and many states and universities have purchased hundreds of millions of dollars worth. These purchases clearly obligate those institutions to lobby Congress to insure that the Israeli economy stays afloat. This isn’t something that Chomsky talks or writes about.

The caller was referring to a speech that Chomsky had made to the Harvard Anthropology Dept. shortly after the MIT and Harvard faculties issued a joint statement on divestment. It was gleefully reported in the Harvard Crimson by pro-Israel activist, David Weinfeld, under the headline "Chomsky’s Gift":

MIT Institute Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky recently gave the greatest Hanukkah gift of all to opponents of the divestment campaign against Israel. By signing the Harvard-MIT divestment petition several months ago—and then denouncing divestment on Nov. 25 at Harvard—Chomsky has completely undercut the petition.

At his recent talk for the Harvard anthropology department, Chomsky stated: "I am opposed and have been opposed for many years, in fact, I’ve probably been the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign about academic boycotts."

He argued that a call for divestment is "a very welcome gift to the most extreme supporters of US-Israeli violence... It removes from the agenda the primary issues and it allows them to turn the discussion to irrelevant issues, which are here irrelevant, anti-Semitism and academic freedom and so on and so forth." [11] (Emphasis added.)

Here you see one of the tactics that Chomsky uses to silence his few left critics; he accuses them of aiding "the most extreme supporters of US-Israeli violence."

When contacted by the Cornell Daily Sun which was preparing an article on the MIT-Harvard divestment movement, Chomsky repeated his objections, and "despite acknowledging the existence of this petition," the reporter wrote, Chomsky said, ‘I’m aware of no divestment movement. I had almost nothing to do with the ‘movement’ except to insist that it not be a divestment movement.’" [12] (Emphasis added)

A least, he cannot be accused of inconsistency. After speaking at the First Annual Maryse Mikhail Lecture at the University of Toledo, on March 4, 2001, Chomsky was asked:

Do you think it's is a good idea to push the idea of divestment from Israel the same way that we used to push for it in white South Africa?

Chomsky replied:

I regard the United States as the primary guilty party here, for the past 30 years. And for us to push for divestment from the United States doesn't really mean anything. What we ought to do is push for changes in US policy. Now it makes good sense to press for not sending attack helicopters to Israel, for example. In fact it makes very good sense to try to get some newspaper in the United States to report the fact that it's happening. That would be a start. And then to stop sending military weapons that are being used for repression. And you can take steps like that. But I don't think divestment from Israel would make much sense, even if such a policy were imaginable (and it's not).

Our primary concern, I think, should be change in fundamental US policy, which has been driving this thing for decades. And that should be within our range. That's what we're supposed to be able to do: change US policy. (Emphasis added)

Let us examine the response he gave at this event. Having stated forthrightly his opposition to pressuring Israel through divestment, he made no suggestion that his audience contact their Congressional representatives or senators regarding their support for aid to Israel. Mass appeals to Congress to stop funding, whether it was in opposition to the war in Vietnam or the Contras in Nicaragua, have been a basic element in every other nation-wide struggle against US global policy. Why not in this case? If Chomsky has ever called for any actions involving Congress, I could find no record of it.

Middle East activists, consequently, following Chomsky’s lead, have continued to allow members of Congress and liberal Democrats, in particular, avoid paying any political price for supporting legislation that has provided Israel with the billions of dollars and the weaponry it has used to suppress the Palestinians, confiscate their land and expand its illegal settlements. This is what has devastated the Palestinians, not the meaningless three score plus Security Council resolutions reprimanding Israel that the US has vetoed but which, for Chomsky, validate his position that the US is the main culprit.

What he suggested to this audience—getting a newspaper to report the helicopter "sales" to Israel should have had those not entranced by his presence shaking their heads. As for changing US policy being "within our range," if Israel is a US "strategic asset," as he maintains, how does Chomsky suggest this be done? Beyond contacting your local newspaper editor, he doesn’t.

Last year, Noah Cohen had the temerity to challenge Chomsky’s opposition to both a "single state" solution and implementing the Palestinian "right of return." Chomsky defended his "realism" and accused Cohen of being engaged in "an academic seminar among disengaged intellectuals on Mars... [and] those who take these stands" [are] "serving the cause of the extreme hawks in Israel and the US, and bringing even more harm to the suffering Palestinians." [13]

Note, again, how Chomsky accuses those who disagree with him of harming the Palestinians. This evidently includes the Palestinians themselves who refuse to surrender their "right of return." Their crime, in Chomsky’s opinion, is to oppose what he praises as the "international consensus," the support of which, for him, is "true advocacy." [14]

"The main task," he says, "is to bring the opinions and attitudes of the large majority of the US population into the arena of policy. As compared with other tasks facing activists, this is, and has long been a relatively simple one." [15] Simple? Who, we must ask, is on Mars? Of course, as noted previously, he offers no suggestions as how to accomplish this.

Although he doesn’t advertise it publicly, Chomsky did sign a petition calling for the suspension of US military aid to Israel, but it has received little publicity and Sustain, the organization initiating the campaign has done little to promote it. It is not a demand that Chomsky raises in his books or interviews. When I pointed this out, he responded:

That is totally false. I’ve always supported the call of Human Rights Watch and others to stop ‘aid’ to Israel until it meets minimal human rights conditions. I’ve also gone out of way to publicize the fact that the majority of the population is in favor of cutting all aid to Israel until it agrees to serious negotiations (with my approval)... [16]

Given the probable nature and outcome of previous "serious negotiations" and the relative strength in the power relationship, this would present no problem for Israel as was demonstrated at Oslo and since. Chomsky’s claim to have supported Human Rights Watch's call for stopping aid to Israel, however, was a figment of his imagination. This was confirmed by an HRW official who explained that HRW had only asked that the amount of money spent on the occupied territories be deducted from the last round of loan guarantees. [17] That is hardly the same thing. When I pointed this out to Chomsky, he replied:

To take only one example, consider ‘HRW, Israel's Interrogation of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories,’ p. xv, which states that US law prohibits sending any military or economic aid to Israel because of its practice of systematic torture. [18]

To my objection that this did not exactly constitute what would be described as a "campaign," he testily responded:

Calling actions illegal is sufficient basis for a reference to a call that the actions should be terminated. If you prefer not to join HRW and me in calling the aid illegal, implying directly that it should be terminated, that's up to you. Not very impressive... [19] (Emphasis added)

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether describing US aid to Israel as illegal in a single document is the same as conducting a campaign to stop it.

Two and a half years earlier, Chomsky had made his position quite clear:

It is convenient in the US, and the West, to blame Israel and particularly Sharon, but that is unfair and hardly honest. Many of Sharon's worst atrocities were carried out under Labor governments. Peres comes close to Sharon as a war criminal. Furthermore, the prime responsibility lies in Washington, and has for 30 years. That is true of the general diplomatic framework, and also of particular actions. Israel can act within the limits established by the master in Washington, rarely beyond. [20] (Emphasis added)

While no doubt a statement of this sort is comforting to the eyes and ears of Israel’s supporters in "the left," it should be obvious that his waiving of the Jewish State’s responsibility to adhere to the Nuremberg principles, as well as the Geneva Conventions, clearly serves Israel’s interests. (While a strong case can certainly be made against Peres, as well, he is not in Sharon’s class in the "war criminal" competition.)

Chomsky’s rationalization of Israel’s criminal misdeeds in The Fateful Triangle should have rung alarm bells when it appeared in 1983. Written a year after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, in what would become a sacred text for Middle East activists, he actually began the book not by taking Israel to task so much as its critics:

In the war of words that has been waged since Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982, critics of Israeli actions have frequently been accused of hypocrisy. While the reasons advanced are spurious, the charge itself has some merit. It is surely hypocritical to condemn Israel for establishing settlements in the occupied territories while we pay for establishing and expanding them. Or to condemn Israel for attacking civilian targets with cluster and phosphorous bombs "to get the maximum kill per hit." When we provide them gratis or at bargain rates, knowing that they will be used for just this purpose. Or to criticize Israel’s ‘indiscriminate’ bombardment of heavily-settled civilian areas or its other military adventures, while we not only provide the means in abundance but welcome Israel’s assistance in testing the latest weaponry under live battlefield conditions... .In general, it is pure hypocrisy to criticize the exercise of Israeli power while welcoming Israel’s contributions towards realizing the US aim of eliminating possible threats, largely indigenous, to American domination of the Middle East region.[ 21]

First, the PLO was seen as a threat by Israel, not by the United States in 1982, particularly since it had strictly abided by a US-brokered cease-fire with Israel for 11 months, giving it a dangerous degree of credibility in Israeli eyes. Second, whom did Chomsky mean by "we?" Perhaps, President Reagan and some members of Congress who gently expressed their concern when the number of Palestinians and Lebanese killed in the invasion and the wholesale destruction of the country could not be suppressed in the media. But he doesn’t say. It certainly wasn’t those who took to the streets across the country to protest Israel’s invasion. Both political parties had competed in their applause when Israel launched its attack, as did the AFL-CIO which took out a full page ad in the NY Times, declaring "We Are Not Neutral. We Support Israel!" paid for by an Israeli lobbyist with a Park Avenue address. The media, in the beginning, was also supportive, but it is rare to find an editorial supporting US aid to Israel. It is rarely ever mentioned and that’s the way the lobby likes it. So is Chomsky creating a straw figure? It appears so.

If we follow Chomsky’s "logic," it would be an injustice to bring charges of war crimes against Indonesian, El Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, or Filipino officers, soldiers, or public officials for the atrocities committed against their own countrymen and women since they were funded, armed and politically supported by the US. Perhaps, General Pinochet will claim the Chomsky Defense if he goes to trial.

He pressed the point of US responsibility for Israel’s sins again in his introduction to The New Intifada, noting that as one of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, "It is therefore Washington’s responsibility to prevent settlement and expropriation, along with collective punishment and all other measures of violence... .It follows that the United States is in express and extreme violation of its obligations as a High Contracting Party." [22]

I would agree with Chomsky, but is the US refusal to act a more "extreme violation" than the actual crimes being committed by another signatory to the Conventions, namely Israel? Chomsky would have us believe that it is.

It is a point he made clear at a talk in Oxford in May, 2004, when he brought up the killing a week earlier of the Hamas spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin by the Israeli military as he left a Mosque in Gaza. "That was reported as an Israeli assassination, but inaccurately" said Chomsky. "Sheikh Yassin was killed by a US helicopter, flown by an Israeli pilot. Israel does not produce helicopters. The US sends them with the understanding that they will be used for such purposes, not defense, as they have been, regularly."

Chomsky is correct to a point. What is missing from his analysis is any reference to the demands from Congress, orchestrated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s officially registered lobby, to make sure that the US provides those helicopters to Israel to use as its generals see fit. (In fact, there is not a single mention of AIPAC in any one of Chomsky’s many books on the Israel-Palestine conflict). What Chomsky’s British audience was left with was the conclusion that the assassination of Sheik Yassin was done with Washington's approval.

While its repeated use of helicopters against the Palestinian resistance and civilian population has been one of the more criminal aspects of Israel’s response to the Intifada, absolving the Israelis of blame for their use has become something of a fetish for Chomsky as his introduction to The New Intifada [23] and again, in more detail in Middle East Illusions, illustrates:

On October 1, [at the beginning of the Al-Aksa Intifada] Israeli military helicopters, or, to be more precise, US military helicopters with Israeli pilots, sharply escalated the violence, killing two Palestinians in Gaza... . The continuing provision of attack helicopters by the United States to Israel, with the knowledge that these weapons are being used against the civilian Palestinian population, and the silence of the mainstream media is just one illustration of many of how we live up to the principle that we do not believe in violence. Again, it leaves honest citizens with two tasks: the important one, do something about it; and the second one, try to find out why the policies are being pursued. (Emphasis added) [24]

What to do Chomsky again doesn’t say, but he does try to tell us why:

"On that matter, the fundamental reasons are not really controversial... It has long been understood that the gulf region has the major energy sources in the world... " [25]

Chomsky then goes on for two pages explaining the importance of Middle East oil and the efforts by the US to control it. It is the basic explanation that he has repeated and republished, almost verbatim, over the years. What it has to do with the Palestinians who have no oil or how a truncated Palestinian state would present a threat to US regional interests is not provided, but after two pages the reader has forgotten that the question was even posed. In his explanation there is no mention of the lobby or domestic influences.

Chomsky does acknowledge that "major sectors of American corporate capitalism, including powerful elements with interests in the Middle East [the major oil companies!]" have endorsed a "two-state solution" on the basis that

the radical nationalist tendencies that are enflamed by the unsettled Palestinian problem would be reduced by the establishment of a Palestinian mini-state that would be contained within a Jordanian-Israeli military alliance (perhaps tacit), surviving at the pleasure of its far more powerful neighbors and subsidized by the most conservative and pro-American forces in the Arab world... .This would, in fact, be the likely outcome of a two-state settlement." [26]

Such an outcome would have little direct influence on regional Arab politics, except to demoralize supporters of the Palestinian struggle in the neighboring countries and around the world, a development that would clearly serve US interests. It would, however, curb Israel’s expansion, which is critical to Israel’s agenda, not Washington’s. Chomsky also fails to recognize a fundamental contradiction in his argument. If the support of Israel has been based on its role as protector of US strategic resources, namely oil, why does not that position enjoy the support of the major oil companies with interests in the region?

It is useful to go look at Chomsky’s earlier writings to see how his position has developed. This paragraph from Peace in the Middle East, published in 1974 and repackaged with additional material in 2003, is not dissimilar from the liberal mush he often criticizes:

I do not see any way in which Americans can contribute to the active pursuit of peace. That is a matter for the people of the former Palestine themselves. But it is conceivable that Americans might make some contribution to the passive search for peace, by providing channels of communication, by broadening the scope of the discussion and exploring basic issues in ways that are not easily open to those who see their lives as immediately threatened. [27]

Readers should note amidst the vagueness of this paragraph, how Chomsky’s suggestion that "the active pursuit of peace" should be left to "people of the former Palestine" mirrors a phrase that we have heard frequently from Clinton and since from George the Second and Colin Powell, namely, "leaving the negotiations to the concerned parties".

This was published a year after the October 1973 war when the US was massively increasing both military and economic aid to Israel, a fact Chomsky emphasizes in his other writings. Raising it in this context, however, was not on his agenda at that time.

It is reasonable to conclude by now that Chomsky’s dancing around the question of US aid, his opposition to divestment and sanctions, and to holding Israel to account, can be traced more to his Zionist perspective, irrespective of how he defines it, than to his general approach to historical events . It doesn’t stop there, however. An examination of a sampling of his prodigious output on the Israel-Palestine conflict reveals critical historical omissions and blind spots, badly misinterpreted events, and a tendency to repeat his errors to the point where they have become accepted as "non-controversial facts" by successive generations of activists who repeat them like trained seals. In sum, what they have been given by Chomsky is a deeply flawed scenario that he has successfully sold and resold to them as reality.

The consequences are self-evident.

Those who have relied on Chomsky’s interpretation of the US-Israel relationship for their work in behalf of the Palestinian cause, have been functionally impotent. There is simply no evidence that any activity they have undertaken has applied any brake on the Palestinians’ ever-deteriorating situation. I include here, specifically, the anti-war and solidarity movements and their leading spokespersons who have adopted Chomsky’s formulations en toto. How much responsibility for their failure can be laid at Chomsky’s feet may be debatable, but that he has been a major factor can not be. On the other hand, for those in the movement whose primary interest has been to protect Israel from blame and sanctions, and their numbers are not small, Chomsky has been extremely helpful.

Up to this point, I have dealt largely with Chomsky’s opinions. His scholarship, unfortunately, exhibits the same failings. They were succinctly described by Bruce Sharp on an internet site that examines his early writings on the Cambodian genocide. Chomsky, wrote Sharp

does not evaluate all sources and then determine which stand up to logical inquiry. Rather he examines a handful of accounts until he finds one which matches his predetermined idea of what the truth must be; he does not derive his theories from the evidence. Instead, he selectively gathers ‘evidence’ which supports his theories and ignores the rest. [28]

His failures, wrote Sharp, are:

rooted in precisely the same sort of unthinking bias that he derides in the mainstream press. Stories which support his theory are held to a different (far lower) standard of accountability than stories which do not. [29]

These criticisms, to be sure, are not exclusive to Chomsky, but given his elevated status and credibility as a scholar, they are particularly relevant. What has been described by Sharp is closer to the function of a courtroom prosecutor than a historian.

Granted, the issues concerning the effort to secure a just resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict are complex and controversial, but they need to be honestly examined and debated. Everyone, however, is not an equal participant in that debate. The question of the Palestinian "right of return" is for Palestinians themselves to determine, not Israelis, Washington or Chomsky’s "international consensus." Another issue, closely connected, "one-state vs. two states," is more complicated and upon which Palestinians are themselves divided. Although I support a single state, I do not intend to argue for it here, only to present and lay out for the reader Chomsky’s perspective. Given the dominance of the Zionist narrative, however, neither issue has the potential of energizing significant numbers of Americans in their behalf beyond those with a personal or vested interest in their outcome.

Two issues that do have that possibility and which are intimately linked are

1. Stopping the flow of tax dollars to Israel. In view of the sharp cuts being made across the nation in spending on health, education and pensions, there is a ready audience for stopping that aid which has now surpassed the $100 billion mark. It would include ending public and private investment in Israel, in Israeli companies, and in American companies doing business in Israel, which has already begun in a limited way; in other words, imposing the sanctions that Chomsky deplores, and

2. Exposing and challenging the pro-Israel lobby’s stranglehold on Congress and its control over US Middle East policies which is accepted as a fact of life by political observers in Washington and elsewhere, but not by Chomsky.

Chomsky does mention from time to time that the majority of the American people is less than enthusiastic about military aid to Israel but fails to take the issue further than that. His fixation on Israeli pilots flying US helicopters, notwithstanding, relegating the potential power of the aid issue and the lobby to the margins of political discourse has been essential for Chomsky since they undermine the basis of his analysis that

1. Israel is essentially a US client state that is supported by Washington based on its "services" as a "strategic asset" [30] and "cop on the beat" [31] for US interests in the Middle East and elsewhere and
2. The "rejectionist" position of the United States, espoused by successive administrations that oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state is the primary obstacle blocking the implementation of a "two-state solution." Moreover, he would have us believe that US policy, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, has supported "the gradual integration of the occupied territories within Israel." [32]
3. The influence of the pro-Israel lobby has been exaggerated by its critics and ? is more of a swing factor than an independently decisive one... [and] that opens the way for the ideological influence to exert itself - lined up with real power." [33]

On these three points there is an extraordinary amount of contradictory evidence provided by reputable scholars in the field of which Chomsky is clearly aware (since he quotes them when useful) but chooses to ignore. Within the limits of this article, I will only be able to touch on a few.

The "Strategic Asset" Theory

Chomsky’s argument that US support for Israel has been based on its value as a "strategic asset," was most clearly articulated The Fateful Triangle in 1983 and was repeated in interviews and speeches until the Soviet Union was no longer a threat and new justifications were required:

From the late 1950s... the US government came increasingly to accept the Israeli thesis that a powerful Israel is a "strategic asset" for the United States, serving as a barrier against indigenous radical nationalist threats to American interests, which might gain support from the USSR. [34]

The paucity of evidence he supplies to back it up should long ago have raised eyebrows. One item he inevitably brings up is a National Security Council Memorandum from January, 1958, that, according to Chomsky "concluded that a ‘logical corollary of opposition to growing Arab nationalism "would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-Western power left in the Middle East" 35 On such an important point, one would expect he could produce something more recent. In that same year, in response to the successful anti-colonial uprising against the British in Iraq and nationalist moves in Lebanon, Eisenhower sent the marines to that country to protect perceived threats to US interests. Use of Israeli troops was apparently not considered.

The only regional "services" provided by Israel referred to by Chomsky were the defeat of Egypt in 1967 (when France was Israel’s major arms supplier) that was clearly done for Israel’s own interests and it’s role in dissuading the Syrian government from coming to the aid of the Palestinians when they were under attack by Jordan’s King Hussein in September, 1970. That’s it. And in the latter instance, Israel did not need the US to activate its forces to prevent what has been incorrectly recorded (not by Chomsky) as an attempted PLO takeover of Jordan. [36]

What Chomsky and those who parrot his analysis ignore (since he fails to mention them) are other factors that played a role in the routing of the PLO, such as internal Palestinian dissent, the refusal of the Syrian air force under Hafez Al-Assad—no friend of the PLO-- to provide air cover, and the strategic advantages of Jordan’s largely Bedouin forces. It was Henry Kissinger who exaggerated Israel’s role in the outcome of that situation and its potential as a Cold War asset [37], and, ironically, it is Kissinger’s position that Chomsky has enshrined as "fact."

There is another factor in the "strategic asset" argument that is usually overlooked. As Camille Mansour points out:

[T]hese struggles for influence, occurring in a region so close to Israel, are often linked (an in the case of the Jordanian crisis, were definitely linked) to the Arab-Israeli conflict itself: for the Americans, Israel was in the paradoxical position of being an asset by alleviating threats to its own and American interests—threats, however, that it may have itself originally provoked through its situation of conflict with the Arabs. [38]

This opinion was confirmed earlier by Stephen Hillman, former staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who wrote:

The strategic service that Israel is said to perform for the United States—acting as a barrier to Soviet penetration of the Middle East—is one that is needed primarily because of the existence of Israel, but for which the Arabs would be much less amenable to Soviet influence... It is true that Israel provides the United States with valuable military information and intelligence, and it is conceivable... that the United States might have need of naval or air bases on Israeli territory. These assets in themselves... do not seem sufficient to explain the expenditure by the United States between the founding of Israel and 1980 of almost $13 billion in military assistance and over $5.5 billion in economic support, making Israel by far the largest recipient of United States foreign aid." [39] (Emphasis added)

Chomsky was quite of aware of Tillman’s work, using it frequently as a reference in The Fateful Triangle. The above citation was not included. More to his liking was a comment by the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat from Washington, that Chomsky included in The Fateful Triangle and has been repeating in virtually every book, interview and speech he makes about the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to Jackson

Israel’s job was to "inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states... who were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principal sources of petroleum in the Persian Gulf. [40]

He was referring to "the tacit alliance between Israel, Iran (under the Shah) and Saudi Arabia" yet there is no evidence that any of the three countries ever performed that role. When the first Bush administration considered the region’s oil sources threatened by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it acted on it own, and went out of its way to keep Israel from participating. This has not dissuaded Chomsky from continuing to tell us the same tale.

Why Chomsky believes we should give credibility to Jackson’s opinion is that he was "the Senate’s leading expert on the topic [of oil]" in Fateful Triangle ( p. 535); "the Senate’s expert on the Middle East and Oil" in Toward a New Cold War. (p. 315)

"the Senate’s leading specialist on the Middle East and Oil" in The New Intifada, (p .9) and Middle East Illusions (p. 179);"the ranking oil expert," on P. 55 in Deterring Democracy, "the Senate’s leading specialist on the Middle East and oil," in Pirates and Emperors, (p. 165), and "an influential figure concerned with the Middle East," Hegemony or Survival ( p.165).

I dwell on Chomsky’s descriptions of Jackson because they are characteristically misleading. The closest thing that Jackson came to being an oil expert was having once chaired an investigation on domestic oil practices while head of the Senate Interior Committee.

Aside from being known as "the senator from Boeing," in recognition of the many lucrative contracts he funneled Boeing’s way while chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jackson’s main legacy is as co-author of the Jackson-Vanik amendment which made the success of US-USSR Cold War negotiations dependent on the Soviet Union opening its doors to Jewish emigration. Understandably, that made him the darling of the pro-Israel lobby and American Jews, in general, who provided $523,778 or 24.9% of his campaign contributions over a five-year period. [41] An opponent of détente and a Cold War hawk, he was "virtually the last Democrat in the Senate to support... [the Vietnam] war." [42] Most recently, he has been remembered as the Congressional patron saint of the neo-cons, having given Richard Perle his start on the path to evil.

Thanks to his support of both Israel and the US military-industrial complex, Jackson’s labors did not go unnoticed by the influential Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a major promoter of the integration of the US and Israeli arms industries since 1976. It is another key component of the pro-Israel lobby that Chomsky has never mentioned. In 1982, it established the Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson Distinguished Service Award and Jackson became its first honoree. The most recent was his protégé, Perle.

Had Chomsky mentioned Jackson’s hawkish pro-Israel background it would surely have raised questions about the senator’s credibility if not stripped it away altogether.

Apart from a handful of loyalists who seem echo his every word, Chomsky’s view of US-Israel relations does not fair as well with his fellow academics, including those who generally share his world view. While careful not to mention Chomsky by name, for example, Professor Ian Lustick was clearly referring to his theory when interviewed by Shibley Telhami in 2001:

The US is strong enough and rich enough that, even when thereare crises like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which was clearly a majorcrisis, it could address it. But... the biggest question in terms ofwhat motivates the US domestically has been on what is the source ofthe commitment to Israel. That really has been the core question. Andhere you have different competing views. For a long time, there was a view which said that the commitment to Israel is a corollary to the USstrategic interest, that, essentially, the US sees Israel as an instrument in its broader strategic interest, containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War and then later, maintaining the flow of oil, reducing terrorism, etc.

The truth of the matter is that theory just doesn't work, because Israel was, at various stages, very useful strategically, and other stages it was not viewed to be strategically very important. Even more important, probably, during muchof the Cold War, the bureaucracies – the Executive bureaucracy, the Defense Department, and the State Department -- did not view Israel to be a strategic asset, and some of them viewed it to be a detriment. So that just doesn't do it. [43]

Whether valid or not, if during the Cold War the US regarded Israel as a reliable ally against Soviet-backed regimes in some Arab states, this argument vanished as quickly as did the USSR. When Afif Safieh, Palestinian Delegate to the UK and the Holy See visited the United States just before the collapse of the Soviet Union he was surprised to see

within pro-Israeli circles ... their worry was about the loss of "anenemy," what it might signify for the raison-d'etre and the strategicfunction and utility of Israel in American foreign policy as a bastionand strategic asset to contain Soviet expansionism. It was preciselyduring this period that the ideological construction of an alternative global threat, the peril of Islam, took shape.[44]

The Soviet collapse forced not only the pro-Israel lobby, but Chomsky, as well, to scramble for a new reason justifying continued US support; the lobby to maintain, Chomsky to explain the US-Israel relationship.

He found it in a statement by former Israeli intelligence chief, Shlomo Gazit. The Cold War argument that Chomsky had earlier relied upon he now found to have been "highly misleading," preferring "the analysis... of Gazit" who wrote after the collapse of the USSR that:

Israel’s main task has not changed at all, and it remains of crucial importance. Its location at the center of the Arab Muslim Middle East predestines Israel to be a devoted guardian of stability in all the countries surrounding it. Its [role] is to protect the existing regimes: to prevent or halt the processes of radicalization and to block expansion of fundamentalist religious zealotry.[45]

"To which we may add," Chomsky wrote in the preface to the new edition of Fateful Triangle, "performing dirty work that the US is unable to undertake itself because of popular opposition or other costs." [46] Chomsky is still writing as if it were the Seventies or Eighties; there apparently is no limits to the "dirty work" the US will do for itself these days. Gazit would, of course, be expected to come up with an excuse for maintaining US support. But stability? If anything, Israel’s presence in the region has been the key destabilizing factor in the region and on two occasions, in 1967, and again in 1973, it almost led to nuclear war (and did lead then to a costly Arab oil embargo.) In the early days of the October War, when it appeared that Israeli troops might be overrun, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan reportedly panicked and threatened to use Israel’s atomic weapons on Egypt if the US did not rush Israel an airlift of conventional weapons. The Nixon administration promptly responded. [47]

As Mansour points out, "By so urgently asking Washington for arms, the Israeli government did not behave as a strategic asset, but as a protégé that feared—exaggeratedly perhaps—for its life." [48]

It should be noted that not until 1978, when Menachem Begin was elected prime minister, did Israel officially promote itself as a US asset. In an interview in the January 1991 Journal of Palestine Studies, the late retired Israel General Matti Peled said, "The argument that Israel is a strategic asset of the US serving as a static aircraft carrier, has never been more than a figment of the Israeli imagination. It was first proposed by Prime Minister Begin as a way of justifying the considerable grants given to Israel to purchase American weapon systems.... The Kuwaiti crisis has proved that the argument was false..." The arms deals were useful to the U.S, he said, because they triggered even bigger arms sales to America's Arab allies.

In 1986, and reprinted in four editions through 2002, Chomsky’s popular Pirates and Emperors contained a "strategic asset" theory that appeared to be pumped up on steroids. In one of five references to Israel performing that service, he wrote:

The US has consistently sought to maintain the military confrontation and to ensure that Israel remains a "strategic asset." In this conception, Israel is to be highly militarized, technologically advanced, a pariah state with little in the way of an independent economy apart from high tech production (often in coordination with the US), utterly dependent on the United States and hence dependable, serving US needs as a local "cop on the beat" and as a mercenary state employed for US purposes elsewhere... [49]

Chomsky couldn’t have been more mistaken. Thanks to the political support of the United States, Israel is anything but a "pariah state." It enjoys favored nation status with the European Union, its largest trading partner, and its arms industry, despite increasing integration with its US counterpart, is one of the world’s largest and competes with that of the US on the world market. Israel is also one of the major centers of the domestic high tech industry. It is hardly hostage to US demands although that characterization is what Chomsky is clearly trying to suggest. Furthermore, while the Israeli military and its arms manufacturers did serve US interests in Latin America and Africa, from the Sixties to the early Eighties, they did so for their own interests which happened to be mutually profitable.

Israel’s alleged usefulness to the US has been negated from other angles. Harold Brown was Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Defense. When his Israeli counterpart suggested that the two countries make plans for joint nuclear targeting of the Soviet Union in case of a war, Brown told Seymour Hersh that the Carter administration

would not have wanted to get involved in an Israeli-Soviet conflict. The whole idea of Israel as a strategic asset seems crazy to me. The Israelis would say, ‘Let us help you,’ and then you end up being their tool. The Israelis have their own security interests and we have our interests. They are not identical. [50]

Professor Cheryl Rubenberg challenged the Chomsky mindset from another perspective:

[T]he constraints imposed on American diplomacy in the Middle East by virtue of the US-Israeli relationship have impeded Washington’s ability to achieve stable and constructive working relationships with the Arab states, a necessary prerequisite for the realization of all American regional interests... .Even those regimes that pursued close associations with Washington in spite of the American-Israeli union were constrained from publicly normalizing the ties for fear of the domestic opposition an overt affiliation with the United States would bring... .

American corporate and commercial interests in the Middle East have been constrained in other ways... .To cite but one example: as a result of pressure that pro-Israeli groups were able to exert on Congress, a set of antiboycott laws was passed that severely limit [US] business in the Arab world. As a result, American companies and the United States economy suffer an estimated $ 1 billion loss per year. [51]

That antiboycott legislation has been successfully used to prosecute American companies over the years and is now being employed by pro-Israel members of Congress to stifle efforts of US activists to instigate a boycott of Israeli products in the United States. There is no need to ask where Chomsky stands on that.

Furthermore, Rubenberg, emphasizing the point made by others, asks, "How can Israel, committed to policies that a priori assure the perpetuation of regional instability, be considered a strategic asset to American interests?" [52]

For the post-Soviet era, Chomsky might have sought support for his case from neocon stalwart Douglas Feith. With only slight modifications, these lines from an article by the Deputy Defense Secretary in the Harvard Law Review, Spring 2004, could have been written by Chomsky himself:

For a variety of reasons, Israel has remained strategically relevantsince the Soviet Union’s demise... Israel’s geography ensures itscontinued importance to the US Even without a Soviet presence, theMiddle East remains important to the US as the primary source ofAmerican oil imports... .

Israel has been a loyal ally to the US and, through its strength, a stabilizing Force in an otherwise volatile region. Although Israel’s very existence has fueled numerous conflicts in the Middle East, from the perspective of the US government, the destruction of Israel, the region’s sole liberal democracy, is strategically not an option. Operating on the principle that Israel is here to stay and should stay, US aid to Israel has yielded enormous strategic dividends for the US By creating a regional imbalance ofpower favoring Israel, aid has curbed Arab military aggression andprevented situations, namely full-blown war between Israel and itsneighbors, in which the US might need to deploy troops to the MiddleEast. (Emphasis added)

This last paragraph is quite interesting. Not only does Feith reinforce earlier citations from Hillman, Mansour and Rubenberg regarding Israel’s existence being the source of regional instability, he suggests that Israel has been justly rewarded for preventing another war that’s its presence would otherwise have caused. That’s chutzpah.

The "Rejectionist" Theory

"In the real world," Chomsky writes, "the primary barrier to the ‘emerging vision’ [the Arab League’s offer of full peace and recognition in exchange for Israeli withdrawal] has been and remains, unilateral US rejectionism." (Emphasis added) 53 Chomsky would have us believe that it is primarily the US and not Israel that stands in the way of a peaceful (if not a just) settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict. He fails, however, in all his prolific writings, to explain why this solution would interfere and not enhance US power in the Middle East since the Palestinian state suggested, as he frequently acknowledges, would be weak and dependent largely on Israel, the US and other Arab countries for its economic survival.

By repeating it over and over, often several times on the same page, Chomsky has made the "rejectionist" label stick to the US like tar paper. What he has really achieved, however, is establishing his own definition of the term, yet another "straw man" that he can then pummel the stuffing out of as if it were real. This has required some nimble shifting and inexcusable ignoring of the available record that every US president beginning with Richard Nixon has tried to get Israel to withdraw from the land it captured in 1967, albeit now, after successive failures, White House efforts have been reduced to a dribble.

These "peace plans" as they were called were not initiated for the benefit of the Palestinians but to pacify the area in the pursuit of America’s regional and global interests that have been negatively affected by Israel’s continuing occupation as described earlier. Under those plans, Palestinians in the West Bank would likely have once again come under Jordanian sovereignty and the Gazans under that of Egypt. Other than Camp David, in which Israel ended up the big winner, all the plans have been doomed:

"What happened to all those nice plans?" asked Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery. "Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry - which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another." [54]

The origin of the term "rejectionist" is important. Chomsky lifted it from what was referred to in the Seventies by Israel’s supporters, Chomsky among them, as the Palestinian "rejection front." It was the term they used to describe those Palestinian resistance organizations, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DPFLP), and some smaller groups, that rejected the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and called for the establishment of a democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, a position to which Chomsky was and remains unalterably opposed.

In 1975, Chomsky considered the possibility of

a unitary democratic secular state in Mandatory Palestine... an exercise in futility. It is curious that this goal is advocated in some form by the most extreme antagonists: the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and expansionist elements within Israel. But the documents of the former indicate that what they have in mind is an Arab state that will grant civil rights to Jews, and the pronouncements of the advocates of a Greater Israel leave little doubt that their thoughts run along parallel lines, interchanging "Jew" and "Arab. [55]

The Palestinian struggle did not, in fact, become acceptable in Chomsky’s eyes until it accepted the US-Israel demand that the PLO recognize Israel’s legitimacy within its 1967 borders. That he equates the desires of Palestinians to regain their lost homeland to the program of the most extremist Israeli colonizers is also telling. Another piece of the puzzle fits. Writing in 1974, he was more explicit:

The Palestinian groups that have consolidated in the past few years argue that this injustice could be rectified by the establishment of a democratic secular state in all of Palestine. However, they frankly acknowledge—in fact, insist—that this would require the elimination of the "political, military, social, syndical and cultural institutions" of Israel" which will necessitate armed struggle, which "guarantees that... all elements of Israeli society will be unified in opposing the armed struggle against its institutions.

Even if, contrary to fact, the means proposed could succeed—I repeat and emphasize, even if, contrary to fact, these means could succeed—they would involve the destruction by force of a unified society, its people, and its institutions—a consequence intolerable to civilized opinion on the left or elsewhere." (emphasis in original) [56]

Apparently, for Chomsky, "civilized opinion" excluded the entire Arab world and much of the Third World—at least in sufficient numbers for the UN General Assembly to overwhelmingly brand Zionism as a form of racism in 1975. His "civilized opinion" as well, did not consider the expulsion of the Palestinians to be an "intolerable consequence" of the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.

[...]

The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.

The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.

President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.

Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860.

I have a personal concern over what has become of the Republican coalition. Forty years ago, I began a book, "The Emerging Republican Majority," which I finished in 1967 and took to the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, for which I became the chief political and voting-patterns analyst. Published in 1969, while I was still in the fledgling Nixon administration, the volume was identified by Newsweek as the "political bible of the Nixon Era."

In that book I coined the term "Sun Belt" to describe the oil, military, aerospace and retirement country stretching from Florida to California, but debate concentrated on the argument -- since fulfilled and then some -- that the South was on its way into the national Republican Party. Four decades later, this framework has produced the alliance of oil, fundamentalism and debt.

Some of that evolution was always implicit. If any region of the United States had the potential to produce a high-powered, crusading fundamentalism, it was Dixie. If any new alignment had the potential to nurture a fusion of oil interests and the military-industrial complex, it was the Sun Belt, which helped draw them into commercial and political proximity and collaboration. Wall Street, of course, has long been part of the GOP coalition. But members of the Downtown Association and the Links Club were never enthusiastic about "Joe Sixpack" and middle America, to say nothing of preachers such as Oral Roberts or the Tupelo, Miss., Assemblies of God. The new cohabitation is an unnatural one.

While studying economic geography and history in Britain, I had been intrigued by the Eurasian "heartland" theory of Sir Halford Mackinder, a prominent geographer of the early 20th century. Control of that heartland, Mackinder argued, would determine control of the world. In North America, I thought, the coming together of a heartland -- across fading Civil War lines -- would determine control of Washington.

This was the prelude to today's "red states." The American heartland, from Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico to Ohio and the Appalachian coal states, has become (along with the onetime Confederacy) an electoral hydrocarbon coalition. It cherishes sport-utility vehicles and easy carbon dioxide emissions policy, and applauds preemptive U.S. airstrikes on uncooperative, terrorist-coddling Persian Gulf countries fortuitously blessed with huge reserves of oil.

Because the United States is beginning to run out of its own oil sources, a military solution to an energy crisis is hardly lunacy. Neither Caesar nor Napoleon would have flinched. What Caesar and Napoleon did not face, but less able American presidents do, is that bungled overseas military embroilments could also boomerang economically. The United States, some $4 trillion in hock internationally, has become the world's leading debtor, increasingly nagged by worry that some nations will sell dollars in their reserves and switch their holdings to rival currencies. Washington prints bonds and dollar-green IOUs, which European and Asian bankers accumulate until for some reason they lose patience. This is the debt Achilles' heel, which stands alongside the oil Achilles' heel.

Unfortunately, more danger lurks in the responsiveness of the new GOP coalition to Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals, who muster some 40 percent of the party electorate. Many millions believe that the Armageddon described in the Bible is coming soon. Chaos in the explosive Middle East, far from being a threat, actually heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ. Oil price spikes, murderous hurricanes, deadly tsunamis and melting polar ice caps lend further credence.

The potential interaction between the end-times electorate, inept pursuit of Persian Gulf oil, Washington's multiple deceptions and the financial crisis that could follow a substantial liquidation by foreign holders of U.S. bonds is the stuff of nightmares. To watch U.S. voters enable such policies -- the GOP coalition is unlikely to turn back -- is depressing to someone who spent many years researching, watching and cheering those grass roots.

Four decades ago, the new GOP coalition seemed certain to enjoy a major infusion of conservative northern Catholics and southern Protestants. This troubled me not at all. I agreed with the predominating Republican argument at the time that "secular" liberals, by badly misjudging the depth and importance of religion in the United States, had given conservatives a powerful and legitimate electoral opportunity.

Since then, my appreciation of the intensity of religion in the United States has deepened. When religion was trod upon in the 1960s and thereafter by secular advocates determined to push Christianity out of the public square, the move unleashed an evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal counterreformation, with strong theocratic pressures becoming visible in the Republican national coalition and its leadership.

Besides providing critical support for invading Iraq -- widely anathematized by preachers as a second Babylon -- the Republican coalition has also seeded half a dozen controversies in the realm of science. These include Bible-based disbelief in Darwinian theories of evolution, dismissal of global warming, disagreement with geological explanations of fossil-fuel depletion, religious rejection of global population planning, derogation of women's rights and opposition to stem cell research. This suggests that U.S. society and politics may again be heading for a defining controversy such as the Scopes trial of 1925. That embarrassment chastened fundamentalism for a generation, but the outcome of the eventual 21st century test is hardly assured.

These developments have warped the Republican Party and its electoral coalition, muted Democratic voices and become a gathering threat to America's future. No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system.

Conservative true believers will scoff at such concerns. The United States is a unique and chosen nation, they say; what did or did not happen to Rome, imperial Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain is irrelevant. The catch here, alas, is that these nations also thought they were unique and that God was on their side. The revelation that He apparently was not added a further debilitating note to the late stages of each national decline.

Over the last 25 years, I have warned frequently of these political, economic and historical (but not religious) precedents. The concentration of wealth that developed in the United States in the bull market of 1982 to 2000 was also typical of the zeniths of previous world economic powers as their elites pursued surfeit in Mediterranean villas or in the country-house splendor of Edwardian England. In a nation's early years, debt is a vital and creative collaborator in economic expansion; in late stages, it becomes what Mr. Hyde was to Dr. Jekyll: an increasingly dominant mood and facial distortion. The United States of the early 21st century is well into this debt-driven climax, with some analysts arguing -- all too plausibly -- that an unsustainable credit bubble has replaced the stock bubble that burst in 2000.

Unfortunately, three of the preeminent weaknesses displayed in these past declines have been religious excess, a declining energy and industrial base, and debt often linked to foreign and military overstretch. Politics in the United States -- and especially the evolution of the governing Republican coalition -- deserves much of the blame for the fatal convergence of these forces in America today.

Kevin Phillips is the author of "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" (Viking).