The Weekly Online e-zine of the British People’s Party

“The things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history." -- Woodrow Wilson

 

Exposing America’s Israel Lobby….

 Rob McNeil comments on a hard-hitting anti - Israel Lobby paper by two academics from the University of Chicago and Harvard University

 ‘If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?’

 (David Ben-Gurion to Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress)

 We obviously do not agree with much of Israel’s justification for that state’s creation. We can, however, wholeheartedly agree both with the above David Ben-Gurion comment about the Israelis’ theft of the Palestinians’ homeland  and with the publication of the below summary of a Harvard University paper about America’s Israel Lobby and the ever-growing ability of that lobby to influence American foreign policy.

 Again, we clearly disagree with specific statements made by the authors of this paper but it is refreshing to find unexpectedly honest observers among our American opponents who are willing to publish such a controversial critique.

 Throughout the civilised world, meantime, respected scions of the Left-Liberal Establishment are breaking ranks and raising their voices in protest over the privileged status demanded by Israel and granted to Israel by Britain and the United States. In recent months, ever more senior public figures have spoken out about the jailing in Austria, for alleged Holocaust Denial, of British historian David Irving.

 The Israelis’ excesses in Gaza and on the West Bank, their outrages against Palestinian civilians and their internationally illegal, targeted, assassinations of Palestinian political opponents have gone on for far too long and are now beginning to crack the mask of Western political and academic tolerance of Israel purely on the much-exploited sympathy vote. The weight of high-level commentary from Western politicians critical of the treatment and jailing of David Irving adds momentum to what we hope will become a tidal wave of such criticism of and opposition to Israel’s emotional blackmail of Whitehall and Washington.

 

We reproduce, below some of the Israeli Lobby article but must emphasise that the authors would in no way agree with our views and policies, the Israel Lobby summary article. The article contains an Internet address, above, for the complete Harvard paper.

 

If you believe as we do that criticism of Israeli hard-line policies and political alternatives to Zionism as a whole need to be ORGANISED protests and led by ORGANISED opposition, if you want to be part of a movement which is not afraid to be among those who speak out against Israel and Zionism, then the BPP has a place for you in its ranks. The more voices raised, the louder the message.

Chiel14

*********************************************************************

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf (Full article here)

The Israel Lobby (extracts)
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again. Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its negotiating positions with Israel in advance…(For the whole article read the PDF file on the link above)

John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His most recent book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.

 

NEW – A4 MEMORIAL PICTURE OF JOHN TYNDALL

We have produced a new A4 colour laminated portrait of John Tyndall speaking. Ideal for framing, this a lasting memento to a great White Nationalist a great Leader whom the BPP sees still as it’s spiritual head. Order by post £2.00 including postage or online from our Merchandising Page through PayPal. www.bppuk.org

 

WANT TO MAKE REAL CHANGE TO WHITE NATIONALISM IN GREAT BRITAIN?

Then YOU should be a member of the British People’s Party. Download an application form from www.bppuk.org today and send in with the annual subscription of just £5.00 or drop us a line at BPP, BM Box 5581, London WC1N 3XX – and do it NOW!

 

IMPERIUM NO.8 Winter edition now available. Sample copy only £2.00 including postage. Spring edition out soon!

VANGUARD NO.6 March 2006 – issue now available – Stacks of articles/pics/cartoons and more…..£2.00 for a sample issue. £24.00 for 12 issues postage included.

Back issues of Vanguard are available Nos 1-3 at £2.00 per issue including postage.

 

E-MAIL ADDRESSES

How to reach us by e-mail…

All e-mail for the attention of the British People’s Party should be sent to

bppadmin@aryanunity.com

bpp.uk@ntlworld.com

All e-mail for Nationalist Week

nationalist.week@ntlworld.com

Editor: Eddy Morrison

 Visit our website www.bppuk.org

Imperium Press produces Nationalist Week freely as an online news e-zine. To subscribe just send an e-mail to nationalist.week@ntlworld.com

If you received this bulletin unsolicited then just send an e-mail with “Unsubscribe” to the above e-mail address. If the bulletin was passed on to you from another source and

you did not want it – then contact whoever forwarded it to you.

 

Nationalist Week is Copyright Imperium Press 2006

It may be freely distributed as long as no part is altered, changed or deleted in any way.