Israeli Flag

THE DARK SIDE OF THE ISRAELI CONNECTION

Israel Charged with Running American Foreign Policy

    American foreign policy has become the plaything of the Israeli lobby in Washington--at least that is the opinion of many observers, not the least of which is Mark Bruzonski, who is himself Jewish. Mr. Bruzonski is the former Washington representative of the World Jewish Congress, founder and, currently, chairman of the Jewish Committee on the Middle East. Bruzonsky's organization boasts for its Advisory Committee such luminaries as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky and a seemingly egalitarian mix of Jewish and Middle Eastern Arab college professors and scholars.

    In a recent Pacifica Radio interview Bruzonsky flatly stated that "Middle East policy in the United States, under the Clinton administration, is largely controlled and manipulated by the Israeli lobby."

    "I, myself, represented the World Jewish Congress many years ago." Mr. Bruzonsky added, "I am intimately familiar with how these things work. When I did represent the World Jewish Congress I arranged meetings on behalf of Jewish organizations at the White House. But I have never seen a Washington where practically every official is linked intimately to the Israeli-Jewish lobby. And Madeleine Albright has done something that nobody in history has ever done," Bruzonsky continued, "she has taken a former Israeli lobby official, someone who wasn't even a United States citizen at the time that Clinton was elected president, and she has made him her assistant secretary of state for the Middle East. It's an unprecedented situation, it's a terribly dangerous situation...."

    Bruzonsky is, of course, referring to Martin Indyk, the current United States Ambassador to Israel. Ambassador Indyk, the former head of a pro-Israel think tank--the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--is an England-born, Australian-raised, naturalized U.S. citizen long involved in the Middle East peace process as an academic researcher and an advisor to President Clinton. He is the first Jew to serve as an American ambassador to Israel, thus "countering the long-held view at the State Department that sending a Jewish ambassador to Israel -- or a Greek to Greece or an Italian to Italy -- would inherently raise a conflict of interest." The Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1995.

    Because of Indyk's strong bias toward Israel as indicated by his membership in, and work with, pro-Israel groups, former U.S. ambassador to Israel William Harrop, according to The Washington Post, labeled the nomination "'a profound mistake' and 'bad for the Jewish community, bad for Israel, bad for the United States and bad for the peace process.' His critics call him 'an operator' whose networking skills and political gamesmanship stand out in a town of gamesmen."

    Referring to Indyk's connection with the intensely pro-Israeli think tank, AIPAC, James Zogby, the executive director of the Arab American Institute in Washington said, "What they were able to do was define their pro-Israel leaning into invisibility, and they challenged indignantly anyone who said otherwise. And it worked." (ibid.)

    Under Ambassador Indyk's position of power and influence, according to the Post, "the Institute's budget rose quickly to more than $1 million [ten times its former funding level] and it employs ten full-time staffers. It became the center of the debate on the Middle East, crowding out more traditional think tanks.

    "Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, former secretaries of state George Shultz and Alexander Haig, former U.N. ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick [and other Washington glitterata] joined its advisory board.

    "Khalil Jahshan, head of the National Association of Arab Americans said, 'It is the most dramatic success story in lobbying and influencing decision-making I've seen in this town in the 20 years I've been here.'" (ibid.)

OF MONEY AND HYPOCRISY

    In an article published by the Jewish Committee on the Middle East it was stated that, "Never in history has there been such an Israeli-captured President in the White House as Bill Clinton. The Israeli/Jewish lobby set out to defeat George Bush, quite literally infiltrated the Clinton headquarters in Little Rock with its people, pushed huge amounts of 'soft money' at both Clinton and the Democratic Party, and, sure enough, their man Bill has done everything they ever dreamed ever since." [1]

    "It's not inordinate Chinese money and influence in American politics the Congress should be investigating, it's how Israel manipulates American politics with the help of some key Americans (most of them Jewish), who are in fact, however distasteful it is to say it, 'dually loyal'". (ibid.)

    "One of the great historic ironies as far as I'm concerned," Mark Bruzonski stated in his Pacifica Radio interview, "is that the United States is saying to the Arab world--more than twenty countries in the Arab world--'You may not have even the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction--any of you. But we and our ally Israel, will send Patriot missiles to protect Israel's weapons of mass destruction.'"

    Aluf Ben "considered a spokesman for [then] Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres," published an article in the March 17, 1995 edition of the large circulation Tel Aviv daily newspaper Ha'aretz and was translated to English by Dr. Israel Shahak, retired professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and chairman of the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights. The article was reprinted in the Washington Report, June 1995.

    In that article, widely circulated in Israel, but understandably not in the United States, Aluf Ben declares that "Israeli relations with the Clinton administration are the best that Israel has ever had with any administration.... Political coordination on all possible issues between Jerusalem and Washington has reached its peak under Clinton: the U.S., as the patron of the peace process, is willing to accept Rabin's dictates...and presenting Israeli demands."

    According to Aluf Ben, President Clinton has met with Israel's prime ministers on more occasions than any other American chief of state.

    "Thus Israel had achieved a perfect relationship with the Clinton administration," Ben declares. "By contrast, relations with previous administrations, even those considered to be friendly to Israel, suffered from confrontations due to scandals and political disagreements, sometimes aggravated by leaks from middle-level U.S. officials who accused their superiors of sacrificing vital foreign relations interests for the Jewish vote and, even more, Jewish money. Israel was often required 'to give answers' to questions put to it by former administrations. All of that disappeared under Clinton except, perhaps, for the Pollard affair. Pollard is serving his 10th year in jail and Clinton seems unable to get him out."

    Jonathan Pollard, of course, is the American and former civilian U.S. Naval Intelligence officer who was tried and convicted of spying for Israel with some of the intelligence data ultimately being leaked by Israel to the Soviet Union. Israel afterward declared him an Israeli citizen and demanded his release.

    Addressing the matter of disputed Israeli arms sales to China and the publicized (as opposed to genuine) questions posed by the Clinton Administration in objection to them, Ben simply stated, "The Israeli answer to any question is automatically accepted by the U.S. officials concerned."

    Ben claims that an incredible "60 percent of all financial help to Democrats came from Jewish sources. This is why so many Jews," he claims, "hold key positions in the Clinton administration. It is for this reason that this is the first U.S. administration which boasts of its close alliance with Israel and grants Israel unprecedented amounts of aid."

    In the lucrative world of political finance, especially that of the American Democratic party, sixty percent of total capital financing is a contribution, not to mention leveraged power, of immense proportions.

    The Washington Report indicated that Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Itamar Rabinovich, in a 1995 meeting with Shamon Peres, said that "Israel should demand publicly that the U.S. declare that it will continue aid to Israel at the current level, $3 billion, due to the prestige that this gives Israel in its relations with other countries. The ambassador then made a very interesting statement further revealing the nature of U.S. aid to Israel. "A symbolic cutback," Rabinovich said, "would not sacrifice anything and, due to Israel being a rich country, even the current aid is really only a symbol.

    "The Israeli army is, in fact, eight times stronger--according to Jane's Military Review--than all the Arab armies combined," Mark Bruzonsky says, elaborating further on this shell game being played with American foreign aid. "So what you're really witnessing in the Middle East is American hegemony, American imperialism; America pretty much saying to the region, 'We rule here. We tell people what to do. We and our ally will decide the economic and the military policies of this region.'"

    Our seemingly carte blanche commitment to finance the Jewish state's war machinery knows no apparent limits--and--neither does this nation's willingness to protect Israel at any cost to America's political integrity.

Snakes

THE DARK SIDE

    U. S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of whose Jewish relatives, according to Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl of Temple Beth-El, San Antonio, Texas, died at Auschwitz and Terezin, was instrumental in suppressing information on the Israeli massacre of unarmed civilians in a Palestinian detention camp. "...While she was at the United Nations," Mark Bruzonski claims, "she was also the primary person who covered up the Israeli Qana massacre--the first time in Middle East history when civilians under U.N. protection were attacked and massacred; this was in April of 1996.

    "Literally, screaming and threatening--privately--at Boutros-Ghali [Albright said] he'd better not release the U.N. report which proved that Israel had done so purposefully, rather than by mistake, and threatening Boutros-Ghali that he wouldn't be supported by the United Nations to stay on for a second term [as Secretary General]." That threat, of course, became reality, even though Boutros-Ghali did not release the information publicly. He was effectively ousted by the United States from a second term.

    A further melding of Israeli/American foreign policy is witnessed in the reconfiguration of Israel's Knesset. In restructuring his government, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu, has moved outside the standard parliamentary system and, according to Time Magazine, "borrowed directly from the U.S. system to create two new agencies to advise him in the hope of siphoning off power from the ministries. Even the names are the same as in Washington: the National Security Council and the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)." Time, July 1, 1996.

    An even wider departure from the parliamentary form of government took place during Israel's election of Netenyahu in June of 1996 when Israeli citizens, for the first time, elected their prime minister by direct popular vote. Under the standard parliamentary system the party winning the elections to the Knesset would form a government and the party itself would elect the prime minister. Netenyahu, however, "is trying to break the old traditions, consolidate power in his own hands and become Israel's first American President-style Prime Minister." His popular-vote victory reversed parliamentary standards and the prime minister became the one to bring the party to power rather than the other way around"...and that," says Time, "gives Netanyahu semipresidential standing." (ibid.)

    If anyone has ever wondered at Netenyahu's immaculate and virtually accent-free command of American English, it is because he lived in the U.S. for over sixteen years "as a student, management consultant and diplomat. 'He lived and breathed American culture and politics,' says Zvi Rafiah, a former Israeli diplomat. 'From the point of view of governing style, he is an American.'" (ibid.)

    "If the style of the Netanyahu government has American undertones, so does its substance" Time goes on to say. "Israel's CEA will be headed by Jacob Frenkel, governor of the Bank of Israel. A disciple of free marketeer Milton Friedman, Frenkel is a graduate of the University of Chicago and taught economics there. His job is to help Netanyahu deliver Friedmanesque reforms to the still largely socialized Israeli economy: slashing spending, cutting taxes and breaking up monopolies. Netanyahu's Director of Policy Planning and Communications is David Bar-Illan, the outgoing executive editor of the Jerusalem Post. Bar-Illan, a dual U.S./Israeli national, spent nearly all his adulthood in the U.S. He is a contributor to Commentary, the journal of the American neoconservative movement."

    It should be noted that these men are not just U.S. or former U.S. nationals attempting to Americanize Israel. They are men who are well aware that the application of the Trojan horse is not just a point in history, but a political constant. To mix metaphors, they are like a virus that tricks its host cell into opening its membrane barrier that it may commandeer the cells reproductive machinery to replicate itself. They Americanize Israel to the end of commandeering the American legislative system to replicate the virus of the New World Order.

    "Netanyahu's connections to American conservatives are strong. He is friendly with Jack Kemp and columnists George Will and William Safire. Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Ronald Reagan, is 'like a spiritual mother' to Netanyahu, says an official at a leading American-Jewish organization.... ...A Republican leader in Congress was recently overheard saying of Netanyahu, 'He's one of us.' The Israelis have not only elected an American-style leader, it seems, they've also elected a Republican." (ibid.)

    It does not take an intellectual giant to observe that if there is any substantive appearance of diversity between American and Israeli foreign policy, it is just that--appearance. There seems to be, at times, a staged display of differences and apparent feuding over certain policy matters, but, upon closer scrutiny, it is like one boxing with his shadow where the shadow appears to submit and go down while the substance remains intact and unaffected.

A CASE OF INTERNATIONAL NEPOTISM

    Recently the Orlando Sentinel published what it called a "Pop Quiz on the Middle East"[2] in which Israel's "above-the-law" international status as an American protectorate is well portrayed:

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
    Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
    A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
    A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
    A: Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
    A: Israel.

Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
    A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
    A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country on planet earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
    A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
    A: Israel.

Q: What country is the United States threatening to bomb because "U.N. Security Council resolutions must be obeyed?"
    A: IRAQ.

    Israel is a nation that has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an act of omission for which other countries have been the recipient of extensive American reproach and calumny. Does Israel endure such--or any--diplomatic assault for its refusal? According to Aluf Ben, "The State Department has publicly supported Israel's nuclear policies and has expressed its understanding for Israel's argument that national security considerations prevent it from signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clinton," Aluf Ben confidently asserts, "will continue to support Israel's nuclear policy in its fullest extent."

Gold chest

NOW IT'S OPEN

    Mr. Ben makes a statement of no small portent when he declares that,"Understandings of this kind were previously discussed in secret, between presidents and prime ministers. Now they are open to all."

    The  Protocols very clearly describe the ominous condition that will immediately precede the culmination of the globalists' New World Order. In the face of Aluf Ben's comments about there being little need for continued secrecy, that time is imminent.

    From the first Protocol:

Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.

    David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of that organization in June of 1991, strongly alluded to the same principle that the covert nature of the NWO is nearing an end when he said, "We are grateful to The Washington PostThe New York TimesTime Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government." There is no longer a need for total secrecy. Observe that two of the three publications named by Rockefeller are quoted in this article. They are apparently "outing" themselves, to borrow a gay movement term.

    Aluf Ben goes even further by pointing out that the joint U.S./Israeli military exercises conducted every three years in southern Israel are no longer downplayed in the press but, "in contrast to the past," he says, "the Pentagon agreed to prior publicity."

    There is also no lack of support from the other side of the congressional isle. "The Republicans," Mr. Ben asserts, "are largely considered to be supporters of Israel," but in order to assure a broadening support, "Israeli propaganda efforts, therefore, are to be directed to the dozens of newly elected representatives who have not previously been educated in Zionism."

    Ambassador Martin Indyk, says the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), "now is one of more than a dozen American Jews in top State Department positions -- positions that were once off-limits to Jews."[3]

    The JTA which claims correspondents "in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and thirty other cities around the globe" lists some of those positions of political power. Among them are:

Other Jews currently serving in senior foreign policy posts, include:

    "In addition, Jewish career foreign-service officers and political appointees hold the post of current or immediate past ambassadors to Switzerland, Brazil, Nepal, Romania, Spain, Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Morocco and Malaysia.

    "But deeper than numbers," the JTA points out, "lies a historic shift taking place for Jews in the United States' diplomatic machine."

    The former ambassador to Yemen, William Rugh, was quoted as saying, "If any other group had taken over, there would have been a big storm, but with the Jewish-American takeover, nobody has the courage to speak." The JTA also quoted the Palestinian justice minister as accusing the United States of a "Zionist conspiracy" noting, as well as the preponderance of Jews positioned in top State Department stations, the fact that the National Security Council is run by Sandy Berger.

    "...The time has come," the news agency suggests, "when it doesn't matter whether the [U.S.] administration is Democratic or Republican, or what the degree of warmth is between Israel and the United States."

    In this world it has become the norm to label or "pigeonhole" everything into a neat, tidy container so that one may conveniently know by the label (ethnic group, political faction, etc.) as to whether to accept or reject it--regardless of the contents. This, of course, constitutes the deepest rooted form of prejudice--for that is, after all, what the word prejudice means--to "prejudge" a thing while remaining ignorant of the truth concerning it. Truth itself, however unpopular, is ultimately fluid and does not lend itself to our petty labeling. It is a simple and expedient method in today's "politically correct" world to cast nearly total discredit and reproach upon anything, in the minds of an unthinking populace, by merely stuffing it into one of our preconceived containers, i.e., anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, etc., ad infinitum. This is not a version of Orwell's "Newthink" it is, in reality, "Nothink". The creators and proponents of this cultural mindlessness have made it so pervasive that those "Founding Fathers"--remember them?--those whose minds some people claim to read when twisting the U.S. Constitution into an unrecognizable shape--those same Founding Fathers would be unable to utter their sublime truths in this confused world without becoming, themselves, targets of the self-serving box makers.

    In an attempt (however vain) to squelch such epithets in relation to the contents of this article, it should be noted that the majority of those quoted herein are Jewish scholars or diplomats--those willing to endure the assaults and defamation discharged against anyone of "theirs" willing to depart the established no-think to not only embrace the truth, but, become proponents of it.

    In the Pacifica Radio interview Mark Bruzonski was pitted against Martha Burke, editor of Feminist Faxnet and president of the Center for the Advancement of Public Policy, an organization with a heavily feminist agenda. After Mr. Bruzonsky's opening remarks about the near-total control of American foreign policy by the Israeli lobby, Ms. Burke, like the High Priest Caiaphas, unwittingly prophesying the real purpose for the death of Christ, responded sarcastically, "Well, it's interesting. Mark's views sound a lot like a 'vast Jewish conspiracy' not only controlling the Middle East, but our foreign policy in general, and probably the world in particular." Really? So myopic and tunnel-visioned has become the perspective of those like Ms. Burke, that she apparently overlooked the fact that Mr. Bruzonsky is a Jew and has headed and worked for several Jewish political organizations.

    As Paul Harvey once said, "Buckle your seat belts, America. The ride ahead is going to be interesting but bumpy." It's coming-out time for the globalsists who think they have succeeded in setting the world's agenda for the long term.

"For the first time in American history we no longer feel that we live in the diaspora. The U.S. has no longer a government of Goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels. Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term 'government of goyim' should be re-examined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S." --Rabbi of Adath Yisrael synagogue, Cleveland Park, Washington D.C., Aug. 1994.

    For those with a heart to hear, the following words from the pen of Jeremiah and King Solomon are strongly permeated with a note of unutterable anguish from the heart of a Father who must, at last, let those who would not choose to be His children, have their own way. For that is His "strange work" as the Scriptures put it--to merely let them go that they may engage in the ultimate act of self-destruction.

For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a basket full of birds, their houses are full of treachery; therefore they have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this? ...Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: they would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

(Jeremiah 5:26-29, RSV, Proverbs 1:24-31)

 

REFERENCES:

  1. "Time to Tell the Americans to Take a Hike", Jewish Committee On the Middle East (COME).
  2. The Orlando Sentinel, February 8, 1998.
  3. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency

FURTHER READING: (Please note: The following references are not endorsed by The WINDS as to content or accuracy)

Mid-East Realities is a website containing a very diverse source of scholarly analysis on the Middle East. It cannot be said that it is "anti-Jewish" because of the number of Jewish academics connected with it. It is, however, highly critical of Israeli/American foreign policy and quite supportive of the Palestinian cause.

"The Jews Who Run Clinton's Court" This article appeared in the Tel Aviv Hebrew language daily Ma'ariv on Sept. 2, 1994, by Avinoam Bar-Yosef. Translation by Dr. Israel Shahak.

Article by U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

Ha'aretz The daily Tel Aviv newspaper online. This link is provided that readers may have the opportunity of acquainting themselves with mainstream Israeli news reporting and perspectives.

 

Written 3/24/98

 


Go to top

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This site is in the public domain.