Likud on the loose in US Congress

The Word trade Center was first attacked in 1993 and the perpetrators explained their motives for the attack. Since then, there have been repeated statements by those who have attacked the US, and all indicated they attacked because of our one sided brutal policy favoring Israel, at the expense of Palestinians, and because of American occupations of their lands. Osama Bin Laden later echoed such statement in his many recorded messages. Repeatedly the same message from attackers has been voiced, but the US public is oblivious to such explanations as mainstream media refuses to discuss such issues. Indeed when Ron Paul merely restated the reasons the attackers themselves had given to the US pubic, Mr. Paul was either pilloried or ignored by media. The US public has never been allowed to participate in an intellectual discussion on the causes or motives for attacks against Americans. This is not tolerated. Why not?


Recently US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, in a speech to the Jewish People Policy Institute stated:
"The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel's future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government."


This strongly suggests that US policy is not driven by what is best for America, but what is best for Israel, which merits reflection.


Currently the US is using all its political capital, in an effort to prevent Palestinians from seeking statehood in the UN, an incomprehensible idea in light of our own history of struggle for independence. Hillary Clinton has spent countless hours trying to dissuade nations from supporting the independence of Palestine, while members of Congress have been threatening all kinds of punitive measures against Palestinians if they seek independence, while the rest of the world pretty much supports the idea of independence for struggling people and will support statehood for Palestine. In its position against freedom and independence for Palestine, the US and Israel stand pretty much alone once again against the world. If Palestinians introduce their measure for freedom in the UN Security Council, the US has made it clear they will veto any such resolution, but in the UN General Assembly where all nations have a vote, the US cannot, despite its cajoling, prevent the vote for freedom. Is this policy reflective of the US public, does it benefit the US public in any way, or as Daniel Shapiro suggested, it is being done simply to placate Israel, while making enemies for the US around the world? Long standing ally Saudi Arabia has flatly stated a US veto will change the relationship between the two nations. The Saudis have said they might refuse to recognize the US backed puppet government in Iraq, as a result of the US veto of freedom for Palestinians. So if the US vetoes a state, we lose an ally and expose ourselves to ridicule as a “phony champion of democracy”. How does that help the American public?

Recently the China said: "If the US chooses to fly in the face of world opinion and block the Palestine UN bid next week, not only will Israel become more isolated but tensions in the region will be heightened even more." "The majority of the international community deems an independent state as the inalienable right of the Palestinians." Rather peculiar to hear the Chinese talking about the inalienable right to freedom while the US is trying desperately to stifle the inalienable right of Palestinians. Wonder what Thomas Jefferson is thinking about now? It appears we have sacrificed our core beliefs to appease a powerful foreign lobby.


Turkey, the only true democracy in the Middle East, a rising economic superpower of the world, and a long standing formidable ally of the US, has already been targeted by members of Congress for its disagreement with Israel over Israel’s killing of Turkish citizens on board the humanitarian ship the Mavi Marmara. Turkey has chosen to defend its dead citizens by demanding a public apology from Israel, which they have refused to do, while the US chose silence when a US citizen was killed in the Israeli assault on a humanitarian ship. Immediately the temper has changed in the US Congress, and letters are circulating in Congress telling President Obama to move away from Turkey because of its disagreement with Israel. How does this benefit the US public?? It does not of course, so who are the Congress people representing?


Currently in the Congress is another letter which so far has thirty signatures, calling for Israel to annex Palestinian territory. How does that help the US pubic? Imagine in midst of the Arab Spring uprisings for democracy, 30 US members of Congress calling for an illegal annexation of Palestinian lands. This may in some silly way help Israel, but it is in, the long term, disastrous for the US and its citizens. Who are the 30 members representing? Not the US public or their own constituents. Have they no shame?


Apparently not, for during this past summer, while Americans suffered through a recession, 81 members of the US Congress took and all expense paid trip to Israel, which many legal scholars insist is illegal. Some of the very same folks were critical of Obama for taking a vacation during the economic crises, but at least he remained on US soil.


Why no discussion of matters such as endangering the lives of US citizens in an effort to do what is best for the citizens of another nation? Discussion of Israeli policies or US policy towards Israel and the Middle East is taboo, and not allowed in this country. Very recently an exhibit of drawings by the children of Gaza was sabotaged by the powerful Israeli voice in this country. After agreeing to have the exhibit, political pressure came to bear and the museum was forced to rescind its decision and cancel the children’s art exhibit. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two of America’s great thinkers and academics, authored a book on the power of the Israeli lobby in the US. No publisher in the US would dare print the book, and the two academics had to travel to London to get their book published. Both have been labeled anti-Semitic because of their writings, a favorite tactic employed to silence criticism. However Mearsheimer and Walt are in great company, for former President Jimmy Carter has been labeled anti-Semitic for his book on the power of the Israeli lobby. Those accused of anti-Semitism for their thinking or wrtting may wear a red badge of courage and be placed in a pretty elite group of people. Desmond Tutu is in this group, as he too was smeared, along with Oliver Stone, Helen Thomas, Billy Graham, the LA Times, Congressman Jim Moran, England has been labeled anti-Semitic, J-Street has been accused of being anti-Semitic, the Spanish foreign Minister has been accused of anti-Semitism, Norman Finklestein and our President Barack Obama, has also been placed in this cast of characters. Certainly the label has had a chilling effect on free thought and discussion.


Censorship runs amuck when it comes to discussion of the Israeli question. My Name is Rachel Corrie, a play about a young American international aid worker who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, (Caterpillar under fire for such things) while defending Palestinian property, was not tolerated and cancelled in New York because of strong those resistance by those loyal to Israel. College professors have been attacked, along with anyone who dares openly discuss the question of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.


Meanwhile Congress has returned from their all expense paid junkets to Israel and is now attempting to deal with the economic crises by attacking and cutting such things as aid to education, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment. Indeed many have flatly stated everything is on the table; however ask any one of those who insist that everything is on the table, and see if they are willing to address cutting the enormous amount of foreign aid to Israel. That subject folks, is not on the table! Aid to Israel is not being cut. As a matter of fact, the US, the biggest debtor nation in the history of the planet, agrees to give Israel aid we do not have, so the US government borrows the money, gives it to Israel in one lump sum, and Israel promptly invests the lump sum to generate a profit on the aid we give them. So we borrow the money and pay interest on the loan, give the money to Israel, who then invests it and shows profit, then turn around and cut programs for needy Americans. Does that make any sense to anyone except the Israelis? Who does Congress really represent anyway? Should the Congress endanger more American lives with one sided policy to please a foreign government? What do you think, for it’s your life being endangered?