America’s Jews Are Driving U.S. Wars — Philip
Giraldi
America’s Jews Are Driving U.S. Wars — Philip
Giraldi
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi explains that for
the last 16 years the United States has been manipulated into fighting wars for
Israel. Giraldi explains the tremendous power that Zionists have over
Washington’s foreign policy and American public opinion.
America's Jews Are Driving U.S. Wars
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
By Philip Giraldi
UPDATE: September 25, 2017 - On the morning of September
21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American
Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years.
He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” was unacceptable.
The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the
magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose
War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the
Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and
denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly
attacking Giraldi.
September 19, 2017 "Information Clearing House"
- I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where
afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone
ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has
mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all
their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for
Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away
with it?”
It was a question
combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is
always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy
knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a
quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not
only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment
industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party
ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual
loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is
pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.
Most recently, some
pundits, including myself, have been warning of
an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from
many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first
in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed
with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what
makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon
themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not
conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at
faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most
Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that
Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military,
and the sooner the better.
And while they are doing
it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out
of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A
recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending
war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might
be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned
from Iraq. The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill
Kristol and Bret Stephens.
Daniel Larison over
at The American Conservative has a
good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran
Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above cited hawks by
name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign
policy thinking. If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue
in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single
one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have
argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There
is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”
And I would add a few
more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum;
John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council
on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute;
Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan,
Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you
can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
(WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of
them would self-describe as neo-conservatives. And I might add that only one of
the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military –
David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely
constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the
heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.
So it is safe to say that
much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from
American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re
Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac
with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has
pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran
does not have the resources to carry out such a task. The AIPAC lies are then
picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who
speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for
newspaper stories is Jewish.
One might also add that
neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their
universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence
when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan
Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior
positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a
moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes, all Jewish and all
conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and
effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course.
Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted
that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.
Add to the folly a Jewish
U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli
settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a
Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone
providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for
Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.
There are a couple of
simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy
issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family
ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving
the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry
instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was
not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of
a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed
to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was
violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the
post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be
naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.
Those American Jews who
are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy
making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any
integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if
he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American
should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options
regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the
United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position
to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the
policy generation to those who have no personal baggage.
For those American Jews
who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at
the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is
“Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be
kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as
“ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol
at your own peril.”
As none of the above is
likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired
of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that
is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is
happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being
diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too
bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and
powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.
Phil Giraldi is a former
CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas
in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with
honors from the University of Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from
the University of London.
More from Guest
Contributions ↓
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.