Saturday, November 25, 2006

Blankfort interview

Bleier’s Blog, an excellent blog,  reprints an interview with Jeffrey Blankfort conducted by San Francisco Indymedia (original hereherehere, herehereherehere, here and here).  Blankfort is one of those rare people who is right about everything (it is refreshing to read someone who is right about everything, when all we are normally allowed to read, from both the mainstream media and the traditional ‘progressive’ media, are people who are wrong about everything).  Some quotes:

“The American labor movement is part and parcel of the Israel Lobby. Seventeen hundred unions own over five billion dollars worth of Israel Bonds. That obliges them to support Israel to make sure the investment of their members' dues, made without their members' knowledge, is secure.

Twenty three states have also invested in Israel Bonds as well. This is taking taxpayers' money and investing in the economy of a country that is dependent economically and politically on the United States. This makes all these people lobbyists for Israel. Very clever on their part.”

and, on philanthropy and the myth that Jews are progressive:

“The other reason is money. Jews, historically, are known for their philanthropy.

SF-IMC: Philanthropy is good.

Jeffrey Blankfort: Some is good. A lot of it is good. Historically, they have funded the Left. This even before Israel. They were the major funders of the Civil Rights Movement. They were the funders of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam War. If people were arrested, and they needed bail, progressive Jews provided the bail, and the lawyers were mostly Jewish.

So what happens is you have all these pressures, and there's no countervailing pressure from the Palestinian community or the Arab American community or the Muslim community. There is no similar history of political struggle in those communities here. Going back into the thirties, you have Jews active in the unions, active in every radical movement. That's the tradition I grew up in. It no longer exists. As a matter of fact, it's been erased from Jewish history. Young Jews growing up in America today have no idea of the Jewish radical past in this country. That was the Jewish radical past I connected with. Since it no longer exists, I have no connection to the Jewish community. It's as simple as that. There is no radical Jewish community. There are some radical Jews, individuals that are anti-Zionist, but the community as a grouping, there isn't any. And this is a critical situation.”


“I can't say it's a fact, but my belief that most Jews are anti-Arab at some level or another and protective of Jews at the same time, that they have been saddled with the baggage of anti-Semitism. They believe that for two thousand years, Jews have suffered, a tale that has been vastly exaggerated. Before the Holocaust, on a world scale, it wouldn't even appear. The people of the Congo have suffered more than the Jews have suffered, including the Holocaust. They're still suffering. Nobody here speaks about the Congo.”

and (my emphasis in red):

“. . . poor old US imperialism, it's bad enough as it is, but there are some things that it's not responsible for. And the influence of the Israel Lobby, of the Jewish Lobby in the Middle East is manifest. It's also manifest in that there is no debate in Congress on military spending. There's no debate.

Now why is there no debate? Why do the Democrats not object to it? Because the Democrats are a subsidiary of the Israel Lobby. They get most of their money from it. As has been published in many newspapers and magazines, at least sixty percent of the major large funding of the Democratic Party comes from wealthy American Jews. And they don't do this as an altruistic gesture. Politicians are given money to do someone else's bidding. And so the Democratic Party does not fight arms spending. They're as much for it as are the Republicans. And this, I believe, and I make the argument, this is part of the influence of the Israel Lobby.

Now the Christian Zionists are an important part of the Lobby. But this was happening before there were Christians Zionists. There are certain people, who happen to be Jewish, on the Left, who love the presence of the Christian Zionists, because now they can talk about the Christian Zionists as being more important than the Jewish Zionists, which is nonsense because they're important in the states where there aren't many Jews, and they do contribute some money, but they're not lobbyists in the same sense.”

and (extremely important;  Begin gave Falwell a Lear jet as a gift, a jet which allowed Falwell to begin wholesale fundraising efforts which were the beginnings of Christian Zionist power, so it is fair to say that the Israeli right established Christian Zionism):

“The Israel Lobby was indomitable before the Christian Zionists were brought in. They were brought in, by the way, by Menachem Begin, who, when he got elected in '78, invited Jerry Falwell to Israel. This was also the time when they started talking about Israel as a strategic asset of the United States because before that, the US/Israel relationship was never questioned because the people who ran Israel, the Labor Party, were basically Democrats, and when Begin was elected, it created a real problem for American Jews because he had been identified as a fascist by people like Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and so on. So they had to find a rationalization for continued support of Israel. And as General Matty Peled, an Israeli general who was a friend of mine, said, this is when they introduced the idea of Israel being an asset, because they had to find a justification for Israel still getting the support from the United States.”

and (on the recruiting methods of AIPAC, and the use of blackmail):

“Money is very important, but it's the way they approach politicians. AIPAC, for example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the only foreign lobby that isn't required to register as a foreign agent. They hold regional meetings around the country, at which they invite supervisors, mayors, city council people, public officials from the area, to come to these luncheons and dinners, where the speaker will be a US Senator or some very important government official, who will come into town, unknown to the media, with no notice to the media. He or she will make no other speeches, give no press conferences, and will leave. It will be reported in the local Jewish paper, but it will not be reported in the state where the person lives, except perhaps in the Jewish press there. And there's no interest in the media in following up why, for example, Senator Christopher Dodd, when he comes to San Francisco, or Mario Cuomo when he speaks out in Danville, why does he not have a press conference and talk to the media here.

In any case, they go to this meeting, and they, these Congress people . . I'm speaking from knowledge here because I joined AIPAC and I went to one of these luncheons . . .

SF-IMC: (laughs) Good for you.
Jeffrey Blankfort: . . . and I saw what was going on there. And I said, my god, this is brilliant!! They have all the leading political figures from Northern California at the meeting, from whose ranks will come the next member of Congress, no doubt.

What happens after AIPAC leaves, then the Jewish Federation, or some local Jewish organization, maybe it's the Koret Foundation, will then send local supervisors, city council members, mayors, and so on, on all expense paid trips to Israel. They meet the Prime Minister, whoever it is, the Defense Minister, and so on, of both political parties, they take a trip to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum, to Massada, where Jews supposedly committed suicide in Roman times, to the West Bank, where they may meet a House Arab, and they come back here knowing that they have good friends, important friends, in the Jewish community.

These people who go into politics, all of them are ambitious. So they know that if they want to run for office, it's not just a matter of money. It's a matter of personal acquaintances. And there are certain instances where I believe people are promoted to run for office by the Lobby, and so in a sense they become the Lobby's employee from the get-go. Take Sen. Daniel Inouye, the one armed bandit from Hawaii. His first job was selling State of Israel Bonds. He doesn't list that in his official biography, but the Jewish press has written about that. And he has been one of the foremost supporters of Israel. Tom Daschle from North Dakota is another. They seem to have been promoted into running for office.

You also have something else called blackmail, which the Left never considers as a reason for somebody doing something. But the Anti-Defamation League is a major spying organization, the largest private spying organization in the country.”


“There are many people who think that in Britain, Tony Blair is being blackmailed to support the United States. There is no good reason for the British to support the United States. Materially, they gain nothing. Their corporations have made nothing from the war. And given the British public school education, photographs could have been taken . . . there's a very good likelihood that Blair might be being blackmailed. People try to find all kind of reasons for people's actions and there may be no other political reasons than self survival.”


“The head of the Democratic Party Senate campaign, the one who determines where the money is going to go, is Charles Schumer, an open, leading, Jewish Zionist from New York. For the House, it's Rahm Emmanuel, who, when he was working for Bill Clinton as a high level staff member, took time off during the first Intifada to do volunteer work in Israel for the Israeli Defense Force. His family is Israeli. He says he's not. In any case, here you have two Jewish Zionists, one running the Democrats' House campaigns and one running the Senate campaigns, determining who is going to get the money in the 2006 election. It's flagrant. And yet you can't discuss this on the Left, because they'll say that sounds like anti-Semitism, or say that, ‘it's not important that they're Jewish,’ like it's not important that the Pope's Catholic. This is what we're dealing with.”

and (on Chomsky, who is now such an ingrained part of the Establishment that his own criticisms apply to himself; you’ll remember that in Rip van Chomsky’s famous article on the Lobby, his citations attempting to back up his cover-up of Lobby power are from the 50’s and 60’s):

“He is the most widely quoted person in the universe that's still alive. He makes statements that he does not have to back up with fact. He makes statements in a way that it sounds like he's talking about the day of the week. And who's going to argue with that? If he says that it's Tuesday and it's Tuesday, you say, well, of course, it's Tuesday. But much of what he says cannot be backed up in fact, and the examples that he uses, some of them are so ancient that if he was submitting a paper to a professor, the paper would be returned for more up to date, more substantial references.”

and, a reference to the Chomsky ploy of making us all helpless in the face of the Establishment (my emphasis in red):

“Now one of the criticisms I made of him, and made also by Israel Shahak, the late Israeli Holocaust survivor, and extreme critic of Israel, Zionism, Judaism, and the PLO, is that Chomsky focuses too much on the Executive while negating the role that Congress plays, which is what we have to deal with on a local level. If it's only the executive elite, and these elites are doing something in Washington, we, in California, are outside of Washington and essentially helpless. I wrote back in '91, in an exchange I had with Chomsky in the old National Guardian, that Chomsky makes us spectators when history demands we be participants.”


“And what's happened with Chomsky is that he has become gospel. What happens if you criticize Chomsky, is that people's eyes glaze over. People have taken to channeling him. They quote him without even referring to him, they have so internalized his positions. And that you go on various web sites, Marxists web sites, Trotskyist web sites, their line on the Israel Lobby is Chomsky's line, that the Lobby is only powerful, only appears to be powerful when it's lined up with American foreign policy, or when there's some dispute among the elite.”

and (essential truths which Chomsky/Zunes are trying to hide from Americans; my emphasis in red):

“SF-IMC: Like what? What is going to wake up the grassroots, progressive Left?

Jeffrey Blankfort: I don't know. The war in Iraq was clearly a war for Israel. The oil companies want stability. They're going to make money. They look at the long run. High prices, low prices, they're going to make money. They control the market. Saddam Hussein would play ball with them. Why the United States would not play ball with him is because the Neo-Cons, which is part of the Lobby, didn't want that. It's interesting. Without the Lobby, and without the orchestrated incubator story, we might not have had an intervention in Kuwait because at the time the Senate was split down the middle, and when the incubator story came out, even Amnesty International believed it. People said, oh these horrible Iraqis, and then there was no debate anymore.

So we had that first Gulf War, not initiated, but supported by the Lobby. It's interesting that a number of Jewish organizations did not support it. But the key Lobbyists did because they were over in Israel and the Israelis told them, support it. And so they supported it. But they were very upset because they expected a regime change and George Bush Sr. disappointed them.

George Bush Sr., unlike what Chomsky has written, and Chomsky is totally and completely wrong on this, was anti-Israel from the get-go. When the Israelis hit Iraq's Osirak reactor, Bush was Vice President. He wanted sanctions against them. He was voted down by Reagan and Secretary of State Haig. When Israel invaded Lebanon. Bush wanted sanctions against it, as well. This is according to Moshe Arens, the Israeli Foreign Minister, writing in a book about this. When Israel had its pilots sitting in the planes, waiting for the co-ordinates to go attack Iraq in '91, after some Scuds had landed in Israel, Bush wouldn't give them to them. They hate this guy.

And then when Shamir sent over as an emissary, to ask for ten billion dollars in loan guarantees, Bush said no He said, what we'll do, we'll wait 120 days, but first I want certain agreements. Stop settlement building and agree to settle no Russians in the settlements that are there, and wait 120 days and see what happens. And Shamir went to Congress, and Daniel Inouye, who I mentioned before, said to Moshe Arens, ‘Where's my yamulka? This is war.’ This is an American, US Senator from Hawaii, speaking.

When 240 senators and congressmen wrote a letter to Bush, telling him to pass the loan guarantees for Israel, at a time when America's economic situation was terrible, Bush realized that if he vetoed the legislation, he'd be overridden. So what did he do? When a thousand Jewish lobbyists were on Capitol Hill, Bush went on national television, and he said there are a thousand lobbyists up here ‘against little old me. But I have to do the right thing.’ And he says, US boys are over in Iraq protecting Israel and every Israeli man, woman and child gets so much money from the American taxpayer. No one's ever done that before. What were the polls the next day? Eighty-five percent of the people supported Bush. A month-and-a-half, two months later, only 44% of the American public supported aid to Israel, while 70% supported aid to the former Soviet Union, and 75% to Poland.

Now these figures are totally erased from Left history thanks to Mr. Chomsky, who does not refer to them in all of his writing. He did refer to that press conference, right afterward, and he said, ‘It took slightly more than a raised eyebrow for the Lobby to collapse.’ Now a presidential press conference attacking the Israel Lobby is a little bit more than a raised eyebrow.

In fact, the Lobby had to retreat, because they realized the American public was not going to go for it. Senator Barbara McCloskey, a good liberal Democrat, was speaking to a group of Jewish lobbyists, when she's handed a piece of paper, and according to the Washington Jewish Week, her face ‘went ashen.’

She said, ‘I've just been informed that the President is taking the issue of the loan guarantees to the American people. The American people!?! The last people that the Lobby wants to have concerned with anything about Israel. If you want to put it on the basis of nationalism, we're talking about a nest of traitors. We're talking about a fifth column in the classic sense. You have Israel . . . it's Israel first. These people care nothing about the United States, or they do secondarily to Israel's interest or what they perceive as Israel's interests . . . there's a lot of Israelis who don't agree with that . . . but they are looking for a powerful Israel because its power gives them power as well.

Should there be a solution, any kind of agreement between Israel and Palestine, in which Israel could not be described as being threatened, the Democratic Party would disappear because they have so based their fundraising on money from wealthy Jews that it's like a Rube Goldberg designed contraption. Jews give them money because Israel is threatened, and they get power back from Israel's position, but if Israel is just another country in the Middle East, these Jews have no power. It's as simple as that. The Democratic Party would have no money.”

and (perhaps a little too hard on Arafat; my emphasis in red):

“ . . . Yasser Arafat was left alive because he was the only one who could deliver the people into the hands of Israel. Oslo was a betrayal of the highest order, and when Israel was negotiating with the Palestinians in Oslo, Arafat would not let any Palestinian lawyer go there because the Palestinians lawyers would have seen that this was a violation of international law, in which the leader of an occupied people is not allowed to give away territory to the occupying power, which is what happened in Oslo.

Also, technically, Israel, which is the occupying power, is responsible for the well being of the occupied population. What Oslo did, since it did not require Israel withdrawing from the occupied territory, would shift the responsibility, the economic responsibility, from Israel, onto Europe, the United Nations and so on, and this is what we have today. So this is aid to Israel in another form. If they are going to be there and be the occupier, they're supposed to pay.

So we have this phony "Palestine Authority," which is a joke. The whole thing was wrong. It's interesting. One of the people who negotiated for Israel was the former intelligence chief of Israel, named Shlomo Gazit A few months after Oslo he came to a synagogue in San Francisco, and I went to hear him speak. He's a very bright guy and he's speaking very calmly. During the question period, this crazy guy comes running down the aisle, screaming in a German accent . . . this was a German Jew . . . screaming, "Munich! Munich! It's another Munich!"

And Gazit said, ‘You know, my friend, I don't like to make this comparison, but if it's Munich, we're the Germans, and the Palestinians are the Czechs.’”

and (Blankfort is right that there will not be an attack on Iran; my emphasis in red; I don’t think all the neocons were fooled by the Israelis, as guys like Wurmser and Feith are Israelis):

“I have been saying for two years that there would be no attack. On the other hand, you have some people who are really insane in Washington. There are people in the Pentagon who know it's insane. You have those in the intelligence community who know it's insane. You have the old line establishment that sees capitalism being threatened by Bush as it never was by Russia. They're really concerned.

There was an ad in November, 2005, which many people didn't pay attention to, but I did. It showed a picture of a man blindfolded, and it said, ‘Torture is not an American value.’ And I said, ‘Whoa, this is the ACLU.’ But it wasn't. It was signed by all these former ambassadors, Madeline Albright, Thomas Pickering, Warren Rudmon, a whole bunch of former killers, former officials of the American government. For me, this was a message from the real establishment, the old line establishment, that these usurpers here were threatening America, the safeguarding of American capitalism and imperial interests. And that is what I think has happened.

The notion that the US was going to go in with Bush Jr. and the Neo-Cons and take over Iraqi oil, shows a total ignorance of how the industry functions, and the way oil is shipped. Oil needs peace in the region where it is produced. We have oil pipelines. I saw the oil pipeline that the PFLP broke back in 1970 in Jordan with a bulldozer. I saw a pool of oil in the desert there. You can't protect an oil line if people want to break that oil line. There's no question about it. And the people who think of it as a ‘war for oil,’ they don't answer the question of why was daddy Bush who is much closer to the oil companies and the Carlyle Group against it? And Carlyle Group dwarfs Halliburton.

Why was Frank Carlucci, of the Carlyle Group against the war, as well as Jim Baker, much closer to the oil companies than anybody in the administration, Brent Snowcroft, why were they against the war? First of all, they knew it would be a quagmire, and, second of all, they knew the Shia would come to power, and they didn't want that to happen.

So the Neo-Cons, I think, were conned by the Israelis. Whatever you say about these Israeli military people, they're tough. And they look at these Neo-Cons coming over and talking tough, and they have total contempt for them, in my opinion. My experience with Israelis across the board is that they have total contempt for American Jews, for a variety of reasons and all of them correct. You have Zionists there who talk about the ‘checkbook Zionists,’ here, and when you have Wolfowitz and Perle talking tough to Israelis who have been actually in the field, whatever they've done in the field, they look at these American Jews and they say, ‘What a bunch of punks!’ And so they sold them, I think, on the ‘cakewalk.’ Israel wanted Iraq dismembered. This is an old Israeli plan. They wanted Iraq broken into three confessional states. I really don't think this is a Neo-Con plan. It may have been for some of them, I don't know, but I thought the Neo-Cons saw themselves as gaining power through American ascendancy. They would have an Iraqi Mubarak in there. They did not want to have elections there. It's become much more complicated. These people really didn't know about the region. They didn't know the history of the region.”

and (my emphasis in red):

“The architects of it were Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby. There were some other Neo-Cons involved. You have PNAC calling for the overthrow of Saddam. You have these think tanks, all of them are Jewish-dominated. Brookings Institute was not, but then they had Haim Saban, an Egyptian born Israeli who gave 12.3 million to the Democratic Party in 2002, funding the Saban Center at the Brookings Inst., which was the last remaining think tank not under Zionist control. They had some good people there like William Quandt who actually looked at things from a realistic perspective, but now that's over. What is interesting that in 2002, the arms PACs, the weapons PACs, gave to both political parties about 14 million dollars, and Saban gave to the Democratic party almost as much as the arms PACs combined.

Now you have someone like Stephen Zunes, who keeps telling a lie, that the aeronautics industry gives more money to the political parties and the politicians than the Israel Lobby. He's just counting the Political Action Committees, which is a minor part, actually now. Most of that money that goes to the political parties comes from individual American Jews. And as I've said, ‘Mother Jones’ in 1996 and in 2000, put out something called the "Mother Jones 400," the top four hundred donors to both political parties. So I started looking at the 2000 political parties and found that seven out of the top ten donors to both parties are Jewish, twelve out of the top twenty, and a hundred and twenty five out of the top two hundred and fifty. And then I figure the rest is going to be like that, anyhow.

So anyone who tries to say that any group or lobby contributes more money to American political parties than do Jews is simply not telling the truth. People say, well, that's not necessarily Zionists, but according to Senator Bernie Metzenbaum, speaking some years ago to a Jewish organization, he said, ‘As far as Congress is concerned, there is only one issue for American Jews, and that's Israel’. And at that conference they proved it because by the time they finished talking about Israel, there was no time left to talk about anything left on the agenda.

Israel is the glue that holds the organized Jewish community together. They disagree on abortion, on all kinds of things, gay rights, but when it comes to Israel, they are in lock step, and this is . . . they have basically taken over the American political system.


“Since 1967, since June 8th, when Israel attacked the US intelligence ship the Liberty, and killed 34 sailors and wounded 171, and they got away with it, Israel knows that they can do anything to America and Americans and pay no price. And since the left has never brought up the issue of the Liberty, and has not brought up the issue of the Lobby, the Left is . . . I talked to Leni Brenner one day. We couldn't decide whether the Left is the rearguard or the front line of the Israel Lobby. It's one of the two.”

and (the scary part; my emphasis in red):

“SF-IMC: They have a nuclear gun pointed at the head of the world economy.

Jeffrey Blankfort: They have nuclear weapons, and they have what they call a ‘Masada Complex.’ As my sister's late brother-in-law. who took pride in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, said to my sister, and other Israelis have said the same thing, ‘We won't go by ourselves next time.’

It's what's called the ‘Samson Option,’ is what Seymour Hersch described it, and it is a mentality. This is what separates Zionism from any other ideology. It's an ideology of supremacy and of total disregard for the rest of the human species. Now there are other reactionary ideologies in the past. With Zionism . . . is one that is well thought out, over many years, by people who were not directly oppressed. Chaim Weizmann, Theodor Herzi were not directly oppressed. They were well to do. They could move around in international circles. The Palestinians were in their way. And they lied about their . . . they said one thing to the British privately, they said one thing publicly and one thing privately.

Chomsky still believes that Ben Gurion was serious about his statements that they don't want to play the role to the Arabs like the Poles played to them. They didn't want the Arabs to be the Jews, and that they did not want the Jewish state. Now despite the fact that Nahum Goldman, the former head of the World Zionist Congress, who was there at these meetings, said ‘this is merely for tactics. They want a Jewish state’, and Goldman later told Jimmy Carter he had to break the back of the Jewish Lobby.”

and, heavy duty stuff on fake-left publications like Mother Jones – remember the mysterious attack on Rachel Corrie? – and the education of Michael Moore, which explains all the silly emphasis on the Saudis in his movie:

“SF-IMC: It's not just Chomsky. Did you see Michael Moore's ‘Fahrenheit 91’? Did you hear the word ‘Israel’ mentioned in there?

Jeffrey Blankfort: Michael Moore learned his lesson. Michael Moore, when he was much more svelte, when I first heard about him, he became editor of ‘Mother Jones,’ and he announced in advance that he was going to run a picture of a Palestinian fedayeen on the cover. Adam Hochshield the publisher of ‘Mother Jones’ who was a Zionist, realized that this would be terrible . . .

SF-IMC: [laughs] Boy howdy.

Jeffrey Blankfort: . . . and Moore was naive, and so he fired Moore, without really giving him much of a chance as the editor, long before he could do that. And when ‘Mother Jones’ in 1984, when the Democratic party was having its convention in San Francisco, put out a special issue, timed to coincide with the convention, and there was a two page ad in it that I found just the other day, which showed a picture of Yassir Arafat and Hafez al-Assad in which it said that American foreign policy is really appreciated by these two guys.

The Republicans were in office in 1984 with Reagan. And it is an ad signed by five important Jews, saying that American foreign policy makes these guys happy. Now I had seen this ad before in a Jewish publication. That ‘Mother Jones’ was publishing this ad was outrageous. And so I wrote a letter saying the real Mother Jones would turn over in her grave, which they didn't publish. But I happened to know one of the editors at ‘Mother Jones’ and I ran into him, and he admitted that they had solicited the ad in order to show the Democrats at the convention what their politics was. And then, of course, this is the Left!?! And then when the ISM started, they ran a hit piece on the ISM, the International Solidarity Movement. And I had mentioned that ‘Lies of Our Times’ went out of business because, I believe, because when Ed Herman had me writing articles about aid to Israel and the Lobby and no other Left publication was writing articles like this, they lost their Jewish subscriber base. And since Jews contribute so much to the Left, it keeps, you know, newspapers like ‘In These Times’ which predictably attacked the Mearsheimer Walt paper . . . it keeps these magazines staying in business, they know better than to touch that third rail.”


and (again, deeply important, particularly in the light of all the lies told by the ‘progressive’ Zionist establishment; my emphasis in red):

“. . . advised President Ford to withhold aid from Israel until it disengaged, and Ford not only did that, he announced that he was going to make a major speech, calling on Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, and there was going to be a reassessment, a major reassessment, of US/Israel relations. What happened? Within three weeks, AIPAC got 76 senators to sign a letter, a very strong letter to Ford, with people like George McGovern on the left and Teddy Kennedy and all the way to the right, on this issue. The fascist and the liberals lock arms, kind of threatening Ford not to change the US/Israeli policy. Ford backed off and never made the speech. And, of course, he was dead meat as far as the election went when Carter ran, the first Carter election. Now in 1976 . . . this really scared the Zionist Lobby. And it's well documented in several books.

Chomsky never mentions this because his position is that every American president supported Israel's occupation and the US is a rejectionist leader. So Nixon, who had the Rogers plan, wanted to get Israel out of the Occupied Territories. Chomsky frames his rejecting a Palestinian state, where it's apples and oranges. Nixon wanted Israel out of the Occupied Territories and a return to the status quo, without a Palestinian state. But they did not support Israeli occupation. Ford didn't either. Along came Carter, the most unpopular president the Jews have ever had, in which he forced Camp David on Israel. They did not want to give up the Sinai and that got him the hatred of the Lobby. He really pushed, as did Kissinger. They pushed this thing. Then, when Israel invaded Lebanon in '78, perhaps hoping that Egypt would do something, and they could break Camp David . . .

SF-IMC: '78?

Jeffrey Blankfort: In '78 Israel invaded Lebanon the first time and Israel set up a Potemkin village in Lebanon.

SF-IMC: In Haddadland?

Jeffrey Blankfort: It was in that area, yeah. An Israeli friend of mine, he was a soldier, talked about this. So after three months, Carter told Begin, ‘Withdraw, or face the loss of aid.’ And Israel withdrew. And then Carter talked about a Geneva peace conference to settle everything, including the Palestinian question, involving Russia. ‘My God! How much more can they do to betray us?’ said the Jewish leaders?

It was then that Donald McHenry, the UN ambassador made a mistake at the UN, and voted for a resolution censuring Israel, the only time this happened. He had to resign, and apologized, ‘It was a mistake.’ And so Carter ended up getting 48% of the Jewish vote in 1980 when Reagan won. So all this is eliminated from history by Chomsky, and the people on the Left who talk about it, but it's mostly Chomsky because if you read Chomsky, you're supposed to know everything that went on. But all these situations contradict Chomsky's theory. They wipe it out completely. It's not even an argument of interpretation. It's a recognition of fact. So you got Nixon, Ford, Carter, and then George Bush the First. And then it's interesting. The day after Bush made his press conference, the head of the AIPAC said . . . September 12th, actually it was September 12, 1991. September 12th will be a day that will live in infamy. From that time on, the Israeli Lobby, beginning with columnists in the papers like George Will, William Safire, started talking about the economy, and suddenly the economy became the issue, and Bush's failure to save the economy became the major target. He was dead meat.

By the time Shamir lost, Rabin was elected in Israel, Bush finally gave in, as the election was coming up. It was too late. That's was Moshe Aren's opinion.

Now . . we have George Will and Bill Safire . . . Safire supported Clinton. That's how far he went. Now jump ahead to 2002, Jenin. Israel goes into Jenin and is doing what it's doing. Shimon Peres is worried about reports of a massacre. He was the first person to use those words. And what does George Bush do? He orders Israel to withdraw. And what does he say? I was in Europe at the time. ‘Enough is enough.’ Big headlines: ‘Bush to Sharon: Enough is enough. I want you to withdraw immediately'. And I have all the newspapers.

What happens? Immediately, George Will, Bill Safire . . . George Will says, ‘George Bush has lost his moral clarity.’ Safire says, ‘Bush thinks Arafat is a better friend than Sharon.’ The Christian Zionists start their letters to the White House. And a week later, Sharon is ‘a man of peace.’ Bush Jr. blinked.

At one point Clinton was trying to make Israel make a withdrawal, and I'd forgotten about this, actually. I read somewhere in the paper that Jerry Falwell was bragging that the Monica Lewinsky affair was used to force Clinton to back off from bringing pressure on Netenyahu. And I thought, oh, that's nonsense. And you know what happened? I actually went and looked at the newspapers, before the Lewinsky scandal, and here was the Lobby warning Clinton against pressuring Netenyahu. And then, boom, we had Monica and that was it. And I said, my God, even Clinton tried to do it.

Every American president realizes it's in US interest to get Israel out of the Occupied Territories. The US has no vested interest in Israel settling the Occupied Territories and maintaining this confrontation. And every president has had to bend his knee to Israel. And this is the way it is, and it's easily shown.

It's a different policy when it comes to Israel than it is when it comes to the rest of the world.”

The interview is so consistently – and, I must say, uniquely – good I’ve gone and quoted almost all of it!  The more I think about Chomsky/Zunes, and the way that Zionism has perverted the American left, the angrier I get.