Right Ho, Lobby
By Israel Shamir
The inhabitants of a stately house are embroiled in endless squabbling; the maids are getting snippy, the engagement ring has been returned and the cook has sent in his resignation. Into the midst of battle strides the confident and clever valet Jeeves (played by Stephen Fry in the BBC series), who successfully brings peace to the warring household by presenting them with a common enemy, the empty-headed Wooster. United in their animosity, the lovers renew their vows, and the servants line up behind their masters. This elegant ruse, once described in Right Ho, Jeeves, a pleasantry by P.G. Wodehouse, has just been employed with great success by the impalpable force sometimes called the Zionist Lobby.
In a letter addressed to the Times’ Editor, yesterday’s adversaries are today united, falling into line as though directed by the persuasive manners of an unseen Jeeves. Our Wodehouse players once squared off over important principles, yet suddenly they find themselves uncomfortable bedfellows.
Let us review our cast: [See the full list]
· Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, enemy of apartheid, a friend of Palestine. Last week, the Jewish community caused the Minnesota University of St Thomas to ban him.
· The flamboyant Zionist, “Mr Lobby”, Bernard-Henri Lévy, the hairy heir to a slave owners’ fortune. He usually bashes Blacks and Palestinians in his frequent TV appearances. When his Negrophobe friend Alain Finkelkraut was sued for too-explicit racist talk, Levy defended him.
· Mairead Maguire, the brave Irish fighter for Palestine, who befriended our prisoner-of-conscience Mordecai Vanunu.
· Russian arch-Zionist Elena Bonner, the passionately anti-Muslim, anti-Communist, neo-liberal Reaganite. She fought against the “Evil Empire” for the rights of Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel and to take the homes of the Palestinian refugees.
· The great Nobel playwright Harold Pinter, who spoke so passionately against the Iraqi war.
· Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who gave you the Afghani war with its millions of refugees – and boasted of it. Anti-Communist and a hater of Russia to boot, he provoked the Soviet intervention of 1980 and guided Osama bin Laden.
· Our brave actress, Vanessa Redgrave, who fought and suffered from many Lobby attacks.
· A leading French Zionist Andre Glucksmann, member of anti-Communist liberal left, who supported both the Chechen separatists and the war.
· The dedicated enemy of Pinochet, Ariel Dorfman.
· Pinochet’s greatest admirer, Vladimir Bukovsky.
What is the power that has knitted together this patchwork quilt, this motley collection of the good, the bad and the ugly? Could it be this anonymous NGO that came into being just yesterday called RAW in WAR? Its proclaimed intention is to “recognise women who are defending human rights in zones of war and conflict,” surely a worthy aim; to deny your signature to such a commendable undertaking would be to court public damnation. Yet one might expect Rachel Corrie, the brave American woman from Seattle who was murdered by the Israelis, to be one of the first to be recognized as such. Rachel Corrie died defending a Palestinian home from destruction. She bravely placed herself in front of a stranger’s home, believing in her heart that the man at the levers of the Caterpillar bulldozer would not, could not crush the life out of her for the sake of making one more Palestinian family homeless. But the beast did not stop, he drove on and smashed her body. The Israeli courts exculpated him, and the US Jewish Lobby has successfully banned a play based on her story, adding “the antisemite got what she deserved”.
So, was Rachel Corrie the first to be recognised by this august grouping? Not on your nellie. This NGO has been created to commemorate the late Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She was killed a year ago by persons unknown, and ever since that day the Zionist neocon machine has been attempting to implicate the all-too-independent Russian authorities in the murder. Her name, together with the name of Polonium-poisoned ex-spy Litvinenko, has become a battle-cry for neo-liberal anti-Putin forces. They even drafted Litvinenko’s widow to add her signature to the list, just in case you forgot one of the crimes laid at Russia’s door. Of course they included Daniel Pearl’s widow to add the obligatory anti-Muslim bias, and Warsaw Ghetto fighter Marek Edelman for the mandatory anti-Nazi angle.
How is it that the totally unknown Bulgarian researcher Mariana Katzarova (the official chairperson of RAW in WAR) could connect to so many lords and ladies, archbishops and barons, Nobel laureates, writers and VIPs to create this tour-de-force of a list? Is she more powerful than Berezovsky and Nevzlin put together? These two exiled multi-millionaire oligarchs have been keeping the Litvinenko and Politkovskaya stories alive for a year now, and they never generated anywhere near this kind of furore. The media events dedicated to the memory of Politkovskaya were organised by the New World Order destabilisation shock troops, a.k.a. the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, a US government-funded organisation “set up to legally continue the CIA’s prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad” according to Wikipedia. The new NGO’s list continues and expands upon these anti-Russian pressure tactics, in order to breathe new life into old news. The aim is to put pressure on a Russian president who adamantly refuses to give a green light to the planned Israeli and American bombing of Iran, who supplies Syria with its air defence systems, who stopped the oligarchs at their asset-stripping of Russia.
I do not intend to besmirch memory of a murdered journalist, and it is not necessary to do so. Logic will suffice: Anna Politkovskaya never presented a danger to the Putin regime, being quite unknown to general public; the idea of Putin demanding her death sounds a bit melodramatic. The investigation of her murder is still going on, but it seems likely that she ran afoul of some persons in the Chechnya insurgency or counter-insurgency. The Chechnya War was still a hot story a year ago, and today some ten Chechens and a rogue security forces colonel sit in a Moscow jail implicated in the murder. The Russian Attorney General recently declared that the murder mystery is almost unravelled. Politkovskaya’s son has expressed his full confidence in police efforts. He believes that the actual murderers and their patrons will be found soon. Many Russian observers believe the murder was ordered by persons desiring both to undermine Russian society and to frame Putin. I have also expressed this view. This technique brings to mind the reports that have emerged from Lebanon, where anti-Syrian activists have been killed by pro-Israeli gunmen to stir up “sectarian” violence.
The Russian government and people have all condemned the assassination of Politkovskaya. The police are tracking down the killers, and the family is satisfied with the progress of the case. Is there more to this story? The answer is Yes if you are a neocon: there must be a link to Putin. Neocons use her dead body to undermine Russia. Against the wishes of her family, and against the interests of the Russian people, her name has become the lever to bend Russia’s will. The letter to the Times dances to neocon music.
Nobody can fault the signatories of the letter to the Times for what they wrote. They wrote very carefully: “We call on the Russian Government to bring to justice, in full conformity with international standards, both those who killed Anna Politkovskaya and those who have ordered her murder.” It is impossible to refuse to sign such a letter; don’t we all wish to catch the murderers? Yet what is the purpose of this letter? It effectively demonstrates that Zionists can mobilise even dedicated anti-Zionists and anti-war activists against Russia. Strange bedfellows, indeed. United, not against a war-mongering America, but against a war-stopping Russia.
All this fancy manoeuvring reminds me of the Wallenberg case. Raul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat in the Nazi Germany and Hungary, saved many Jews by providing them with Swedish passports and visas. In 1945 he was arrested by the Soviet security in Budapest as a spy, and died in jail in 1947. But he was not allowed to rest in peace: the Zionists invented a fairy tale that he survived and is still kept in a secret jail somewhere in Russia. They have turned his honorable name into a slander. Over the years, from the end of WW2 until the collapse of the USSR, they put together thousands of rallies – from Washington to Wellington - demanding the “release of Wallenberg”. Many well-meaning westerners participated in these demonstrations, and each innocent, manipulated soul helped chip away at the USSR, ushering in the present unipolar world of Judeo-American hegemony. Only after 1991 did the Zionists leave the Wallenberg family in peace, for his 1947 death could no longer be denied.
It’s not that Zionists give a fig about Swedish diplomats who saved Jews. There is another Swedish diplomat in Germany who saved Jews: Count Folke Bernadotte. Bernadotte was sent as the UN representative to Palestine in 1948 exactly for this reason: because he saved so many Jews and had enormous sympathy toward Jewish refugees. But he was a witness to the mass expulsion (Nakba), and he demanded that Israel let the Palestinian refugees return home to their villages. This good man of conscience was immediately assassinated by a future Israeli Prime Minister. That’s how it goes. The name of Wallenberg is given to streets and squares in many cities around the world; the name of Bernadotte is forgotten. This is the power of Jewish Lobby: they can decide whose name will be known and whose name will be forgotten, who will be blessed and who will be cursed.
But this is no miracle: they have harnessed the true power behind modern democracies: the multitasking machinery of mass media and public relations. Modern Russia (like the USSR of old) does not dance to their tune primarily because the Russian mass media has been placed outside their grasp; consequently it has to be destroyed. They are now using directing a plethora of human rights organisations and humanitarian causes to this end, as they used it in the Soviet days. Mme Bonner and others of her ilk demanded the right of return for Russian Jews, while denying the same right to Palestinians. Actually, we must never forget that these two groups are not equivalent: the Palestinians were expelled from their homes in our lifetime, while Russian Jews were declared to be long-lost Hebrews. There were thousands of rallies all over the globe, packed with well-meaning westerners – maybe you? – demanding this right for Jews and singing “Let My People Go.” But there were no rallies demanding the right of return for the Palestinians. If they were, they remained unreported, and the participants were blacklisted.
They delivered speeches deploring the lack of human rights in the USSR until the great ship went down, and then they delivered the assets of the Soviet people to the oligarchs. Apparently Yeltsin kept human rights well preserved during this great period of privatisation, for no one spoke of them. Yet when Putin rose from the ranks to return some of these ill-gotten assets back to the people, when he regained media from Jewish control, suddenly human rights violations became headlines.
We would be very naïve to accept the human rights mantra for its face value. Yes, I am very sorry for Raul Wallenberg and for Anna Politkovskaya; but I am equally sorry for Folke Bernadotte and Rachel Corrie; and I would not sign a petition for the former unless it contains the names of the latter. Otherwise, this is a trap for well-intentioned people: they can find themselves speaking for causes that are not their own, for reasons that they would find repugnant. As they speak against the infringement of human rights in Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Gaza, they are denying these besieged states even a psychological respite. Lay off, friends: let us first deal with the basic right to be alive, for this right is severely threatened by the US Air force. When this right is finally assured, we’ll deal with the rest.
Still, Jeeves was right: one should remember the common adversary. The same thought was well formulated by Carl Schmitt: an enemy is a most important political asset; and he should be chosen as carefully as a friend. The truly formidable power of the Jewish Lobby is its ability to unite people against its enemy, and to block competing attempts to unite. When we try to unite people against Zionists, the Jews activate their “guilt by association” weapon, and the weak-hearted begin to make excuses, saying we cannot stand with you, because you have been linked to a right-winger, or a Muslim militant, or a Christian fundamentalist, or a Stalinist, or a Holocaust denier, or a nationalist, or a racialist, or a terrorist, or whatever. And our efforts fall apart.
Their tactics prove that they do not care about human rights or democracy. They demonise Muammar Qaddafi and David Duke and Roger Garaudy and Russian Communists, but find no fault in warmongers Bernard Kouchner, Zbiegnew Brzezinski, and Ariel Sharon. We all know that Putin served in the KGB, but we do not hear often that the great liberal hope, the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni, emerged from the secret service.
When they want to unite people, there is no “guilt by association.” I might ask these wonderful (no irony!) people like Mairead Maguire, or Desmond Tutu, or Harold Pinter, how is it that they are not worried to put their signature next to that of war criminal and warmonger Brzezinski, next to Zionist and Negrophobe Levy, next to arch-thief Havel who privatised half of Prague for his own benefit? Probably they would not even understand me, because there is only one authority licensed to demonise and issue kosher certificates, and that is the Lobby.
Jews create and control the matrix of demonisation, and so they do not fear it, just as Neo could see through the Matrix of his world. Wasn’t the Borat movie plainly racist? You bet it was. However, this Cohen had only to say that he is a Jew, and all objections were voided. A Jewish organisation could write without hesitation “Sacramento's militantly anti-gay Slavic Christians are suspected of harboring the killer.” Is it a racist statement? You bet it is. If you doubt, try to write “Sacramento's militantly anti-goy Jews are suspected of harboring the killer” and see how far you get.
In the last German elections, Frau Merkel made quite a few racist statements, stopping short of demanding the expulsion of all Turks living in Germany, but promising to stop Turkey’s membership bid in the EU so that no more Turks might come to Germany. She was allowed to say that and win, because she fully supported Israel and America, and therefore she has been certified kosher by the Lobby. As a result, Germany, a key member of anti-war coalition in 2003, is suddenly a potential participant in the coming war against Iran.
Besides its right-wing group of neocons, the Lobby has its left-wing project. In the 1980s, the Zionist Lobby-managed left-liberal (anti)communists provided the left leg for imperialism, for the war against the nations, for American hegemony. They were active in the last decade of the USSR's existence, when the Zionists succeeded in getting together many good and worthy people, from Jacques Derrida to Italian Communist leadership, and made them sing in unison, cutting off the left’s natural support for Soviet Russia. Their contribution to the end of the socialist experiment in Russia was decisive. After fulfilling this task, these French and Italian liberal communist parties simply faded away, no longer needed for the Zionist cause. Imperialism now firmly stood on its right, neo-conservative foot.
Yet the left is not dead. The letter to the Times is a first harbinger of the winds of change: the the Zionists have decided to bring their leftist play back to life. In France, they even present Levy as a symbol of “Left’s return”. With such Left, who needs Right?
Human rights idea could be good if these rights were universal. But the paragons of human rights usually stop where it is convenient for them. They are for the minority rights, rights of gays and rights of bankers and rights of Jews, but they are against rights of the majority, the right to live and to bring up children and to sustain one’s family, and the right to go to church or mosque unmolested. One of the darkest figures of the world affairs is Bernard Kouchner, the new French Foreign Minister. A Zionist and a human rights activist, he supported all past interventions based on human rights – the bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Somali and Iraq, you name it. He ruled over NATO-conquered Kosovo, and allowed his pet Albanian gangs to burn churches and to expel the Serbs. Now he supports Bush plans to attack Iran and Israel’s plans to strangulate Gaza. This is the face of a human rights paragon.
Nor has an alleged socialist Kouchner any problem with serving under Sarkozy. Sarkozy ran for the President under the banner of Le Pen. He took Le Pen’s slogans, Le Pen’s ideas and Le Pen’s voters, with one big exception: Le Pen was against the Judeo-American Empire. That is why, while Le Pen was demonised by the Lobby, Sarkozy was extolled. Now France is going to renege on the greatest achievement of Charles de Gaulle, on his 1966 liberation of France from the NATO yoke. Sarkozy and Kouchner are to return French troops under the US command, and to return American bases into France in the greatest revert of French foreign policy since Petain-Laval. Sarkozy – Kouchner link gives the lie of the Left-Right dichotomy: they may be united in the support of Israel and the US, and they may be united in its rejection. This question – support or rejection – is, or should be the “Friend or Foe” signal on our radars.
This is a question of life and death: if we have a common Zionist enemy, we shall be at peace; if we have no common enemy, they will find us other enemies. Putin’s Russia, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, Cuba and Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Burma, all can be turned into enemies. Until recently, the Arab states were united with Iran and Hamas in their rejection of Zionist schemes. Switching gears, the Zionists offered a different animosity: Sunni Arabs against Shia Persians. And it worked: the Arab states accepted their idea that Iran is the enemy; and that Islam of Hamas government is the enemy. . As soon people forget that Zionism is the main enemy, they are started on the march to a war.
Equally, democracy is a good idea. But only the democracy that comes from the word “demos,” people’s rule - not from the word “demo” like in “demo version” (in Victor Pelevin’s words). The democracy standard-bearers gather around George Bush, they are ready to justify every aggression by the need to establish democracy; but they reject the right of Palestinians to elect Hamas, or the right of Venezuelans to elect Chavez, or the right of Cubans to elect Castro, or the right of Russians to elect Putin. NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, that CIA-financed subversive organisation, is in reality the greatest enemy of democracy because their democracy is a tool of subjugation to the Judeo-American paradigm. What’s worse, in Russia and Burma, Cuba and Venezuela, the leaders become wary of democracy, and this is an unfortunate development.
Thus the distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists is the most important distinction, the great divide between war and peace, life and death. Do not cross this line. Read the “Friend or Foe” signals carefully. Do not support the enemy’s initiatives even if they appear to be of wonderful intention. Always remember the bottom line: what is the purpose behind every petition, each rally - even a letter. Do not let our adversary to set an agenda with his righteous indignation, honeyed words and sophistic devices. If we shall set the agenda, we can usher in peace; if we shall follow their agenda, we shall face war.
 Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elena Bonner, Tatiana Yankelevich, President Vaclav Havel, Harold Pinter, The Hon Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vladimir Bukovsky, Andre Glucksmann, Gloria Steinem, Sergey Kovalyov, Terry Waite, Cbe, Susan Sarandon, Alexei Simonov, Gillian Slovo, Baroness Kennedy Of The Shaws, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Marek Edelman, Elisabeth Rehn, Mariane Pearl, Asma Jahangir, Sister Helen Prejean, Ariel Dorfman, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael Cunningham, Eve Ensler, John Sweeney, Jonathan Schell, Noam Chomsky, Marina Litvinenko, Lyudmila Alekseeva, Desmond O’Malley, Anne Nivat, Victor Fainberg, Lord Judd, Lord Rea, Lord Giddens, Lord Ahmed, Baroness Williams Of Crosby, Baroness Meacher, Professor Yakin Erturk, Elena Kudimova, Natasha Kandic, Caroline Mccormick, Sister Marya Grathwohl, Heidi Bradner, Meglena Kuneva, Elizabeth Kostova, Esther Chavez, John D. Panitza, Dubravka Ugresic, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Victor Navasky, Aidan White, Holly Near, Elizabeth Frank
 Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser in Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998 p.76. He admitted he intentionally provoked the USSR’s entry to Afghanistan by fanning and bankrolling the insurgency against the legitimate government in Kabul. Asked whether he regrets it, he replied: “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?