[R-P] Del judío israelí Uri Avnery: la camarilla sionista en EEUU

[Nestor Gorojovsky]

Gentileza de la lista Marxism

[Un artículo excepcional.  Disculpen que no lo traduzca entero sino 
solamente la tesis básica de Uri Avnery.  Resumo lo verdaderamente 
esencial.  

Uri Avnery es un político israelí de origen sionista.  Combatió muy 
joven en 1948, en lo que los israelíes conocen como "guerra de 
liberación" y los palestinos conocen como la "catástrofe".  Luego 
repudió el sionismo y forjó una posición que denomina "canaanita", 
exigiendo la ruptura del vínculo institucional entre el Estado de 
Israel y las comunidades judías del resto del mundo.  Pasó a defender 
el pleno derecho del pueblo palestino a tener su propio Estado y se 
convirtió, finalmente, en amigo de Yassir Arafat y su representante 
preferido en la sociedad israelí.

Ante el problema de la influencia del "lobby" o camarilla sionista en 
la política estadounidense (cuya existencia no niega, y de paso le 
permite revelar cómo funciona, realmente, la "prensa libre"), su 
posición puede resumirse así (cito):  

"La lección del _affaire_ iraquí es que la conexión entre los EEUU e 
Israel funciona al máximo cuando parece que los intereses 
estadounidenses y los israelíes son uno solo (no importa si a largo 
plazo es realmente así).  EEUU usa a Israel para dominar el Medio 
Oriente, e Israel usa a EEUU para dominar Palestina.

Pero si pasa algo realmente excepcional (como el caso de espionaje de 
Jonathan Pollard o la venta de un avión espía israelí a China) y se 
abre una grieta entre los intereses de los dos lados, los EEUU están 
en perfectas condiciones de abofetear a Israel a su gusto.

Las relaciones entre EEUU e Israel son verdaderamente excepcionales.  
Parece que no tienen precedentes históricos.  Es como si el Rey 
Herodes hubiera dado órdenes al César Augusto y hubiera designado los 
miembros del Senado de Roma.  

No me parece que los intereses económicos expliquen por completo este 
fenómeno.  Hasta el más ortodoxo de los marxistas tiene que reconocer 
que tiene una dimensión espiritual.  No fue por casualidad que los 
cristianos fundamentalistas de EEUU (e Inglaterra) hayan inventado la 
idea sionista antes de que Teodor Hertzl la encontrase.  La camarilla 
evangélica no es menos importante en el Washington de hoy que la 
sionista.  Según su ideología, los judíos tienen que tomar posesión 
de toda la Tierra Santa para hacer posible la Segunda Venida de 
Cristo (y entonces -esta parte es la que no dicen en voz alta- 
algunos judíos se harán cristianos y el resto será aniquilado en 
Armagedón, que queda en la actual Meggido al Norte de Israel).

Sustenta este fenómeno la similitud sobrenatural entre dos historias 
nacional-religiosas:  el mito estadounidense y el israelí.  Ambas 
coinciden en que pioneros perseguidos por motivos religiosos llegan a 
las costas de la Tierra de Promisión.  Se ven obligados a defenderse 
contra nativos "salvajes", que buscaban destruirlos.  Redimen la 
tierra, hacen florecer el desierto, crean con la ayuda de Dios una 
sociedad floreciente, democrática y moral.

Ambas sociedades viven en un estado de negación y bajo sentimientos 
de culpa inconciente:  allá, por el genocidio cometido contra los 
indígenas y la horrorosa esclavitud negra, aquí por el desarraigo de 
la mitad del pueblo palestino y la opresión de la otra mitad.  En 
ambos lados, se cree en una guerra eterna entre los Hijos de la Luz y 
los Hijos de la Oscuridad.

De todas maneras, la simbiosis entre EEUU e Israel es excepcional y 
el fenómeno es demasiado complejo para describirlo simplemente como 
una conspiración.  [...]  El perro mueve la cola y la cola mueve al 
perro.  Se mueven uno al otro"]
 
Texto completo, en inglés, a continuación:

Uri Avnery

22.4.06

Who's the dog? Who's the tail?

òáøéú îöåøôú

I DON'T usually tell these stories, because they might give rise to
the suspicion that I am paranoid.

For example: 27 years ago, I was invited to give a lecture-tour in 30
American universities, including all the most prestigious ones -
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Berkeley and so on. My host was the
Fellowship of Reconciliation, a respected non-Jewish organization, 
but
the lectures themselves were to be held under the auspices of the
Jewish Bet-Hillel chaplains.

On arrival at the airport in New York I was met by one of the
organizers. "There is a slight hitch," he told me, "29 of the Rabbis
have cancelled your lecture."

In the end, all the lectures did take place, under the auspices of
Christian chaplains. When we came to the lone Rabbi who had not
cancelled my lecture, he told me the secret: the lectures had been
forbidden in a confidential letter from the Anti-Defamation League,
the thought-police of the Jewish establishment. The salient phrase 
has
stuck to my memory: "While it cannot be said that Member of the
Knesset Avnery is a traitor, yet…"

AND ANOTHER story from real life: a year later I went to Washington 
DC
in order to "sell" the Two-State solution, which at the time was
considered an outlandish, not to say crazy, idea. In the course of 
the
visit, the Quakers were so kind as to arrange a press conference for
me.

When I arrived, I was amazed. The hall was crammed full, practically
all the important American media were represented. Many had come
straight from a press conference held by Golda Meir, who was also in
town. The event was to last an hour, as is usual, but the journalists
did not let go. They bombarded me with questions for another two
hours. Clearly, what I had to say was quite new to them and they were
interested. 

I was curious how this would be reported in the media. And indeed, 
the
reaction was stunning: not a word appeared in any of the newspapers,
on radio or TV. Not one single word.

By the way, three years ago I again held a press conference, this 
time
on Capitol Hill in Washington. It was an exact replica of the last
time: the crowd of reporters, their obvious interest, the 
continuation
of the conference well beyond the appointed time - and not a single
word in the media.

I COULD tell some more stories like these, but the point is made. I
recount them only in connection with the scandal recently caused by
two American professors, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer
of the University of Chicago. They published a research paper on the
influence of the Israel lobby in the United States.

In 80 pages, 40 of them footnotes and sources, the two show how the
pro-Israel lobby exercises unbridled power in the US capital, how it
terrorizes the members of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives,
how the White House dances to its tune (if indeed a house can dance),
how the important media obey its orders and how the universities, 
too,
live in fear of it. 

The paper caused a storm. And I don't mean the predictable wild
attacks by the "friends of Israel" - which means almost all
politicians, journalists and professors. These pelted the authors 
with
all the usual accusations: that they were anti-Semites, that they 
were
resurrecting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and so forth.  
There
was something paradoxical in these attacks, since they only
illustrated the authors' case. 

But the debate that fascinates me is of a different nature. It broke
out between senior intellectuals, from the legendary Noam Chomsky, 
the
guru of the Left throughout the world (including Israel), to
progressive websites everywhere. The bone of contention: the
conclusion of the paper that the Jewish-Israeli lobby dominates US
foreign policy and subjugates it to Israeli interests - in glaring
contradiction to the national interest of the US itself. A case in
point: the American assault on Iraq.

Chomsky and others rose up against this assertion. They do not deny
the factual findings of the two professors, but object to their
conclusions. In their view, it is not the Israel lobby that directs
American policy, but the interests of the big corporations that
dominate the American empire and exploit Israel for their own selfish
aims.

Simply put: does the dog wag its tail, or does the tail wag its dog?

I AM NERVOUS about sticking my head into a debate between such
illustrious intellectuals, but I feel obliged to express my view
nevertheless. 

I'll start with the Jew, who went to the Rabbi and complained about
his neighbor. "You are right'" the Rabbi declared. Then came the
neighbor and denounced the complainant. "You are right'" the Rabbi
announced. "But how can that be," exclaimed the Rabbi's wife, "Only
one of the two can be right!" "You are right, too," the Rabbi said.

I find myself in a similar situation. I think that both sides are
right (and hope to be right, myself, too).

The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. 
Every
Senator and Congressman knows that criticizing the Israeli government
is political suicide. Two of them, a Senator and a Congressman, tried
- and were politically executed. The Jewish lobby was fully mobilized
against them and hounded them out of office. This was done openly, to
set a public example. If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow
annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the
bill forthwith.

President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established
American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically
the positions of our government, be they as they may. Almost all the
American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace 
activists.
As to professors - almost all of them know which side of their bread
is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open 
their
mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years -
they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite,
Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi.

By the way, American guests in Israel, who know that at home it is
forbidden to mention the influence of the Jewish-Israeli lobby, are
dumbfounded to see that here the lobby does not hide its power in
Washington but openly boasts of it. 

The question, therefore, is not whether the two professors are right
in their findings. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from
them.

LET'S TAKE the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the tail?

The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which has eliminated
the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war 
by
a group of Neo-Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge
influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as
advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu.

On the face of it, a clear case. The pro-Israeli lobby pushed for the
war, Israel is its main beneficiary. If the war ends in a disaster 
for
America, Israel will undoubtedly be blamed.

Really? What about the American aim of getting their hands on the 
main
oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy?
What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of
the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil
of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense
influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the
big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is
Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the
"reconstruction of Iraq"?

The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American-Israeli connection
is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli
Interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in
the long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel
uses the US to dominate Palestine.

But if something exceptional happens, such as the Jonathan Pollard
espionage affair or the sale of an Israeli spy plane to China, and a
gap opens between the interests of the two sides, America is quite
capable of slapping Israel in the face.

AMERICAN-ISRAELI relations are indeed unique. It seems that they have
no precedent in history. It is as if King Herod had given orders to
Augustus Caesar and appointed the members of the Roman senate.

I don't think that this phenomenon can be wholly explained by 
economic
interests. Even the most orthodox Marxist must recognize that it also
has a spiritual dimension. It is no accident that American (as well 
as
British) fundamentalist Christians invented the Zionist idea well
before Theodor Herzl hit upon it. The evangelical lobby is no less
important in today's Washington than the Zionist one. According to 
its
ideology, the Jews must take possession of all the Holy Land in order
to make the Second Coming of Christ possible (and then - the part 
they
don't shout about - some Jews will become Christians and the rest 
will
be annihilated at Armaggedon, today's Meggido in Northern Israel).

At the basis of the phenomenon lies the uncanny similarity between 
the
two national-religious stories, the American myth and the Israeli. In
both, pioneers persecuted for their religion reached the shores of 
the
Promised Land. They were forced to defend themselves against the
"savage" natives, who were out to destroy them. They redeemed the
land, made the desert bloom, created, with God's help, a flourishing,
democratic and moral society. 

Both societies live in a state of denial and unconscious guilt
feelings - over there because of the genocide committed against the
Native Americans and the horrifying slavery of the blacks, here
because of the uprooting of half the Palestinian people and the
oppression of the other half. Both here and there, people believe in
an eternal war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.

ANYHOW, THE American-Israeli symbiosis is unique and far too complex 
a
phenomenon to be described as a simple conspiracy. I am sure that the
two professors did not mean to do so.

The dog wags the tail and the tail wags the dog. They wag each other. 


GUSH SHALOM 
p.o.b. 3322 
Tel Aviv 61033
ISRAEL


Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro en fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _