HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug. 22, 2006 In the course of the 34 days of warfare between Israel and Lebanon, many people were asking why George W. Bush didn’t intercede to restrain the savagery of the Israeli attack, which seemed to be disproportionate to the Lebanese kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers that set the onslaught in motion. Others just threw up their hands in cynical resignation, as if to ask, “What else would you expect of a man of George W. Bush’s caliber than a continual stream of bullets?” Such questions seem to take for granted certain premises which are not necessarily true. Needless to say, I personally was not present at any of the meetings where decisions were made, so all I can do in this case is offer up conjectures. I see the possible explanations for Bush’s refusal to halt the cease-fire as being at least four in number. Just let me call them scenarios and describe them as if they actually happened. SCENARIO 1: George W. Bush, as the leader of the free world, certainly enjoyed the prerogative to call a halt at any time he chose, confident that Israel would accede to his wishes. But he felt that Israel was engaged in a commendable struggle against world terrorism and felt it was time to smash Hezbollah. Therefore, he let the assault run its course. One journalist called Bush’s reticence ‘seemly’. SCENARIO 2: George W. Bush seriously considered calling a halt to the cease-fire and may well have wanted to do so, in the name of decency and humanity, but he was afraid that Israel would merely ignore any effort on his part to intervene. This would have meant a tremendous loss of face. People around the world would then have realized that Bush doesn’t tell Israel what to do. Therefore, he pretended to be giving his blessings lest he be embarrassed. SCENARIO 3: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or some other influential Zionist organization met with Bush, and gave him specific instructions not to intervene in the strife until such time as they gave him the go-ahead. In other words, when Israel, through AIPAC, its agency in the US, was ready to cease fire, Bush would be allowed the charade of calling the cease-fire, but in no case would he be allowed to act on his own initiative. SCENARIO 4: AIPAC and George W. Bush have such rapport that AIPAC knew that Bush would do as he was expected to do without having been instructed formally. Bush, for his part, understood implicitly that AIPAC runs the show, and would not dare take the step of countermanding Israel’s orders without prior approval. I personally incline towards Scenario 3. Scenarios 2 and 4 make Bush’s silence too indefinite, as if tacit agreements were in place. I think that AIPAC would have preferred to have a definite, perhaps even a written, commitment from George W. Bush. One may ask, “How could the Israel Lobby tell George W. Bush, the most powerful man in the world what to do?” The answer would be that if they can tell Congress what to do, they can probably tell Bush what to do. The bill to support Israel in its assault went through the House by a vote of 410-8. So 98% of the representatives must have been obeying AIPAC rather than their constituencies, only 57% of whom sympathized with Israel. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, AIPAC did not merely monitor the bill; AIPAC wrote the bill. That is, if Brzezinski is to be believed, AIPAC said to the House of Representatives, in effect, “Here’s a bill! Pass it!” And they did! Similarly, AIPAC may have said to Bush, in effect, “Here a gag rule! Obey it!” And he did! ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
