Jewish Supremacists and the Israeli lobby have such influence over the U.S. government that they can force American presidents to remain silent about Israeli policies even when they disagree completely with what the Zionist state is doing, according to a new article by Stephen M. Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University and co-author of The Israel Lobby.
Titled “What ‘Unshakeable Commitment’ to Israel Really Means,” the article first discusses the outrageous pandering to Israel by Mitt Romney before getting round to the influence of the Jewish lobby in America.
Referring to both Obama and Romney, Walt writes: “They are simply pandering to domestic politics, which is something that all American politicians do on a host of different issues.
“Of course, they will still have to shape their policies with the lobby’s clout in mind (as Obama’s humiliating retreat on the settlement issue demonstrates), but nobody should be under the illusion that they genuinely believe all the flattering stuff that they are forced to say.
“Why do I say that? Well, consider what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a July 2000 interview, conducted as part of an oral history project conducted by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.
‘…Every president I worked for, at some point in his presidency, would get so pissed off at the Israelis that he couldn’t speak. It didn’t matter whether it was Jimmy Carter or Gerry Ford or Ronald Reagan or George Bush. Something would happen and they would just absolutely go screw themselves right into the ceiling they were so angry and they’d sort of rant and rave around the Oval Office. I think it was their frustration about knowing that there was so little they could do about it because of domestic politics and everything else that was so frustrating to them.’
“What was true of these presidents was also true of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and if Romney ends up getting elected, I’ll bet the same thing will happen to him too. He just won’t admit it publicly.
“The obvious danger in this conspiracy of silence is that it prevents the foreign policy community from having an honest discussion about the whole Middle East situation, including the ‘special relationship.’
“Although public discourse on this topic is more open and wide-ranging than it used to be, mostly because some journalists and academics are freer to write honestly about this topic, it is still nearly impossible for politicians or ambitious policy wonks to say what they really think.
“If you want to get elected, or if you want to work on a campaign and maybe serve in the U.S. government, you have to either 1) be fully committed to the “special relationship,” 2) pretend to be committed by mouthing all the usual platitudes or 3) remain studiously silent about the whole subject.”
