A left-wing Canadian journalist, Kalle Lasn, wrote the obvious, and all hell broke loose.
Lasn, editor of the Vancouver-based journal Adbusters, had the audacity to state that many neocons are Jewish! He proceeded to list 50 prominent neocons, finding that 26 are Jewish. Moreover, he declared that the neocons have a “special affinity” for Israel and that their influence helps to tilt U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. (“Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?”, March/April 2004)
Lasn was very careful to say that neocons account for only a small segment of the American population. He writes:
Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.
In “free-thinking” Canada, such language can lead to more than the usual smears by influential Jewish groups (and concomitant loss of job, blacklisting, etc.) that we find in the United States. It can incur actual criminal penalties as well. Ron Csillag of the Canadian Jewish News writes: “Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region, director Erwin Nest said CJC ‘will be considering action’ against Adbusters, but declined to elaborate.” (“Jewish ‘Neocons’ Tilt U.S. Policy toward Israel, Magazine Says,” undated) Yes, to point out that Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz are Jewish should certainly be regarded as a serious crime! But what do neocons themselves say? Neocon Joshua Muravchik, writing in Commentary, stipulates that “the neoconservatives, it turns out, are also in large proportion Jewish — and this, to their detractors, constitutes evidence of the ulterior motives that lurk behind the policies they espouse.” (“The Neoconservative Cabal,” September 2003, republished at American Enterprise Institute)
Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee, has been the flagship of neoconservatism. And Muravchik’s piece is actually a defense of the neocons. One may conclude, therefore, that it is permissible for Jewish neocons to admit their Jewishness but that it is “anti-Semitism” for gentile critics to say the very same thing. In Canada, it may even be criminal “anti-Semitism.”
Obviously, the very fact that one cannot speak the obvious truth about Jews, on either side of the Canadian-U.S. border, without facing heavy-duty intimidation underscores the magnitude of Jewish power. And it shows why virtually no mainstreamer on either side of the border dares to deal openly with the neocon role in the Iraq war and with Israel’s connection to the war.
* * *
But the question of the Jewish/Israeli connection to the Iraq war extends even deeper into taboo territory, into which we will now venture. It involves the origins of the September 11 terrorism. Israel apparently was aware of the 9/11 terrorists. We know that some Mossad agents lived on the same street in Florida as Mohammed Atta and that other Mossad agents positioned themselves so they could tape the burning Trade Towers from across the Hudson River. Those occurrences seem definitely to have depended on more than pure coincidence. (See “The Terror Enigma: Israel and the September 11 Connection” by Justin Raimondo, Chronicles, August 2003; and my own “The Israeli spy ring and September 11,” TLD, April 14, 2002.)
No mainstream journalist in America, much less Congress, dares to investigate this issue. Let us ask the hypothetical: If Israel were somehow involved in the events of 9/11, could it get away with it?
If it is dangerous to state the obvious fact that neocons are largely Jews who have an affinity for Israel, then plumbing the depths of a murky conspiracy to implicate the Israelis in 9/11 would risk a death sentence, for one’s career at least. Everyone realizes that. Thus, the established media have busily ignored the whole Israeli spy issue, after some early and brief lapses into actual journalism.
Here is a simple question. Would Ariel Sharon’s government do anything that might harm the United States or American citizens if it thought that such an action were vital for Israeli security and that it could get away with it completely? We know that the current war was seen as important for Israel. Israel even confected some of the phony WMD lies.
Israel was certainly willing to take American lives when it attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. The government of Yitzhak Shamir is reported to have sold the Soviet Union valuable U.S. documents stolen by Israelo-American spy Jonathan Pollard — information which, once in Soviet hands, led to the death of American agents. Moreover, in recent years Israel has resold to China sophisticated American weaponry that could easily be turned against the United States. Finally, according to a study released just before September 11, 2001, by the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies, the Israeli Mossad was ruthless enough to target American forces and place the blame on Arab terrorists. The study characterized the Mossad as follows: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” (See “U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study,” by Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, September 10, 2001; and my own “September 11 and the war in Palestine,” TLD, April 23, 2002.)
Note, too, that Ariel Sharon is about the boldest and most ruthless Israeli politician ever to hold office.
In short, the fact that the discussion of any Israeli connection to the Iraq war is totally taboo makes it more likely that Israel would risk being connected to the 9/11 terrorism. That does not mean definite proof of such involvement has come to light; rather it means that if Israel were involved, no mainstream individual or organization would ever dare mount an investigation to unearth the proof. In view of that fact, it seems plausible that Sharon would try to pull something off if he thought it would significantly benefit Israel. In fact, a more reasonable question would be: why would Sharon refrain from such an endeavor?
One dasn’t even think of asking such questions in the advanced progressive democracy to the north. And even in the backward, unprogressive United States, which lacks a Canadian-style “Human Rights Tribunal” to penalize thoughtcriminals, anyone who is thinking of going down that hard road is probably going to think twice.