Clinton wouldn't fight for his own country, as we all know,
but now he says
he'd grab a gun and fight
. for Israel:
Iraq came across the Jordan River ... I would grab a rifle and get in the trench
and fight and die."
had a good chortle over that little news item, but I wonder how many of them realized
that Clinton isn't the only President whose warlike instincts are aroused by Israeli
pheromones. A young Bush II showed no alacrity
for the military life: he somehow managed to sneak
into the Texas Air National Guard at a time when the sons of ordinary Americans
were dying in a foreign jungle. After pledging to pursue a more "humble" foreign
policy, no sooner does Bush II become President then his military ambitions became
virtually Napoleonic. Before Mr. Humble is through, all the spokes on the
"axis of evil" are going to be knocked out, if we take his several pronouncements
over the past few months seriously.
but Iran, too,
seems slated for a US invasion: indeed, the military is already planning on occupying
a conquered Iraq with at least 75,000 troops in order to "guard"
it from Iran. Clearly, the Iraq attack is only going to be phase one of a
multi-faceted war on the Arab world, a war that has only two possible beneficiaries
-- none of which are America.
principal beneficiary is Osama bin Laden, whose propagandists will point to US
aggression as the final proof of their Manichean worldview, which pits a permanent
Islamic jihad against the Western "Crusaders" and the Israelis. Millions will
flock to Bin Laden's banner. Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states
all will be delivered into his open arms.
will also benefit greatly. Under cover of a regional conflagration,
the Israeli "Defense" Force will hardly be noticed as it goes
on the offensive, carving out a Greater Israel from Arafat's
crumbling proto-state, and driving the Palestinians into Jordan.
Ariel Sharon won't have to rein in his right-wing settlers
anymore: there will be plenty more land to colonize. Clinton,
the champion panderer, knows full well that if an army goes
crashing over the river Jordan, it won't be Iraqi, it'll be
in anticipation of the need for more settlers in fairly short order, the Israelis
have now started proselytizing, and are importing freshly minted Jewish colonists
from as far away as Peru. As Hirsh Goodman wryly notes:
it comes to the settlement movement, the sky is now the limit, including a crash
course of 12 working days in how to transform from an Andes Indian into a settler
Ha'aretz newspaper's weekend magazine of July 19 carried a cover story about 90
Indians from villages tucked far up in the remote mountains of Peru who had been
converted to Judaism in Lima in a record two weeks. They were then flown to Israel
where they were sent directly to two Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Alon
Shvut and Karmei Tzur, where they will study in yeshivah and pray, at the state's
expense, for the messiah to arrive."
says "at the state's expense," but he doesn't say which state. It's the
US, of course: that is, you and I. So far, we've "donated"
$91 billion and counting. For FY 2001 appropriations for Israel included
not only $2.82 billion in economic and military aid to Israel, but also an additional
$60 million in "refugee resettlement" and $250 million in the Department
of Defense budget, plus $85 million in interest. Grand total: $3.215 billion.
Just think how many Peruvians that will buy: and I hear Uruguayans
are going cheap, too
Clinton sure did love all things Israeli: not only did he grant a pardon to the
notorious criminal, financier
Marc Rich, at the request of the previous Labor government, but, in addition,
just before he gave up the reins of power, on Nov. 14, 2000, Clinton sent a special
request to Congress demanding an additional $450 million in military aid to Israel
in FY 2001, and $350 million for FY 2002. Money to Israel is funneled through
every which way, including "loans" that are always forgiven, and more moolah for Peruvian converts
and helicopter gun-ships is even embedded in the "Homeland Security" bill.
But whose "homeland" are they talking about?
the draft-dodging Clinton declared his willingness to take up arms on behalf of
Israel, I wondered: could he have said that about any other country and still
gotten what the newspapers described as "a standing ovation"? What is it about
Israel that makes the President of the United States Republican or Democrat
treat it with such deference? Bush won't even admit that he must go to Congress,
first, with his war plans, and consult with the people's representatives before
he sends their sons and daughters off to the Iraqi charnel-house. But he's pledged
to consult with the government of Israel and advise them of our war plans well
in advance of any invasion.
groups erupted in disgust at the news of Clinton's comments, but my favorite was
the remark of an unidentified House GOP aide, who quipped:
"He just wants
to be loved. Is that so wrong?"
but so does George W. Bush, and he hopes some of the ardor inspired by his unconditional
support for Israel will rub off on his brother Jeb in the upcoming Florida election.
The Republicans argue that their love is true, while Bill, as we all know,
is the human embodiment of promiscuity, both politically and otherwise. Leave
it to the New York Post's "Page Six" to tell us about the one
thing that Bill wouldn't do for Israel:
Clinton's recent vow to grab a rifle and 'get in the trench and fight and die'
for Israel isn't the first time the former president has gone overboard in pandering
to Jewish audiences. But his office is denying an oft-repeated tale that he once
said, 'I would do anything for Israel except get a circumcision.'"
White House, naturally, is denying rumors that, upon hearing this, George W. said
"Well, I sure would
Please Support Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
contributions are now tax-deductible