Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
 
.
.
 

Drop the insult “Israel-Firster” for the more important “One-Percent-Firster”

by Peter A. Belmont / 2012-02-04
© 2012 Peter Belmont


RSS

Recent Essays (All Topics)
 
•(12/23) How did we get to October 7th?
•(11/23) Our Political Habits Are Ending The Human Race
•(10/23) Sketch of Israel-Palestine History
•(10/23) Whoever controls the discourse controls emotional reactions to reality
•(08/23) Russia On Trial
•(01/23) The Purpose of "Conservatism"
•(10/22) The project of returning the earth to the cockroaches couldn't be in better hands!
•(05/22) Abortion, The Constitution, And The Supreme Court
•(03/22) The Problem of Climate Change Framing or Discourse or Understanding
•(06/21) Israel-Palestine: If not apartheid, then what?
There has a flurry of blogging recently on the use of the term ”Israel-Firster” link to MondoWeiss. I think there should, instead, be an even greater flurry of concern about ”One-Percent-Firsters”.

”Israel-Firster”

To any American deeply concerned to promote Palestinian rights, there is undoubted emotional attraction in the epithet “Israel-Firster” to denote an American deeply concerned to promote the military invincibility of Israel and the legal immunity and impunity of Israeli leaders. Such a person places support for Israel’s self-aggrandizing and generally illegal denial of Palestinian national and human rights ahead of the broad American consensus in favor of human rights and rule of law.

The term “Israel-Firster” is often used with the associated epithet of “dual loyalty”, as if a single person could be loyal to the USA and also to some other country (e.g., to Israel) at the same time!

And indeed, the promoters of Israeli aggression and lawlessness (see MondoWeiss.net generally) are said to have promoted the very damaging and very expensive American war-of-choice (i.e., illegal war of aggression) against Iraq, and are now pushing very hard for what seems likely to be an even more damaging and even more expensive American war-of-choice (i.e., illegal war of aggression) against Iran.

Assuming all these wars were or will be bad for Americans generally—that is, actually harmful to the 99% and, possibly, also seen by the 99% as bad—then those pushing for them out of concern to promote the invincibility of Israel and the immunity and impunity of Israeli leaders are putting loyalty (or concern) for Israel more-or-less ahead of loyalty for more general American interests.

Thus the term “dual-loyalty”, especially in regard to those enjoying dual USA-Israeli citizenship, is a bit of a misnomer, and “Israel-Firster” a better description.[1]

If you go beyond mere tsk-tsk-ing these wars and regard them as disastrous for America (for example, because they bankrupt America or kill so many American troops), you may even say that the pro-Israel warmongers are not “dual-loyalists” at all but, rather, single loyalists, and that loyalty to Israel—a “fifth column” in effect, a group of people dedicated to helping Israel at America’s great cost.

By the way, there should be no question that Israel’s occupation is an exercise in lawlessness, supported by the USA.

What’s the “support by the USA? Aside from quite a lot of money, usually said to amount to $3B in gifts per year since 1967, there are USA’s vetoes of UNSC draft resolutions critical of Israel, numbering something like 40 since 1972 according to this source. Indeed, against this awful record, Jimmy Carter gets high marks indeed for directing his UN representative vote for UNSC-465 (1980), which calls on Israel to remove all settlers and dismantle all settlements (buildings).

What is the lawlessness? It is the settlement program and the building of the apartheid (or “separation”) wall in the occupied West Bank (including occupied East Jerusalem) and the siege of Gaza. It is also the refusal by Israel, since 1948, to allow the return to their homes and homeland of the exiles from the 1948 war—Palestinians who found themselves outside “Israel” after the 1948 war mostly as a result of deliberate Israeli military efforts to expel them, what is now called “ethnic cleansing”. The UNGA has been calling upon Israel to readmit the peaceable among these exiles since 1948. Israel has always refused, much against the human rights of the Palestinian people, and has lately even declared itself “a Jewish State” (despite the 20% of its citizens who are Palestinian Arabs) and said that to protect the “Jewish character” of Israel it will never allow the readmittance of the exiles from 1948. It thus sets itself at defiance of the UN and has done so since 1948. Israel has been successful in this defiance because the USA has supported it, much to the loss of the world’s system of international law.

Looking merely at the illegality of the settlements, I refer the reader to UNSC-465 (1980) which called on Israel to remove the settlers and dismantle the settlements—a demand never rescinded but also never enforced due to the USA’s use of its UNSC veto. I refer also to the determination that the settlements are illegal in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of July 9, 2004. These questions of illegality are discussed here and here.

”One-Percent-Firsters”

And now let’s talk about the 1% and 99%

But let’s get real. If there’s one thing that is really, really bad for the American 99%, it is not the side-show of Israel/Palestine but the center-ring of the class-war of the 1% who are now in such triumphant ascendancy over the 99%.

According to one source, “The Crisis of Neoliberalism”, Dumenil and Levy, Harvard Univ. Press, 2011, the economic system that rules most of the world, “neoliberalism”, was put in place precisely to advance the interests of a single “class”, the 1%:
[T]he overall dynamics of capitalism under neoliberalism, both nationally and internationally, were determined by new class objectives that worked to the benefit of the highest income brackets, capitalist owners, and the upper fractions of management. The greater concentration of income in favor of a privileged minority was a crucial achievement of the new social order. In this respect, a social order is also a power configuration, and implicit in this latter notion is “class” power * * * Not only class relations are involved, but also imperial hierarchies, a permanent feature of capitalism.


The reason the USA supports Israeli lawlessness is the power of the pro-Israel lobby (an important part of the 1%) to compel subservience among American politicians even in derogation of more generally recognized American interests (such as human rights, the rule of law, the safety of American armed forces in the broader world, a desire to be safe from terrorism, etc.)

The Israel lobby is not the only segment of the 1% acting for its own selfish interests against the interests of the rest of the American people (the 99%).

Two better known examples are the Military-Industrial-Complex—which enriches war-profiteers—weapons-makers and military contractors—at vast increase to the national debt—and the banking lobby, which brought Americans and much of the world the financial meltdown of 2008-present and the subsequent bailouts.

(“Too big to fail” is not a fact of nature but a very self-serving heads-I-win-tails-you-lose slogan of the BIG-BANKs.)

As a third example, consider the USA’s refusal to deal with the undoubtedly serious threat of global warming. This refusal is another ill-effect of the oligarchy’s power over government, likely led by the oil lobby.

I refer to the 1% generally as the “BIGs”, and thus to the Israel Lobby as “BIG-ZION”, the banking lobby as “BIG-BANKs”, the Military-Industrial-Complex as “BIG-WAR”, the pharmaceutical lobby as “BIG-PHARMA”, the oil lobby as “BIG-OIL”, etc. Taken together and throwing the billionaires in with the corporations—which they generally own and often control—I call this whole system of control of government by the 1% “American Oligarchy”.

One reason the oligarchy is bad news as an overlord of America is that the very rich and the corporations do not care about the things ordinary Americans care about. They want nothing from government but the continuing and increasing opportunity to enrich themselves. Worse, in a way, is the fact that corporations have very short time-lines of concern. They want profits and they want them now! That means that corporate over-lords are not going to worry about long-term problems—problems such as world-over-population, global warming, looming scarcities of water and food. World-wide scarcity is more likely to seem a profit-opportunity to the very rich, especially in the short term, rather than a disaster to be headed off.

I discuss a possible Constitutional Amendment to destroy the power of the “American Oligarchy” in an essay called Constitutional Amendment to combat “regulatory capture”, “electoral capture”, and Citizens United .

The One-Percent-Firsters

Because the power of the 1% is so extreme and so devastating to the rest of America (our 99%)—to say nothing of devastating to most of the rest of the world—shall we call that the 99.99% ?—I think we should refer to those who seek to protect the political power of the 1% as “One-Percent-Firsters”. This group consists, first, of the billionaires and high corporate officers—that is, the 1% themselves. Next come the politicians that the billionaires and corporations have “bought and paid for” (to echo Thomas Friedman’s notable phrase).
I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
Nor may we forget the main-stream media, which is corporately owned and thus a system of enforcement for the 1%. Lastly, there is the public educational system—which is starved of cash so that the American 99% will be very poorly educated and the 1% will purchase a decent education for their children in expensive private schools.

In another essay, I have laid out a program for ending the political stranglehold of the 1% in America. In simplest terms, it would require:
     • no political action to be performed or spending to purchase performance of political action except by human beings
     • a per-person per-year cumulative maximum on such expenditures

Think about it. No corporate spending for lobbying or electoral manipulation. Billionaires and the working poor held to the same annual limit for political spending—a limit far lower than $10,000.

If the 1% lost the overwhelming power that it now has, the Israel-Firsters would also lose their power.

I am a Ninety-Nine-Percent-Firster. How about you?

-----------

[1] For example, we have Sheldon Adelson, who with his wife, an Israeli, recently gave Newt Gingrich $10M to say that Palestinians are an “invented people”, saying, as to loyalty: ”All we care about is being good citizens of Israel.”




Comments:

Submit a comment, subject to review:

    Screen Name (Required)
    Commenter's Email (Required)
    Commenter's Blog (Optional)
     

      uqzhhmtcfg
      1234567890

From the preceding TOP string, select as the Verification Code,
four9th through seve9nth letters
(using the BOTTOM string for reference) and enter it in the slot below
    Verification Code (Required)
  Comment
 
 


123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com