Wagging the Dog

Nürnberg, 17 Sept. 2003

Wagging the Dog?

Recently, a film, entitled “Wag the Dog” played the Nürnberg film circuit. I was amazed to learn that even my English-speaking friends — some of them quite fluent — did not know specifically what the title alluded to. Surprised because the inference is to an extremely common American English idiom, “the tail is (or starts) wagging the dog.” This implies a situation where a secondary issue or factor becomes primary, usually unexpectedly.

An excellent everyday example is the coffee market in Germany and its leading retailer, Tchibo. After the Second World War, coffee became a much sought-after luxury in Germany. The retailing of coffee was very profitable and — like all profitable situations — became highly competitive. By the late sixties or early seventies, in order to tempt customers into their coffee shops, Tschibo (and the competition) started offering “loss leaders,” items that could be purchased at extremely low prices. Typical example: three dish towels well under the normal retail value — and quite often under the retailers cost. Once a year, a cookbook was offered and, in the spring, something to do with gardening. Available at any one time were usually three or four items — no more. After all, these were coffee shops and coffee was where the profit was.

Along with an inexpensive cup of freshly brewed coffee at a stand-up counter, this tactic worked quite well for years and the coffee shop specials were highly sought after. But times and markets change: today, in the 21st. century, the coffee business is plagued with problems and no longer profitable. A quick visit into any Tchibo shop will show what the company has done to survive: today, the shops are full of retail consumer articles, towels, clocks, kitchen utensils, bedding, hand tools, tasteful aluminum bath accessories and dozens of other non-coffee-related, low-priced products of excellent quality. Coffee? Oh yes, there in the corner, you will still find two or three ladies (Why not men, I do not know.) selling coffee but they are much busier taking payment for the other products. After all, that is where the money is.

Voilà, the tail has started wagging the dog!

So much for the English lesson for today. From this trivial, hopefully not boring, example, let us spring into a dog-wagging situation of serious import to the entire world — the relationship between Israel and the United States.

First, some background information. Given the small but wealthy and influential Jewish population in the U.S. and the efficiency of holocaust propaganda, it is not surprising that the U.S. has supported — financially, morally, politically and militarily — the founding and continuing existence of Israel since day one. Since 1966, this support, including military support, has increased substantially. This is usually justified by the U.S. government because, “Israel is our only ally in the important, oil rich Near-East.” This is certainly true – today – but ignores the fact that all these other Near-East countries, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and others were our friends, allies and trouble-free providers of oil until the founding of Israel and its aggressive policies turned them into bitter enemies. Today, Israel is both the cause and the aspirin for a monstrous headache in the Near East — including the newest and biggest headache of all, the Iraq war. All in all, since the end of the Second World War, Israeli related conflicts and “aspirins “ (solutions) have cost the United States taxpayer, directly and indirectly, over three trillion dollars (!), four times the cost of Viet Nam when calculated in 2002 dollars.

These figures are valid, however, only when both direct and indirect aid are observed as well as the costs of conflicts that Israel draws the United States into. Just the Yom Kippur war of 1973 that, without U.S. aid, the Israelis would surely have lost, cost the United States over one trillion dollars.

Direct aid to Israel (included in the above figures) from 1945 to 2003 totals over $97,5 billion (!). This figure includes a total of $87,104 billion through fiscal year (FY) 2002 as determined by a U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) report plus additional funds given through the Department of Defense and other agencies as calculated by publishers of the magazine, Washington Report on Mid-East Affairs (www.WRMEA.com)

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true but it's not the whole truth The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525,8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was over five billion dollars: adding indirect costs, Israeli “friendship” that year cost the United States over ten billion dollars.

Indirect Aid

But that is by no means the entire story. Let us consider “early disbursement” of funds. The United States cannot feed its own citizens nor provide them with adequate schools or medical care. It actually has no funds to give away, but borrows money each year by issuing Treasury bonds that pay a nominal interest rate that, over the years, generally fluctuates around 10%. To save interest costs, the U.S. distributes its foreign aid in four installments throughout the year. The idea is that the recipient countries do not use the money all at once so they need not receive it all at once.

Except Israel. Israel receives its foreign aid from the U.S. at the beginning of the fiscal year in a single lump sum. Israel, like all other countries, pays its bills and meets its obligations as they become due throughout the calendar year. This, of course, creates a problem for the poor Israeli government: what to do with all this money until needed later in the year, some of it presumably not until December. Quite simple, actually: they buy U.S. Treasury bonds and earn 10% interest, in effect, loaning the same money back to the U.S. at 10% that the U.S. borrowed for Israel at 10% in the first place! From 1991 through 2001 alone, Israel earned over 860 million dollars of interest by depositing monies with the U.S. Treasury. This financial slight of hand is quite tricky, so its difficult to really determine how much all this cost the U.S. taxpayer but two times $860 million or $1.7 billion is a likely total.

Another cute trick used by the U.S. government to cheat its own taxpayers is loan waivers. The published figures for foreign aid are gifts to Israel. But in addition to these charitable donations, the U.S. “loans” considerable sums to Israel that, theoretically, will be repaid. These “loans” do not appear in government reporting as foreign aid. The Israeli government is proud of saying that they have never defaulted on a U.S. loan. This is technically and arrogantly true, but the CRS report also notes that from 1974 to 2002, the U.S. waived over $42 billion in loan repayments. In other words, the “loans” are forgiven and never repaid but, technically speaking, Israel did not “default” on payment.

Buying “friends” for Israel:

In the 26 years prior to 1979, total U.S. aid to Egypt amounted to $4,2 billion ($0,150 billion per year). In 1967, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and since then receives approximately $2.2 billion per year. Aid to Egypt is actually — and arrogantly — pegged at two thirds of whatever direct foreign aid Israel receives. Since signing a military cooperation agreement with Israel in 1996, Turkey — the West’s most mercenary ally — receives (plus/minus) $3 billion annually. In October 1994, Jordan signed a treaty with Israel for which they are also pays (plus/minus) $3 billion annually.

All in all, an additional $8.5 billion that the U.S. taxpayer must pay each year to buy and keep “friends” for Israel. Since Iraq could not be purchased, other methods have been used to relieve Israel of one additional enemy on its borders. And, make no mistake; plans are being developed for Syria and Iran, once again, at the expense of American taxpayers and, much worse, American lives.

Other cute tricks for Israel’s benefit:

In the United States, as in most western countries, citizens can contribute to non-profit organizations and deduct these contributions from their income taxes. The organizations must be founded and located within the United States. Donations to organizations in Italy, Ireland, Mexico or any other country are not tax deductible. Unless, of course, the organizations are located in ____(?)____ (One guess!). Because of this exception, the U.S. taxpayer must pick up the tax bill for wealthy Jews who have contributed perhaps $20 billion dollars over the years to Israeli organizations.

Is that all? Not really: volumes could be written on the subject but we shall restrict ourselves to two additional, truly unbelievable examples of political arrogance that clearly illustrate the obvious contempt that American politicians have for their own citizens.

In 1984, the Cranston Amendment (named after the Democratic Senator from California who proposed the act) decrees that foreign aid to Israel must equal at least any payments due the United States from Israel. This means that at any time, the Israeli can go to their favorite uncle and say, “Hey Sam, I am a bit short of rockets and helicopters right now. How about loaning me a billion or two until the end of the year?” Surely no loving uncle could resist such innocent requests and the money will normally be given. The usual sequence is that the loan will be forgiven (waived) before repayment is due. But let us assume the improbability that one day American voters tear themselves away from their televisions sets (fat chance!) long enough to protest this give-away and insist that Israel pay their loan debts. In this case, the United States congress is obligated to give (not loan) Israel enough money to pay the debt. (If all this makes you a bit dizzy, you are not alone!)

The second, “Is this really possible?” example: In 1975, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger arranged an oil supply guarantee that, If Israel’s oil supply is ever endangered or stopped, Israel in effect gets first call on any oil reserves available to the United States. This is almost treason!  In recent years, we have seen horrible examples of what happens in the United States when energy sources are disrupted. Why does the Secretary of State of one country — even a Jewish Secretary of State — place the welfare of a second country above that of his own? And what paragraph of the United States Constitution gives him — or congress — the right to do so?

Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish or have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't. The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts.

To understand the true significance of all this financial and military support, once must look closely at the situation in the United States today (2003):

• Over 32,9 million people are living in poverty. (This refers to “poverty” as defined by the U.S. government. If European standards of minimum, decent, living conditions were applied, the figure would be at least double.)

• Of these, 14,812 million are employed but do not earn enough to provide the basic necessities for themselves or their families.

• Of the 23 million needy people in the U.S. who seek emergency assistance (usually for food), over 9 million are children.

• Over the past two decades, when the aid sums to Israel have been highest… and constantly increasing, the poverty rate among working families has increased by 50%.

• In 2003, approximately 1.9 million families will no longer be able to meet financial obligations and will file for bankruptcy. Over the next 30 years, a projected rate of 38% of all U.S. households will be administered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court System. In Alabama, the expectancy rises to 61,5%,

• 43 million Americans have no health insurance, not even in an emergency, but congress refused to ratify President Clinton’s proposed national health insurance program primarily on the grounds that it would be “too expensive.” (On the other hand, Israel evidently can afford health insurance. Their national health care program went into affect on 1 January 2005)

• The rate of stillborn children is the highest of any country in the western world.

• 27 million U.S. citizens cannot read. According to a study by Laubach Literary International, another 40 million can read but are “functionally” illiterate. They can read somewhat, but have difficulty understanding street signs, newspapers, and everyday printed documents. Their overall education is not sufficient for employment or to function usefully in society.

• The U.S has the highest murder rate of any country in the western world, including Russia.

• 1,7 million persons sit in U.S jails, 455 inmates for each 100,000 population. Jails are overcrowded, outdated and crumbling for lack of adequate repair and maintenance funds.

• Across the entire continent, the infrastructure is crumbling for lack of money. Schools, hospitals, dams, electrical installations, roads, etc. are rapidly becoming unreliable and dangerous. 

How is this possible? Why does a country, beset with such serious financial and social problems make incredible debts to support a foreign country — often in defiance of the laws of its own constitution? Who exactly places the welfare and existence of Israel above that of the United States itself and why? The answer can become horribly complex if one is trying to hide the truth — or basically simple if one understands political lobbies in the United States and the adroit use of money (“dollar-ocracy”) to gain influence to gain power.

A lobby is a registered non-profit (therefore with certain tax advantages) organization whose purpose it is to influence the way politicians think and vote. There is nothing illegal or subversive about these activities as long as the organization is registered and the politicians know that they are dealing with a special interest group. Actually, a legitimate lobby can be quite helpful and do a service for the entire country. Very few congressmen have the time or the staff to research and gather all the information they need to make intelligent decisions on dozens of different projects at one time. Originally, the purpose of a lobby was to research and gather information (naturally favorable to themselves), package the information in a useable, understandable form and provide it to the congressmen. The fact that the conclusions are biased is not negative as long as the detailed information is accurate. The congressman can always request “accurate” information from the opposing, and equally biased, lobbies and, between two or three biased sources (liars), he will find the truth or, at least, the best compromise. 

At least, that is the way things functioned in a more innocent and less vicious United States. But things have changed and the lobbies have begun wielding their influence in a totally different way, not only with information but also with money! Today, the number one method is to donate funds to the election campaigns of those politicians who are “good boys” and follow the lobby’s party line. The second method is simple bribery - but, since bribery is illegal, the money’s were (past tense) paid out in the form of “speaker’s fees” (“Hey, Senator, How ‘bout $5,000 for a one hour talk on the importance of Israel to American security?”) and “book royalties.” The lobbies provided a ghost writer to author a book for a congressman that helped him become re-elected and then arranged to pay royalties, whether or not there was market for the title. Nice and clean… and very subversive.

The primary pro-Israel lobby in the United States is the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). But the network that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this happen — and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue — goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million annual budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, draws upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.

Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.

Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original, highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews, later, American blacks. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million (!!) annual budget, extremely well funded hate group.

But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn over and above their salaries from speakers' fees and book royalties, it halted AIPAC's most effective means of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating Political Action Committees (PACs).

Most special interests have PACs; as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.

An individual voter is allowed to donate up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle but a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. A single special-interest group with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to elect any congressman in most parts of the country.

Two concrete examples: Congressman Samuel Gejdenseon (Democrat from Connecticut) has received, to date, a total of $335,601 and Senator Carl Levin (Democrat from Minnesota) has received $ 657,887. Can these people, even if not Jewish, vote impartially after receiving such campaign donations?

Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party or to an opponent from the opposing party. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.

For the 2001-2002-election cycle, pro Israeli PACS have donated a total of $3,015,086. From 1978 to 2002, they have donated over 327 million (!) dollars to 1,855 politicians. Compare these figures to the pro-Arab PACs that contributed a total of $30,350 for the 2001-2002-election cycle and a total of $430,815 to 231 politicians between 1978 and 2002.

There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees: nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?

Question: Has the tail started wagging the dog? Has a crossover point been reached where one can say that the United States is effectively governed by a foreign country (?). In a Tchibo coffee shop, the answer is obvious. But the United States is not a coffee shop and the crossover point (if one exists) is blurred by many factors. Is the American public so sheepish and so pre-occupied with Disneyland etc. that they permit such control over their country (?). If the answer is “yes,” then Israel, a tiny country with just under six million population, is actually the most powerful country in the world because it controls the financial, political and military resources of the United States.

An important question. Anyone who has read this far can easily guess my position but my purpose is not to provide the answer, but ask the question: What do you think?

Endnotes:

1) To be fair, I must mention here that, in terms of finances expended, the AIPAC is probably not the most powerful lobby in the U.S. That title belongs to the combined war industry lobbies. The second largest is probably the combined American oil industry lobby. The AIPAC is probably third… exact statistics are difficult to find. Unfortunately, today (April 2004) the interests of all these groups harmonize with each other and effectively control the entire Bush administration and both houses of congress. Aside from finances, however, no lobby in the United States displays the talent, persistence and efficiency of the Israeli PACs. The illegal conquest and oppression of Iraq and its people is the most tragic and visible result.

2) The above text is my own, quoting no one, but I rely heavily for facts from two sources that the reader can refer to for further information:

The Washington Report on Mid-East Affairs (www.wrmea.com) and Dr. Tony Judt, Director, Remarque Institute, New York University (http://www.nyu.edu) Dr. Judt’s writings are often found in the New York Review of Books as well (www.nybooks.com).

3) One final power source also deserves mention and attention, although much more nebulas and difficult to discuss because they are not actually a group or lobby in the usual sense of the word. I refer to the worldwide Jewish Diaspora, most specifically to the Jewish population living in the United States. I intentionally did not discuss this group in the main body of the essay to clearly separate my comments on Israel from my comments on Jewish persons as individuals or as a religious group. Given Jewish history and the unrelenting holocaust propaganda, it is no wonder that this intelligent, energetic, influential and very wealthy population segment lends its support to Israel. The vast majority feels a worldwide Jewish cohesiveness and an obligation to support Jewish organizations and projects, yet I do not include them “lump sum” with those Zionist forces deliberately seeking power through political intrigues and conquest. But that there exists within this Diaspora a Zionist establishment, actually a conspiracy, that is consistently and successfully manipulating the Jewish people is, or should be, obvious. The Jewish people themselves can also be seen as victims of the groups they are supporting.

The main instrument of this manipulation is the so-called holocaust and the insistence that this could/will happen again if the Jewish people do not remain united against the rest of the world. “United,” in this instance, means subservient to the Zionist establishment. One must suspect that this establishment also promotes anti-Semitism as a method of maintaining this control. The second instrument of control is simply Israel and the understandable, emotional desire that the Jewish people feel for a homeland. The control is much too successful but, thank God, not 100% and a growing Jewish dissatisfaction in the United States and Israel with Israeli/U.S. conduct is clearly visible.

Because the United States Jewish citizen is not part of an organized conspiracy and because his motivations for supporting Israel are perhaps understandable, does not mean that this segment and its support is not significant – or dangerous. A deeper discussion of the Jewish population in the United States is outside the framework of this writing, but a few statistics will give the European reader some idea of the clout these unstoppable people possess:

• Jews make up only 2.6% of the American population, yet 45% of the 400 richest men in the United States are Jewish.

• One third of all American multi-millionaires are Jewish.

• The percentage of Jewish households with an income over $50,000 is double that of non-Jews.

• 20% of professors at leading Universities are Jewish. When one considers the top Ivy League universities separately, the percentage jumps to approximately 35%.

• 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish.

• 25% of all American Nobel prizewinners are Jewish.

4) The U.S., Jewish author, Norman Finkelstein, in his book “The Holocaust Industry - Reflections of the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,”” refers to a Jewish “elite.” I think he is referring to the same clique that I label “the Zionist establishment.” The book is available in German (Die Holocaust-Industrie, Piper Verlag) and, in my opinion, should be required reading in the German and American public schools. (Fat chance!)

5) The Israeli manipulation of the United States government is not a new, once-only phenomenon. During the Second World War, Stalin manipulated Roosevelt as one would a child. American military leaders wanted to wait at least a year before joining the war in Europe. During this year, Russia and Germany would have waged such a war of attrition that both would be militarily weak and crippled. Then the plan was to enter Europe through the Baltic countries thereby preventing any occupation of Europe by the Russians and realizing a minimum loss of lives by American forces.

But Stalin insisted on an immediate second front in WESTERN Europe and had his way, causing the unnecessary loss of thousands of American lives and, in the end, the imprisonment of millions of persons behind the iron curtain.

Stalin had orchestrated the deaths of millions prior to the war and the United States government knew this. But Roosevelt was sure that if he could sit down across the table from “Uncle Joe,” he could make him listen to reason. Instead, Roosevelt agreed to policies that cost millions of deaths and imprisonments throughout Eastern Europe and Russia itself.

Are there any parallels between Roosevelt/Stalin and Bush/Sharon? A crucial question!

6) The Israeli paper, Yediot Aharonot, described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertakes[s] the 'dirty work' of a godfather (the U.S.) who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation."

I understand these viewpoints but cannot agree with them: the questions remains, who is wagging whom? Which nation is the Godfather and which nation the obedient Godson?