Apartheid

In fact, as we shall see, every fourth killing of Palestinians by Israelis is paid for
directly by US taxpayers, largely thanks to unprecedented aid for Israel by the Clinton
administration (1993-2001), but also due to every other US government since 1948. If
anything, the USA should in my opinion be seen as the worst possible existing mediator in
this conflict. Rather, it is a partner in crime, a crime against humanity. It is also the only
country in the world that has more Jewish citizens than Israel. It is important to note that this
fact by itself does not make the USA pro-Israeli. But many American Jews (as well as many
non-Jews) are pro-Israeli, and the USA today manifests a pro-Israeli system of elites that is
sometimes even more Zionist than the Israeli elites themselves are (see Chapter II.9.3, below).
The inventor of nuclear warfare and the so far only military power to ever use nuclear
weapons in a war (that would have been won without the atomic bombs, anyway), and
atrocious chemical weapons such as napalm and Agent Orange in another one, is today by far
the largest arms buyer and arms distributor in the world, year by year selling around half of
the world’s weapons, and, if not scientifically established as the chief war monger since 1945,
then, in any case, among the main ones. 152 In the year 2000, the next largest arms exporters
Foul of the U.S., 2002, on the US-led ousting of the UN General Secretary, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and of the
UN Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, among many other manipulations. A more objective
assessment (than the quoted passage by Wright) of US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be
found in the following unusual quote from an Israeli newspaper: ‘The eight years of the Clinton administration
has been the most pro-Israeli era in the history of bilateral relations. As a result direct links were forged for the
first time between Israel’s various governments and senior figures in the U.S. administration.’ Salpeter: How
Much Diaspora Interference is Acceptable? 2001. For example, the Clinton administration’s ‘Special Middle
East Coordinator’, Dennis Ross, has strong Zionist leanings, and was apparently appointed to sabotage peace in
the region. See, for instance, the revealing interview in Zacharia: Ross to ‘Post’: Palestinians Missed Historic
Opportunity, 2001; Wright: Former U.S. Envoy Faults Arafat for Failure, 2001: ‘Under Ross’s management of
Middle East peace talks, the United States said the Jewish settlements [in the Occupied Palestinian Territories]
were unhelpful to making peace, but it did not adopt the international consensus that they violate international
law.’ See further: Wright: Palestinian Activist Sees Change in U.S. Approach, 2001, in which the unofficial
Palestinian spokeswoman, Hanan Ashrawi, blasts Ross’s ‘peacemaking’ record. See also Aruri: Dishonest
Broker: The Role of the United States in Palestine and Israel, 2003, and Mearsheimer & Walt 2006. On the
strong tendency of mainstream US mass media, in particular the New York Times, to knowingly present the
USA falsely as a neutral mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see Chomsky: Introduction: Project
Censored, 2001. On British prime minister Tony Blair’s version of Ross, his equally useless peacemaker, Lord
Michael Levy, the British ‘special envoy’ to the Middle East, in fact a former Jewish Agency board member,
who has a business and a house in Israel, and a son who used to work for the Israeli justice minister, see Pilger
2003 (2002): 144. On Blair’s equally dangerous Foreign Office adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, who previously
worked for Israel and advised it to cover up the 2002 massacre in Jenin of Palestinians by the Israeli army, see
MacAskill: Israel Adviser Switches to Top FO Job, 2006.
152 The main reason why established social scientists have not been able to confirm this simple truth could be that
most of them are paid by or dependent on the US elites, in one way or another. Further evidence for the nearly
total absence of peaceful intentions in overall US foreign policy are, among many other things, the following six
official stances: the opposition of the USA to the World Criminal Court, aimed to combat genocide and other
war crimes (see N.N: The International Criminal Court (ICC), no date, and footnote 217, below), the Biological
Weapons Convention (see Waddington: Pressure Mounts on US Over Germ War Pact, 2002), the Kyoto pact
against global climate change (see Edwards, Dave: Climate Wars: Paying The Ultimate Price For Corporate
Control of Society, 2000), the UN Anti-Torture Treaty (along with China, Cuba, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, Syria
and Vietnam, see Arieff: US Loses Fresh Bid to Block UN Anti-Torture Pact, 2002), the 1997 Treaty to Ban
Landmines, (along with Israel and 42 other countries, see N.N.: 1997 Mine Ban Treaty – Non Signatories, no
date), and the UN Human Rights Council (along with Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, see Leopold: UN
Creates New Rights Council over US Objections, 2006). In its foreign policy (and to a lesser extent: in some of
its domestic policies, though its genocidal past should not be forgotten), it appears that the US elites, for the
reasons just outlined, are adamantly opposed to human rights, cultural diversity and biodiversity, except when
the use of propaganda invoking them could be seen as furthering their own interests. With regard to human
rights, there seems to be a pattern whereby only political and civil rights are promoted whenever they seem to be
conducive for elite interests, whereas social and economic rights are usually simply denied or ignored downright.
Similarly, cultural diversity (see footnote 765, below) and biodiversity are promoted only within the USA, and
again only when conducive or acceptable to elite interests. The elites, moreover, do not represent the interests of
93