Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, Author: Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, Santa Barbara, 2008. Pages 287. Price $27.95.
Jeff Gates's book, Guilt by Association, belongs to the genre of works that may be characterized as "humanistic." This genre has been developed by, among others, Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Kevin Philip, Peter Beinart, Edward Said, John Mearsheimer-Stephen Walt, and John Perkins. (The latter two are former insiders of the US Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] and the corporate sector associated with the CIA.)
From data collection to analysis, the approaches of these authors have been different, but there is a common thread that runs through their works: the desire to move the world from the paradigm of domination and plunder to one of relatively more equitable relationships among nations. This is why many would consider them children of humanity.
Thus, Noam Chomsky's Year 501 the Conquest Continues and his other works place the United States in the European tradition of colonial conquest and plunder, defining its behavior in the world as modern-day imperialism.
William Blum's The Rogue State centers on the US desire to control the planet in the name of peace and protection. His thesis is that the United States wants the world to buy its weapons: "[L]et our military and our corporations roam freely across your land, and give us veto power over whom your leader will be, and we will protect you." Blum describes it as the cleverest protection racket.
Kevin Philip's American Theocracy is also in the same line though more focused on the deadly combination of oil and religion as arbiters of US policies. By all counts it is a profound work.
Peter Beinart's The Icarus Syndrome concentrates on the fallout of the US policy of remaking the world in its image.
Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism is a transformative work that traces culture's role as informing the political and economic effort to control and consolidate Western domination over others.
John Mearsheimer's The Israeli Lobby and the US Foreign Policy deals with the exaggerated American tilt toward Israel and the problems it has created for the US image in the community of nations.
John Perkins' Confessions of a Hit Man is a testimonial work of a corporate employee trained to destabilize other countries through ill-fated economic policies. In the process it exposes the linkage between American business and CIA-sponsored subversion.
Why are these brilliant minds critical of their country? No doubt, their cause is unpopular with the powerful entrenched interests who have often accused them of being anti-American. But they are not. Most of these writers share Edward Said's belief that "it is part of morality not to be at home in one's home."
Jeff Gates follows their trail but with his own lantern. The imprint he leaves behind is easily discernable owing to his individuality, earnestness, and sincerity to his craft. His aim is to unravel the machination and deception of the Jewish oligarchy at the micro level, which he achieves with the skill of a consummate lawyer.
Guilt by Association is a masterful study of how a "land grab" named Israel operates at the American expense. It is also an exhaustive study of how a small US minority can manipulate the policies of a superpower for the benefit of the so-called Jewish homeland. More than that, it is a study of the criminalization of the American politics and economy. Combine the three aspects and the result is a book, at once scholarly and yet free from the tedium of pedantry, about people and their wiles in pursuing a ruthless Zionist ideology and its grab for the land of others. In this sense, it has more than one dimension-a manual of subversion, a mix of psychology, brain manipulation, coercion, money laundering, and the worst exploitation of human emotions.
To sift myth from reality and facts from fiction, Gates applies the "game theory," a branch of applied mathematics, to the Zionist manipulation of the American political and economic scene. In his hands, the game theory becomes a helpful tool to explain the role of each player in his strategic posturing. Thus, as he explains it, there is the "target," who is to be enfeebled and discredited, and the "manipulator," who plans and employs human consciousness to set the dynamics into motion against the backdrop of shared beliefs of Judeo-Christianity, democracy, and the war against terrorism.
In pursuing their goals, the Israelis have layers of operatives whom Gates splinters into agents, assets, and helpers. Agents, of course, are trained for a job. Assets are those who can be baited into empathizing with an intended cause for money, influence, sex, or ideology; even a president can be made a pliable peddler for pro-Israeli policies through such means. Helpers are a corps of workers who give a helping hand to Israeli operations. There could be as many of them as 7,000 in London alone. As for Washington, in their own words: "[t]here are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill] . . . who happen to be Jewish, who are willing to look . . . at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level."
With all these cadres in place, the mode of operation involves sophisticated meandering through a maze of actions. To begin with, the Israelis have chalked out dossiers of psychological profiles of individuals who can be influenced owing to their inclinations or vulnerabilities. Jeff Gates mentions two incidents where Jewish women used their charms on at least two presidents. Regarding the laundering of money for political clout, he presents a long list of beneficiaries of Jewish generosity from presidents to lawmakers, including recent presidential aspirant John McCain and incumbent president Barack Obama.
To validate his game theory, Gates mentions, among others, two instances. Both are relevant to our times.
In the 1980s Libya was hot in the news for its vanguard role in supporting the Palestinian cause. Israel decided to neutralize Qadhafi through a three-phase action plan, which Jeff Gates spells out as pre-staging, orchestration, and provocation.
As pre-staging, messages are transmitted from Libyan soil to its embassies to set off a chain of terrorist acts. The intention is obvious. Such messages are highly likely to be intercepted. And that brings Libya blinking as a terrorist state on intelligence screens in Europe and elsewhere. The United States shows its gullibility in accepting such doctored messages as real.
The orchestration phase activates Mossad operatives to terrorist acts through proxy. The Israeli target is to get some Americans killed so that the United States is lured into killing those whom Israelis consider offensive to their cause.
In the provocation phase, Berlin's La Belle Discotheque is blasted, killing an American serviceman and causing the desired outrage: 160 American, German, and British aircrafts unload 160 tons of explosives on Libya killing 40 civilians, including Qadhafi's 2-year-old daughter.
Berlin's selection as the site for the terrorist attack is important as the ripple effect would be felt all over Europe convincing even cynical regimes about the Israeli plight surrounded by a sea of Muslim states. Second, it would provide the West a much-needed new enemy, "radical Islam," against the backdrop of a cold war that is winding down. Third, it would alienate the Muslim world from the United States, eventually forcing Americans to identify themselves with Israel.
Here, Gates cites a senior Mossad operative as saying, fifteen years before 9/11, that after neutralizing Qadhafi, Iraq and Saddam Hussein would be Israel's target: "We are starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there is no doubt that it'll work." The rest is history. Saddam has been hanged, and his country decimated.
Gates is convincing in linking the Berlin and 9/11 incidents with the Israeli plan to bring out complete US support for its security concerns in the Middle East. He finds the genesis of the Israeli plan to involve the United States in its war against its neighbors in the armed march staged by Ariel Sharon to Temple Mount in 2000. It took Palestinians a year to start a series of suicide bombings, as expected by Israel. The United States and Europe were, of course, prompt in condemning suicide bombing. But Israel was looking for something more. Iraqi support to the Palestinian cause was worrisome and so was its economic and military rebound after the Gulf War. Iraq had to be axed to minimize the threat to Israel.
Gates quotes Sharon and Netanyahu saying that only when Americans "feel our pain" would they understand the Israeli plight. "Both men mentioned a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism-the initial estimate of those who died a year later in the Twin Towers of New York City's World Trade Center."
September 11, 2001 is another orchestrated event to give Israel the much desired edge over others in the region. In Gates's calculus, two preparatory steps were necessary to make this tragic event happen:
One, a mental environment had to be created supportive to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. This called for a massive exercise in brainwashing, sustained and made plausible by a believable theoretical framework. That framework was provided by Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilization in 1993-96.
Two, people had to be made to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, and that it had weapons of mass destruction. Gates characterizes this effort as "the displacement of an inconvenient truth (that Iraq had no role in 9/11) with what people could be induced to believe. The emotionally wrenching nature of that event played a key fact-displacing role."
But the mere publication of a plausible theory would not have helped unless it had been critically acclaimed by the media, and the academia owned it. Gates says "100 academies and think tanks were prepared to promote it, pre-staging a clash consensus five years before 9/11."
As a capper, it would take a legislative act to legitimize Iraqi invasion. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, made possible by the cumulative efforts of pro-Zionist lawmakers like John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Jon Kyl, should be seen against this scenario. Gates could also have said that the passing of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, three years before 9/11, was a prelude to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This implies that the plan to invade Iraq was already in gestation; 9/11 was a ruse.
Gates cites Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission, making the following statement before an audience at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002:
Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?
I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990-it's the threat against Israel. And this is the real threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, , because it's not a popular sell.
Critiquing it, Gates notes, "Zelikow omitted that candor in the 9/11 Commission report."
Such devious cover-ups are usually associated with Third World countries who are believed to be gullible and thus easy to deceive. But here, ironically, we have a superpower said to be free, and to have a vigilant press and a powerful Congress, where the administration succeeds in deceiving its people so that they wreak senseless havoc on a large segment of humanity-Muslims, in this case-and that too without so much as a whimper.
It is daring on the part of Gates to expose this criminality. One should not, however, get the impression that this is the only deception the United States has practised on its own people. Gore Vidal asserts in The Golden Age (2000)-which has the narrative of a novel but is based on a serious study of history and written without the author's hallmark irreverence-that Franklin Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and Harry Truman scorched Hiroshima and Nagasaki to dust pretending that a million Americans would lose their lives even when the military heads disagreed. Vidal cites three serious works, Charles A. Beard's President Roosevelt and the Coming of War, Robert A. Stinnet's Day of Deceit, and Gar Alperovitz's The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, to validate his stance.
People who think democracy is open and that it always reflects the people's will, which is sovereign, forget that democracy is a process that calls for shrewd management. Otherwise, it can backfire, hurting people at the hands of special interest groups who may deflect the process toward the fulfillment of their own parochial agendas. In this sense, democracy is a challenge to a people's genius, demanding that they exercise the ability to sift right from wrong. The media, which is considered to be a watchdog, can become somebody else's dog, susceptible to influences and acting as anesthetic to the people. If this can happen in the United States, it can happen elsewhere too. Unfortunately, there are no exceptions.
Gates touches a few other important bases like demand or purchasing-power economics as against supply-side economics, privatization, and globalization. He shows reasonably well that supply-side economics based on the Chicago model is a root cause of the problems jeopardizing the world economy and creating monopolies. He does not, however, expose the privatization issue and its ramifications for the economy in general or how public interest is hurt, especially when it goes in the hands of international controllers of businesses. Privatization, especially in a country like Pakistan, has not been of much help in increasing efficiency or saving costs, as its proponents claimed. Instead, public accountability, to which utility services were amenable, has now diminished as their ownership has moved to private hands. The Karachi Electric Supply Company is one such instance.
While I agree with Gates that the United States is guilty by association in its exaggerated tilt toward Israel, I disagree with the part of his thesis that implies that it is only Israel making use of the United States. Accepting this would mean that the Americans are too simple to be capable of taking care of their interests. On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is a reciprocal relationship.
US-Israeli relations have to be seen from the viewpoint of the interests of the two countries. For example, the United States wants to have relatively cheap Middle Eastern oil free from encumbrance. Second, it needs to ensure that the Islamic aspirations of the Muslim masses are denied fruition. In the US threat perception, the two are interlinked. The United States sees Israel as a natural ally that can act, with US national and military prodding, to secure its interests.
Also, the United States would not like to let Muslims have an entirely Muslim Middle East with no geopolitical breach in its contiguous boundaries to themselves. Israeli presence on the map of the Middle East provides that breach and provides a watchdog in the region. Should any untoward situation be created in the Muslim countries that threatens to compromise American interests, Israel can act quickly, substituting for the United States until it reaches the scene.
On the other hand, Israel wants to see itself as a nation strong enough to deflect any threat that may come its way from neighboring countries. For that, Israel not only wants to retain annexed territories but if possible to go beyond them. The United States is a credible source of money as well as of sophisticated military hardware.
The Judeo-Christian angle also pulls the two together against Islam, which they think is an aberration and a major rival that needs to be checkmated and, if possible, neutralized. Secular modernity or postmodernity that speaks of plurality is more rhetoric than a substantive reality. The world, in their perception, has to be secularized under the shadow of Western civilization. Islam has no place in it other than as a private religion, without any pretence at collective expression as an alternative civilization or sovereignty.
Two instances should suffice to show that the relationship between the two is symbiotic.
In January 19, 1982 the Israelis launched a major operation against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) bases in Lebanon, despite assurances to the contrary from the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin. The United States responded with an approving silence. In fact, Secretary Haig was jubilant. For him it was an emotional situation; he forgot to distance himself from Israel and told the reporters that the Israeli war was his war. He said, for example, "We not only lost an aircraft and a helicopter yesterday . . . "
Later, on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," Secretary Haig was heard saying that the Israeli strike against Lebanon had created a new opportunity for shaping a new political map in the region.
What the new map was he did not spell out. But it was obvious that if, out of the Israeli invasion, Lebanon was annexed by Israel, the Palestinian movement would be quashed, and a greater Zionist state would emerge in the region. The region's oil resources would be theirs to enjoy. David Frum (The Right Man, 2003), a speechwriter in the first Bush administration, recounts his former boss as saying that the war on terror was designed "to bring new stability to the most vicious and violent guardant of the earth-and a new prosperity to us all, by securing the world's largest pool of oil."
In almost all the wars that Israel had with its neighbors, the United States sided with it. To validate my point, one example will be enough.
The cold war had polarized the Middle East. Since Israel was in the US camp, its neighbors joined the Soviet orbit. The Israeli-Arab wars became wars between American supplied weapons and the Soviet armory. Obviously, the US government was keen to have information on the Soviet weapons. The Israelis whetted the American appetite. In a Washington seminar May 17, 1978, General George Keagan acknowledged the Israeli contribution, saying "[it] has been a major help in improving our national security. This immeasurable contribution is worth at least fifty billion dollars. Five CIAs would never have been able to do the same job for us."
Later, Menachem Begin visited Washington. Jacques Derogy and Hesi Carmel (Untold History of Israel, 1980) recount the event of Begin handing President Carter a top secret dossier detailing the Israeli share in firming up the US defense. Amazed, say the Israeli sources, Carter said to Begin, "It's incredible! I had no idea of any of this."
Any military cooperation, of course, leads to intelligence sharing. That this led to closer relations between the Mossad and the CIA was least surprising, though many sane Americans were concerned about its potential evil consequences. In fact, the famous Pike Report cautioned the US government that it may be harmful to the United States in the end.
All said, Jeff Gates's book has really rattled me. His ability to read into the mind of the US establishment and its collusion with the Zionists is praiseworthy. Their manipulation of the media, performing arts, and literature is indeed linked to the incarnation of a phantasmagoria. As long as people are willing to believe, the drama for deception will continue. The work's achievement lies in uncovering the diabolical mechanisms by which false images are created to seduce people to act in a certain way that helps Zionists achieve their objectives.