William Bowles: Does the tail wag the dog?


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

Woof-Woof! The bite is far worse than the bark
US imperial strategies and the so-called Jewish lobby

by William Bowles * Tuesday, 8 August, 2006

Consider if you will that the US has, for the past 100 years pursued 
a policy that would enable it to ensure global dominance through the 
ownership and control of vital energy supplies and as a result enable 
it to dominate the world's economy to the benefit of its own 
capitalist class. This policy has resulted in innumerable wars and 
coup d'etats and even the deliberate destruction of entire countries 
through its control of world trade and innumerable foreign 

In pursuit of these objectives it utilises a variety of tactics, 
tactics that include murder, subversion, bribes and blackmail, the 
overthrow of governments, election fixing as well as the more obvious 
propaganda campaigns it wages through the corporate press, whose 
interests are of course identical with those who govern. The handful 
of media/communications corporations who wage this war of words are 
global in scope enabling them to push the same message no matter the 
language or the location.

This process has accelerated and intensified as a result of mergers 
and acquisitions and the convergence of the technological processes 
involved. Thus the corporations that own the media and communications 
are also the same corporations that manufacture weapons, develop 
surveillance and social control systems. In turn, these corporations 
are owned through the stock portfolios of a small handful of global 
banking, investment and insurance corporations.

Leading the pack of wolves are perhaps four or five giant energy 
corporations which includes Exxon and Shell, corporations that 
through cross-ownership, shared directorships are also linked to a 
handful of weapons corporations such as Lockheed, Grumman, 
Martin-Marietta, Raytheon.

Ensuring that this unholy alliance maintains its dominance and 
control, the same individuals who sit on the boards of this handful 
of corporations are also the same people who occupy key positions in 
government, indeed it is virtually impossible to separate the two and 
it has been so for the past century, regardless of which political 
party is in power. There is a literal open door between government 
and business, a relationship that extends to the governments of 
foreign countries such as the UK and Israel.

It is not too far-fetched to talk of an emerging global capitalist 
class, but one led by the US, whose interests transcend those of the 
nation-state, though this relationship is by no means smooth or 
complete, witness the competing interests of rival capitalist powers 
such as France, Germany or Japan. Moreover, the tensions between 
national and corporate interests manifest themselves in complex and 
often contradictory ways, thus we see the occasional 'spat' such as 
the one between France and the US over the invasion of Iraq and once 
more over the invasion of Lebanon.

But overall the overwhelming military and economic power of the US 
guarantees that by hook or by crook, it generally gets its way and 
does so through its control of vital energy supplies, and its related 
control of the global circuit of capital, greased by the US dollar. 
Rock the US boat and be assured that others will undoubtedly sink, 
thus national interests are circumscribed by the reality of the need 
to survive.

The evidence for this is overwhelming having been documented by 
dozens if not hundreds of writers and researchers over the years, 
some of whom have been referred to here over and over again. In the 
final analysis, those who object to this interpretation of events are 
people either ignorant of the facts, or who believe that the 
interests of these corporate gangsters and their own are identical 
even if it means their own (but more likely, someone else's) 

Which brings me to the issue that I refer to as the 'tail wagging the 
dog' hypothesis, which persists in spite of all the evidence to the 
contrary, evidence which I have been asked to present. Now you may 
ask why it is so important a subject to consider yet again.

Firstly, my interest is not, as some on the 'left' advance, the 
alleged danger of an increase in anti-semitism as a result of Israeli 
actions, after all, why don't these self-same individuals get as 
worked up about the role of racism as applied to our brown-skinned 
brothers and sisters if they are so worried about the policies of the 
imperialists? The use of racism by the imperialist powers to divide 
and conquer and to justify wholesale slaughter is of infinitely 
greater importance than the alleged danger of an increase in 
anti-semitism. If there is a rise in anti-semitism better they tackle 
the issue of the existence of Israel as an extremist fundamentalist, 
religious state, which is after all, the source.

But of far more importance is the fact that by advancing the 
hypothesis that a 'cabal' of Jews controls the most powerful nation 
on the planet, obscures the real issues. No doubt some of the leading 
capitalists and their representatives in government in the US call 
themselves Jews and publicly ally themselves with the state of 
Israel, after all, their interests coincide. But by the same token, 
many more call themselves Christian and thus, by applying the same 
logic one could argue there exists a 'cabal' of Presbyterians (or 
Anglicans, or Evangelicals or Seventh Day Adventists for that matter) 
controlling America.

Just as important it is vital to recognise the fact that the Zionist 
state of Israel is made up of white European settlers or their 
descendants, who have an identical view to those of their US and 
European counterparts (search in vain for a brown-skinned, 
Moroccan/African Jew in the government of Israel). That they profess 
to following the teachings of the Old Testament is neither here nor 
there. Calling themselves the 'Chosen People' is no different than 
the European colonialists who claimed their 'right' to colonise by 
virtue of being Christian and 'civilised' as opposed to the 'pagans' 
they enslaved and whose land and resources they stole. In both 
instances, religion and 'race' were used to justify oppression and 
expropriation on the basis of a fictional 'right', one by 'race', the 
other by religion.

Which came first, the 'Jewish lobby' or US imperialism? Indeed, the 
concept of the 'Jewish Homeland' was an invention of British 
colonialism in the first place, created initially to ensure continued 
control of the vital supply line to Britain's colonial possessions in 
India and the East and subsequently the discovery of oil as well as a 
means of suppressing the rising tide of Arab nationalism. The fulcrum 
of that control was Palestine which by virtue of nothing other than 
its geographical location close by the Suez Canal was selected as the 
'homeland' by Lord Balfour in 1917.

Be assured that if the interests of the state of Israel and those of 
US imperialism diverge (as they did for example, when Britain and 
Israel invaded Egypt in 1956 or more recently when Israel tried to 
sell weapons to China) then the real relationship between the two is 
revealed, that of master and servant.

No doubt there will still be some who argue that it is the 'Jewish 
Lobby' that has somehow forced the US to bankroll the settler state 
but I argue that US bankrolling of Israel is no different than the 
host of other client states the US bankrolls from Pakistan to Saudi 
Arabia. It does so purely out of national/corporate interests, thus 
if it transpired that Israeli policy was to diverge to the detriment 
of US interests then surely as night follows day, Israel would no 
longer be the darling of corporate America no matter how much the 
'Jewish lobby' howled.

Just look at how the US has treated other 'allies' who, once no 
longer useful, have been dumped, from Manuel Noreiga in Panama, 
Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Jonas Savimbi in Angola.

That Israel is by far the biggest recipient of US aid only points to 
the vital importance of Israel/Palestine in US strategic planning, 
just as it did when Britain was the leader of the (wolf) pack in the 
Middle East. It should surely come as no surprise that just as in 
1917 it was oil that was central to British strategy, so too today it 
is still oil, which is the reason Israel figures so highly in US 

In a comment here, Lance Thruster asks

"If I am reading you correctly, Israel serves the US agenda and not 
the other way around. If that was the case, why would the Israel 
lobby be so successful in punishing US politicians that aren't 
sufficiently pro-Zionist?"

I'm not sure what you mean by punish, but the political class of the 
US state is not entirely homogenous. Some, for example, Zbigniew 
Brzezinski, an arch-imperialist, argues that pursuing the current 
policy is NOT in the long term interests of US capitalism, thus we 

"These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are 
fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn 
the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the 
United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, 
if neocon policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be 
expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end 
for Israel as well." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

And there are others who also see the dangers inherent in the current 
US administration's policy. Unfortunately, they are in a minority. If 
there is a 'cabal' controlling current US foreign policy it is one 
led by Big Oil, whose interests appear to override the national 
interest. I say appear because the outcome of the present crisis will 
determine the future of US capitalism and I contend that what is 
being played out here is one, gigantic gamble that with Israel as US 
proxy, a client regime will be installed in Lebanon thus 
consolidating US control of its vital oil interests in the region. 
Should they fail then just as Brzezinski says, it could spell the end 
of the existing state of Israel and US plans for the region.

And it should be obvious that a US success is also an Israeli success 
but not necessarily vice versa. The US hasn't poured billions of 
dollars into Israel merely because of some demented religious 
fundamentalists nor because of a desire to counter anti-semitism. 
Don't forget that it's not so long ago that Jews in the US were 
discriminated against, not on the scale of the discrimination against 
black Americans, but they were barred from particular clubs and 
schools and so forth and anti-semitism still exists in the US as it 
does elsewhere.

And let us not forget that US funding of Israel predates the current 
administration by some decades. Those who argue that the 'tail wags 
the dog' are saying that ever since the establishment of the state of 
Israel, it was initiated and supported by a lobby, which is patently 

Not only is it nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense as it serves only 
those who seek to obscure the real issues by making it an issue of 
'race' as opposed to class interests, just as the US/Israeli 
propaganda machine tries to make out that it is the survival of the 
Jewish state which is at stake here.

Ultimately, what we are witnessing here are not the narrow, sectarian 
interests of this or that 'cabal' being played out but the future of 
US capitalism as it is presently constituted, which is why I argue 
against the 'woof-woofs' of this world.

Escaping the Matrix website     http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website            http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives                http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
   cyberjournal forum           http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
   Achieving real democracy     http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
   for readers of ETM           http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
   Community Empowerment        http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
   Blogger made easy            http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html