Prof: US Knows What it is Doing

Professor Gil-White explains who and what influences US actions in an interview with Israel National Radio.Things, he says, are not what they seem.

Derek Cling, | updated: 07:49

PA-Israel-USA
PA-Israel-USA
INN

Israel National Radio's Tamar Yonah recently interviewed  Anthropology Professor Francisco Gil-White, who specializes in anti-Semitism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, US geopolitical behavior, and the operation of the Western mass media. He discussed the motives and interplay between the International community, the United States, Iran and the Muslim regimes.
If they're allowing these people, who mean to destroy Israel, to acquire a position of strength from which they can attempt the destruction of Israel, then that's what they want."

Gil-White who edits the website "Historical and Investigative Research," where he writes documented articles on geopolitical behavior, with a special emphasis on its repercussions for the State of Israel, explains that the official pronouncements of the United States concerning Iran seem to be one of opposition to that country's policies, "though, of course, other than words, it's unclear what exactly the U.S. has been doing in order to harm Iran."

At the same time, he says, official American representation also leads the public to believe that "the U.S. government is watching over Israel like a guardian angel, making sure that it has its best interests at heart when making geopolitical decisions.

"And then you've got an incredibly aggressive push in the last year from the Obama administration demanding that Israel reach a final status agreement with the Palestinian Authority, PLO [and] Fatah, to create a Palestinian state in strategic Israeli territory."

The common interpretation that makes all these pronouncements consistent with one another, says Gil-White, is one where "Iran is a big danger, but the PLO has nothing to do with Iran and really means to make peace with Israel – and that's why the U.S., which opposes Iran and has Israel's best interests at heart, is pushing for a two-state solution between Israel and PLO Fatah."

Based on his research, however, Gil-White claims that, in fact, the PLO Fatah has a close relationship with Iran. "The U.S. government is obviously aware that this relationship exists, and therefore, when it pushes for a Palestinian state run by PLO Fatah, it is really installing an arm of Iran inside the Jewish state," says Gil-White.

"There's no question that the U.S. government, the most powerful actor in the geopolitical arena, is the one leading this process – it knows what it's doing," he says. According to Gil-White, the U.S.-led diplomatic "so-called Peace Process" was forced upon Israel, and started with the Madrid conference [in 1991] that Israel reluctantly agreed to while under threat from the United States to lose a lot of its economic support and then led to the Oslo Peace Process. This is "the only reason the PLO is inside Israel borders right now," he concludes.

Moreover, this process of the so-called diplomatic peace effort is manifest today "in the recent very aggressive diplomacy that the Obama administration has directed against Israel - apparently building Jewish homes in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish State, is offensive to the American President."

Based on his research on HIR, Gil-White also points to the fact that the U.S. does not, in fact, oppose Iran, but rather, supports it. The fact that the "peace" process weakens Israel, and rewards Arab terrorism and Islamic power is not such a contradiction "if you study the last 30 years of geopolitical relationships between the U.S. and Iran," he says, "Year after year, ever since Ayatollah Khomeini. took power in 1979 -- the outbreak of the Islamic revolution --  foreign policy has always been designed to strengthen Iran. Of course, the American government's public declarations are always of enmity towards Iran, but saying something is very cheap – it doesn’t cost anything."     

For many years, the Shah of Iran, Iran's previous leader who was trying to westernize Iran, was a close ally to of the US government, Gil-White explains, and "the CIA built the Shah's security service, Chavak, which was infamous for its violence, and its trampling over every single Iranian liberty. It was only in the last couple of years or so of the Shah's rule that the US seemed to abandon him." Then-US President Jimmy Carter started to take actions against the Shah, who was supposedly the America's "westernized" ally because "the US wanted a regime change in Iran, and wanted the mullahs and the Shah out. One hypothesis is that the US had decided to follow a policy of sponsoring Islamic fundamentalism," he says.

"One of the reasons why doing that was a smart idea in geopolitical terms is that the entire belly of the Soviet Union was populated – the Asian belly of the Soviet Union – with Muslims. Radicalizing those Muslims was a way of destabilizing the Soviet Union and this is something that worked very well in Afghanistan for example," says Gil-White, "This is where Osama Bin Laden got his start – working for the CIA, training Afghan mujahideen inside the Pakistani border with Afghanistan and they set up a bunch of madrasas where people would be indoctrinated to the most fanatical Islamist ideology, and then they would be sent back into Afghanistan as terrorists to destabilize the Afghan regime - and this is what eventually produced the Soviet invasion in a debilitating war that helped destabilize the Soviet Union. This has actually been confessed to a French magazine by Zbigniew Brzezinski. who was Jimmy Carter's national security adviser at the time."

These facts seem to be consistent with the United States' following a pro-Islamist policy in Iran, according to Gil-White, who goes on to draw another parallel with the American-Saudi Arabian connection. "We know that the United States has had a very, very close, intimate alliance for many, many years with Saudi Arabia," he says, "which is a theocratic Islamist state that has been exporting Islamist terrorism to other parts of the world.

"The idea that the U.S. favors theocratic Islamist state in Iran and wishes to strengthen it is certainly not inconsistent with other aspects of U.S. foreign policy that we can document, and is not inconsistent with what was revealed in the middle of the 1980s – the Iran Contra scandal – when it was found that the U.S. government was arming the Iranian government to the tune of billions of dollars a year to help it win the war against Iraq, and no satisfactory explanation was ever given by the U.S. government for that." The most plausible explanation based on his research is that this was "part of a general policy that we can see in other places of supporting states that sponsor Islamist terrorists," says Gil-White.

"First, when caught red-handed, they said, 'Oh, we were sending billions of dollars in arms to the Iranians because a few Americans were taken hostage in Lebanon by Hizbullah, and because Hizbullah is an Iranian proxy, we were trying to buy Iranian goodwill to free these five Americans in Lebanon.' This is obviously ridiculous, but it couldn’t even be true in principle because a U.S. congressional investigation 10 years later found out that the arms shipment to Iran started in 1981 whereas the first of these hostages in Lebanon was taken by Hizbollah in 1982. A more plausible explanation is that it was part of a general policy that we can see in other places of supporting states that sponsor Islamist terrorists.

Gil-White adds that the people who produce foreign policy are a very small group of the US ruling elite who agree with each other, and who have the control of the state apparatus – these are the people who make decisions. The question is 'what is in their interest?' If we think of this as being in the United States' interests, nothing makes sense – we have to think of what they do as being in their private interest – this small group of people."

Gil-White claims that the public needs to simply look at the actions, and not the words, of the United States government in order to make sense of state and foreign policy. "What you need to do is study state policies so that you can infer the intentions of these people, and wash your mind of all the propaganda you keep hearing from official declarations and media statements, and so on. What you want to do is just pay attention to what decisions are becoming state policies that are costing state treasuries billions of dollars – those are the decisions that reveal what the real intentions are."

He goes on to explain that the general public holds certain assumptions and generalizations about the geopolitical world as truth that are not necessarily so. One example is the assumption that the PLO is an organization that hates the United States. ""That doesn't make a lot of sense; I think they probably agree with each other. I also don’t think that the foreign policy of the United States can be explained by the fact that it's run by a few powerful oilmen who have interests in oil-producing countries – I don't think this explains the facts."

"The United States is pushing so hard to give the PLO a state of their own inside Israeli territory when they know about the intimate relationship between the PLO, Fatah, and Iran," continues Gil-White, "The US also has to know that the founder of Al Fatah was Husseini, who was one of the great leaders of the Final Solution – he was a partner and very close friend of Adolf Eichman, and according to testimony that was presented at Nuremberg, and later then at Eichman's trial in Jerusalem in 1960, was in fact with Eichman, the great architect of the entire mass killing of WWII. Why do I say that the US gov has to know this? Because they have much better information than mine. If it's possible for me to document all this, then they've documented it many times over – they've known it for many, many years because they have the most sophisticated intelligence service in the world and spend billons and billions of dollars a year on it.

His conclusion: "If they're allowing these people, who mean to destroy Israel, to acquire a position of strength from which they can attempt the destruction of Israel, then that's what they want." 




top