'It's what I have to do'

Lyndon Larouche, a lone voice in the desert of American thinking on the Middle East, chats to Mohamed Hakki in Washington
Living in Washington today drives one to feel that America is living on a different planet from the rest of us.
The political establishment and the media here are sensitive only to Israeli needs. Even worse, the US bias continues unabated, deaf to the many voices in Israel itself which are enraged at what is being done by the Sharon government -- not only against the Palestinian people, but against Israel's future as a whole. People like Uri Aveneri, Gideon Levy, Jeff Halper, Amira Haas, Heve Fordon, Gila Svirsky, Neta Golan, Allegra Pachaco, Rina Rosenburg, and many others, come to mind.
On the political side, too, there are people like Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid and others. But in America, it is the Mojave desert when one comes to intelligent debate on the Middle East.
Whenever one hears a lonely voice, it becomes a breath of fresh air. One of these voices is Lyndon Larouche, several-times presidential candidate, and always ready to speak his mind. Al-Ahram Weekly conducted a telephone interview with Larouche last Friday, excerpts of which follow:
Your analysis of the situation in the Middle East is unique, and it is unequaled among most of the American leaders. What are your thoughts as you watch the news about the Israeli invasion, despite the fact that the American media is heavily censored? You should know that people in the Middle East, and also in Europe and elsewhere, have been shocked by the pictures coming out of Palestine.
I do get briefed on this coverage -- so I'm up to date on it but I'm not very happy about it. But look, we have a philosophy in the United States from a certain group which now seems to be exerting majority control over the policies of the president. This is the group around Brzezinski and others, who are for this "clash of civilisations" war. Then you have, on the other hand, a fascist crew, which is in charge of Israel -- literally fascist. What Sharon represents is not only fascist, but what he's doing against the Palestinians, is, as I've said repeatedly, a copy, and a conscious copy, of what the Nazi general, Juergen Stroop, did in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Exactly the same thing, in terms of method, is being applied, by the Israelis to the Palestinians, that was done against the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
And what I don't like also is some of the tactics of resistance by the Palestinians. Nonetheless, I compare this to what the desperate Jews in the Ghetto were doing, with a few carbines, against the entire Nazi force. It's resistance. The people said of those Jews who died as fighters against the Nazis that they saved the reputation of Judaism by standing up as heroes against hopeless odds. And we have the same thing happening with the Palestinians. They're standing up like heroes against hopeless odds, because they see nothing else they can do as their purpose in life but to leave a mark which may be useful for the future of the people.
How can you explain the fact that we don't hear a single voice in the Congress -- neither in the Senate, nor in the House of [Representatives] -- that asks: What is America's stake in all of this?
I have a report -- I don't know how accurate it is, but I think it's accurate as to a general impression, that there are just 11 members from the over-400 total members of the House of Representatives who are not, to one degree or another, under control of the so- called Zionist Lobby. Plus, you have the fact that the president of the United States is in mid-term election campaign, with his brother running as governor in Florida, and he is being told by people such as Karl Rove, his political adviser, that if he goes against Sharon and Israel, he and his party and his brother will lose the election.
So you've got a combination of pressures in the case of a president who is really not qualified to be president, but he happens to be president. He's not qualified, emotionally, intellectually or otherwise. And he does not react like a president who takes responsibility for the future of his entire country, and its relations with other countries, but he's reacting like a fool, in a sense. But, he is the president, and we have to deal with him as the president, even if he behaves like a fool. And he (is) behaving like a fool. And this is a true tragedy, what is happening to the United States government right now.
I was just in Egypt for 10 days, and all of my friends were asking me: How can you explain President Bush? We seem to be living on two different planets, not just two different parts of the world. Two different planets.
Yes.
Nobody here understands the degree to which anger has reached boiling point throughout the Arab world, and throughout Europe, and throughout -- I mean, there is a Japanese who burned himself, for God's sake, and others. And there must be higher US national interests outside of the domestic scene, and also votes, and money, and so on, which should compel the president. There was another Republican president in 1956, his name was Dwight Eisenhower, and when he said "Now!" he meant it. The Israelis withdrew from Suez in 48 hours.
Well, that's a very interesting comparison to make, especially when people in Egypt, of course, will particularly be interested in this aspect of it, because of that. But remember that Eisenhower was an opponent of what is called the "utopian" military policy of the United States, which was developing at that time. And the utopian policy erupted into the open, when Eisenhower ended his term as president, where he made that famous speech about the military- industrial complex.
What happened is that with Eisenhower gone, the people who had not dared to challenge him directly when he was president went on with a revolution in military policy, which has now become a lunatic copy of not only the Roman legions, but also the Nazi Waffen-SS, on a world scale.
So, we have a faction in the United States, typified by Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington, and so forth, who are pushing for a clash of civilisations war. The Israeli faction, the fascists of Israel, while they are to some degree in conflict with the United States, because they do have conflicts in immediate interests, also have the same general convergence.
A good example is the case of Iraq. Sharon desperately needs an attack on Lebanon and Syria at least, and preferably Iraq. He's got an impossible situation inside Israel. He cannot continue this operation against the Palestinians within Israel alone, and get by with it. He is, therefore, going to seek a broader war in the Arab world, and the targets are, of course, Syria, Iraq especially and possibly Iran. These are his principal targets of opportunity. The Israeli military is behind him. Netanyahu will follow the same policy if he succeeds Sharon, and there's a possibility of that.
So, what you have is a convergence of those in the United States who want a clash of civilisations war with an Israeli fascist faction, which is building up an Israeli resistance against this stuff -- there is a growing movement of Israelis who recognise this as fascism, that Rabin was right, and that Sharon is wrong. That is also happening.
Then you have also the completely opportunist factor, in terms of US opportunist politics, election politics and so forth. And the economic crisis, world economic crisis. All of these things are converging to create a tragedy which I have compared to Nero, from the time he had this crazy sexual orgy and launched the burning of Rome, until the destruction of Nero by the consequences of what he did. And you have a true, classical tragedy being enacted by the United States government, in particular now, because the United States is the one power that could stop Israel from doing this; it [must] stop Israel from doing this, and it's refusing to do so.
You mentioned Brzezinski, but I was told -- I was not here -- I was told that he had a debate on MacNeil-Lehrer, with Henry Kissinger, and he really put Kissinger in the shredding machine. He was much more sane, much more rational, a much more patriotic American than Kissinger, who is totally in the Israeli camp.
Well, so is Brzezinski, actually. But Brzezinski, remember, was the creator of Jimmy Carter. And he was the organiser of the Trilateral Commission. He's also on the Democratic Party's side.
But might he have changed his views?
No, his views have not changed. He's a complete opportunist. But at this point, he's got a problem in the Democratic Party: The Democratic Party will not take on Bush. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party is just as evil on the question of the Middle East, as Bush is, eh?
Even more.
Yeah. But what they are doing now is that Kissinger has become a nominal Republican. He used to call himself a Democrat, but he's now a Republican. He's trying to make his career in the final days, as a dying elephant, as a Republican man.
But he's finished. I was told by the op-ed editors of The Washington Post, that he was the protégé of Katherine Graham and that he has sent about 12 articles to them and they never published more than one.
Oh, no. He was not just a protégé of Katherine Graham. Katherine Graham was, of course, a representative of the vile interests of Lazard Freres. That's what she represents. Now she is a "grande dame" who controlled The Washington Post, [after] the death of Pamela Harriman.
Kissinger and Brzezinski have the same parentage. They are both protégés of the Nashville agrarian professor William Yandell Elliott of Harvard, as is Samuel Huntington himself. This policy, the Middle East clash of civilisations policy, is a policy specifically of Brzezinski, Huntington, and also, of course, Bernard Lewis, assistant chief of the Arab Bureau at British Intelligence. So, these people have the same policy, but Brzezinski, the opportunist, is now denying what is virtually his own policy in a debate, because the Democrats are trying to get some leverage against the Republicans in the course of this election fight.
And the second thing is the parallel with the Roman Empire. I mean, it is madness today to compare the US with the Roman Empire, in fact, if anybody is going to write history in the next 50 years, he is going to look at this period of the Bush Administration, as the turning point, when America started its downturn.
Oh, that is exactly what it is. But, if this is the downturn, the Roman Empire's was the same thing. Roman culture was degenerating as it built up an empire, and its process of degeneration over about 300 years resulted in the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. In modern times these things are much faster. We had extended European civilisation, Western Europe and the Americas, especially the United States. So, this degeneration -- we've now reached the point this has caught up with us.
But at this point, what has happened is, desperadoes come out, and saying, "Now, we're going to go to a fascist solution. We're going to revive the Roman legions in imitation of the Nazi Waffen-SS, but as a world system." This is called "globalisation;" it's called "free trade," this kind of stuff; it's called the end of the nation-state. And so what they're trying to do is create a world empire, run by intimidation, using the same methods as both the Roman legions, under the empire, and methods which were also used in military organisation, by the Nazi Waffen-SS.
But if you look at the tiny client-state of Israel, which has a very myopic view of its own interests, and they're going to end up by destroying themselves, imposing and dictating [their] global vision and global plan, on the great power. I mean, it's not only the case of the tail wagging the dog, it's an unbelievable, unprecedented thing in the entire history of man. It's never happened before.
Well, actually, every collapse of a civilisation as a culture, has occurred as a tragedy. Every tragedy that I've studied in history takes the form of what appears. If you were looking at an individual, you would say: "This culture has become insane." The leadership around the head of the IDF (Israeli Defence Force), Sharon, and Netanyahu, are, in my view, [culturally insane.] They're headed for what might be called a "Masada." They would rather die than give up their wild dream, and they will try to take as many people with them to death as possible.
But they are dragging America behind them.
Of course. Well, actually, the United States is, in a sense, a willing accomplice, at least one faction is. They have their disagreements with the Israelis. George Bush may personally despise and hate Sharon, because they have a conflict about who's running the show.
There was a silly piece in the Wall Street Journal, trying to explain Bush, and they said that his education in foreign affairs was firstly with Fox in Mexico, but secondly with Ariel Sharon. Sharon introduced him to the whole thing when he took him in a chopper and flew over Israel, and now even in his speeches, Bush says, "The narrowest part of Israel is only eight miles wide, and it's just the entire length Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in Texas." This is madness....
Of course it is.
And, no one wants to say to the emperor of Rome: "Mr Emperor, you are naked."
Well, I know. But, the problem is that it's not just that. Look, we had Gore; you have McCain, who is the rival of Bush, and is not "all there," shall we say. And Bush, who is an incompetent. So, what we have to say is that in going into the year 2000 presidential elections, the United States could not, would not allow itself to select a candidate for the major parties, for President, who was not defective. And when you know the nation is going into the greatest economic crisis in its history, as the whole world is, you want to put an incompetent in the Presidency? There was a deliberate decision, and Gore would have been as bad or worse than Bush on this question.
Many people that I met in Egypt asked me a very honest question: "Why do they hate us?" And I said, you know, the average American is totally ignorant. They are living in a completely different world. They don't read. They don't see. They don't listen. The European media is much better.
Yes.
I came to America as a young attaché in the Egyptian Embassy in 1957. America was the top of the mountain. You could see the whole world. You could explain the whole world. America's media was the best in the world. Now, it is the worst! It is the most narrow-minded and narrow- visioned. I cannot explain it. An average Egyptian today has 600 channels to choose from. In America they only see what Israel wants them to see! They are all saying the same thing. It's all clichés and platitudes and Israeli nonsense.
I've written a good deal on this. I focus on this a great deal. You're right. It's exactly that. So, my problem is: How do we get out of the mess? I find myself in a kind of lonely position, as an individual.
I honestly sympathise with you. I know how you feel. I know that you are like a lone voice in the middle of the desert. It's scary.
I know, but it's, nonetheless, what I have to do. And somebody has to do it. And I think we can succeed. But this is dangerous.
I hope you continue to do it, even if they call you "insane."
Bah! The more they call me bad names, the more I know they're afraid of me.
Recommend this page
FULL COVERAGE: INVASION
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor