Is there a chance that the next US president will have the courage to resist the influence of powerful corporations and that of a biased entourage, thus bringing a brighter future within reach to the Palestinian people?
The issue
As the US prepares for Election Day on November 8, the world remains hopeful that this time the presidential election will bring a significant change to the political landscape. Third party candidates have already been written off and are not even included in the presidential debate schedule. Traditionally the two main parties do not differ significantly with regard to their capitalist orientations. They are both free market promoters and define mainly good governance in the interest of a powerful elite, hiding under the doublespeak of democracy and human rights often presented by a so-called free press owned by the same elite. Much to the regret of a swelling dissatisfied electorate and to the international community they have been unable to address two related problems: Growing income inequality and percisting instability in the Middle East, particularly evidenced by the fifty year long occupation and settlement by Israel of Palestinian land. Inequality and simmering wars in the Middle East are by many seen as important causes to international terrorism.
Greed and survival
In the good old days, before the debilitating impact of large corporations, facilitated by the European Union, on the principles of the welfare state, government institutions in Europe were regulated by policies which met their supreme responsibility of looking out after those which could not finance their basic needs for health care, education, housing and employment. Good governance in Europe meant in general setting rules for the economy in the interest of the general public as a whole. With the globalization of trade and with the support of the UN a shared definition of what constitutes good governance, democracy and human rights is emerging, serving mainly the one percent. Conflicts and chaos are more profitable for the one percent of the world's population, than peace and progress for all, although it may contribute to the escalation of global terrorism. The individuals, who prescribe the agenda, more often than not come from large international banks and transnational corporations. Advisers to a series of American Presidents and top executives of US federal institutions have succeeded to create an environment favorable to transnational corporations operating throughout the world.
Goldman Sachs ensuring US hegemonic control.
A recent Oxfam report1 reveals that 62 individuals combined hold as much wealth as the bottom 3,5 billion people on earth. Five years ago the ratio was 388 people to 50 % of the worlds poorest people. Those 62 individuals, with the most wealthy ones residing in the USA, seem unaffected by the results of the policies- often adopted upon their own advise- empowering their continued unscrupulous and greedy behavior.
In no other country on our planet is money defining democracy more than in the USA. Because of the military might of the USA put to work for the transnational corporations, the entire world – from the Middle East to Mississippi- suffers under the impact of the economic order working for the one percent against the welfare of the working and the middle classes. No other single institution than Goldman Sachs has exerted more influence on US presidents and politics during the last more than one hundred years. It has become known as Government Sachs. US Presidents continue to recruit senior staff and advisers from Goldman Sachs. The Obama administration employs not less than 30 individuals with a link to this corporation. The current chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, turned the worst financial crisis since the great recession into a huge profit for Goldman Sachs. In 2007 it had its most profitable year with an earning of $17.6 billion (pretax). In 2009, with most of its competition anesthetized, Goldman did even better, earning almost $20 billion pretax. It was former Goldman Executive Henry Paulson, who led the US Treasury Department when the bailout was formulated in September 2008. His successor as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner installed a circle of former Goldman bankers to help him navigate the country through the financial crisis.
The Jewish lobby and Israel's persistent violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242
Obviously presidential advisers with roots in the corporate world do not confine themselves to the economic sphere, when foreign policy has wide implications for trade and the ability to do business abroad. In 1967, shortly after the six day war, the UN Security Council approved unanimously resolution number 242 demanding withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories. Today, almost 50 years later, Israel continues to occupy and settle upon the land of the Palestinians. Subsequent resolutions taking positions against Israeli interests have been vetoed by the USA in the Security Council. The rationality and justification of a veto in favor of the shortsighted interests of the State of Israel becomes only 'meaningful' when the compostion and profile of individual members of the presidential entourage are considered. A US vote in the Security Council more in line with the interests of the international community could carry the seed of reconsiliation between Israel and its neighbours and reduce tensions in the Middle East with the eventual elimination of the terroist organisation, the Islamic State, as one of the outcomes.
Presidents George W. Bush and B. Obama have both during their occupation of the Oval Office chosen Chief of Staff brought up by a Jewish mother. The importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland to individuals with a Jewish background working in the US administration is not always self-evident, but it should not be overlooked. When the Goldman chairman, Lloyd Blankfein, last year noted his gratefulness to the audience at a ceremony crowning him with an award for his outstanding performance, he stressed the importance of his local Jewish rabbi and other Jewish organizations for getting him to where he is today.
Premature death of 100.000 people daily
Large corporate contributors to presidential campaigns are more likely to obtain influence on the president's choice of recruitment to executive positions. The corporations which contributes to the financing of a presidential candidate's campaign is not doing this for the public welfare, but for business reasons and obtaining influence. Jeff Madric gives us an idea of the ethics characterizing persons controlling the corridors of power in the USA2 He shows us that the red line between a more ethical behavior and that of a criminal one is often trespassed and difficult to define legally. We learn from Madric, that greed is better understood with a strong connotation of being selfish. The direct impact of the greed controlling the behaviour of money men and those in powerful positions is the premature death of more than 100.000 people daily. A more indirect one is the emergence of international terrorism in the Middle East, now threatening the entire world.
USA – the center of evil
It makes good sense to postulate that a country is evil, when its policies and actions bring about misery and warfare to people and other nations. President George W. Bush coined the expression 'Axis of Evil' in 2002, when he made reference to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. It would have been more pertinent, if he had begun his rhetoric at home by identifying the 'Center of Evil', the USA. A close look at the profile of chief executives of US federal institutions and advisors making up the presidential entourage show that they often chare a common cultural background. While we do know that feelings of empathy and compassion are formed very early during childhood, we do not know exactly which importance the quality of parental relations bear upon the creation of greed and selfishness. It would require a lengthy study into the cultural heritage to determine the probability that mothers to bankers and money men had applied a different approach to child rearing than mothers to children who choose a social oriented career, such as teachers, nurses or doctors. It is suggestive to note that a large proportion of those powerful bankers and traders who have influenced global economic policies during that last 40 to 50 years share one background characteristic: They grew up under the influence of Jewish culture.
The impact of the Nazi Holocaust on US policies and the emergence of international terrorism.
For our ancestors greed paid off in the only currency that matters to our genes – survival and offspring. The collective memory of a great number of the entourage of US Presidents is shared with the majority population of the State of Israel. They share the traumatic aftermath of the experiences of their perceived near extinction during the German Nazi Third Reich. Individuals with such perceptions are likely to consider the present time as a last chance for them to ensure their survival and that of their clan, including the Jewish motherland, the State of Israel.
The encounter of offspring of Jewish parents, having survived the German holocaust, with the demands of a relatively young country, such as the USA, has resulted into one of the most powerful, but destructive, forces for sustained progress of mankind. The Jihadist propaganda justifies its terrorism with reference to the selfish and unwise behavior of the USA, being the prime cause to the continued resistance of the State of Israel towards adopting an approach of reconciliation with the Palestinian people. The Israeli peace activist Uri Avenery believes that the 'Islamic State' will assume a growing danger to the Middle East and the entire world, unless peace is achieved with the Palestinians through justice and reconciliation3. The importance of the next US president is evident.
Other news
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni