Jeffrey Blankfort is an American photojournalist, radio producer and 
	  Middle East analyst. He is a well-known pro-Palestinian activist whose 
	  articles and writings have appeared on Counter Punch, Voltairenet, 
	  Palestine Think Tank, Dissident Voice and many other publications.
	  He currently hosts radio programs on KZYX in Mendocino, CA and KPOO in 
	  San Francisco. Blankfort was formerly the editor of the Middle East Labor 
	  Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. In 
	  February 2002, he won a lawsuit against the Zionist organization 
	  Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which was found to have been spying on the 
	  American citizens critical of Israel and its expansionistic policies. 
	  Jeffrey joined me in an exclusive interview to discuss the influence of 
	  Israeli lobby on the decision-makers of the U.S. government, Israel's 
	  illegal, underground nuclear program, the prospect of Israeli – 
	  Palestinian conflict and the imminent threat of an Israeli strike against 
	  Iran's nuclear facilities.
	  Blankfort is quite outspoken in his criticism of the apartheid regime 
	  of Israel and believes that Israel is the most immediate threat to the 
	  future of our planet. 
 
Kourosh Ziabari: In your article "The 
	  Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions", you elaborately explore the 
	  dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and cite good 
	  examples of the influence of well-off Zionists on the multinational 
	  companies and mainstream media in America. My question is that, what are 
	  the root causes of this enormous power and immense wealth which the 
	  Zionists have possessed?
How did the Jews take over the vast resources 
	  of power and money that has made them capable of framing, modifying and 
	  overturning the political equations in the United States?
 
Jeffrey 
	  Blankfort: That question requires a long and complicated answer. In short, 
	  an important, well organized segment of the American Jewish community 
	  emerged after World War II that has been dedicated to the establishment 
	  and prospering of a Jewish state in historic Palestine in which the lives 
	  and well being of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs were of no consequence.
	   
That this segment did not and has never represented the majority of 
	  American Jews has been more than been made up for by its concerted 
	  activity on Israel's behalf in every critical sector of U.S. society and 
	  at every level of the nation's political life. Its success would not have 
	  been possible, however, were it not for the fact that within its ranks 
	  have been a sizeable number of wealthy Jewish businessmen who have been 
	  quite willing to expend the funds necessary to either purchase the support 
	  of the U.S. Congress as well as virtually all of the state legislatures or 
	  intimidate Israel's would-be critics into silence.
 
Well before the 
	  birth of the first Zionists, Jewish bankers and capitalists had 
	  established themselves in Europe and the United States so it was not 
	  surprising that a number of them, beginning with Lord Rothschild in the 
	  early part of the century, became supporters of the Zionist project. Now, 
	  far and away, they make up the largest segment of individual donors to 
	  both political parties.
 
The media, as could be expected, was one 
	  of its primary targets, and that avowedly pro-Israel interests, although 
	  not exclusively Jewish, such as Rupert Murdoch, now thoroughly dominate it 
	  at every level is, unfortunately proved on a daily basis.
 
While 
	  there should be no question that this Israel support network, 
	  euphemistically described as a "lobby," has been a major force in shaping 
	  U.S. Middle East policies overall, and the determinant factor in dealing 
	  with the Israel-Palestine conflict, its power has its limits. While it was 
	  able, through its agents in the White House and the Pentagon, to push the 
	  U.S. into a war on Iraq, it has yet to get Washington to bomb Iran or, 
	  apparently, to sanction an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. It is 
	  clear that there are important elements within the Pentagon as well as the 
	  intelligence agencies which know that an attack by either the U.S. or 
	  Israel on Iran would more likely than not lead to a global catastrophe.
	   
KZ: In your articles, you've alluded to the conflicts and struggles 
	  between the U.S. and Israel administrations during the past decades in 
	  which the U.S. Presidents, starting from Richard Nixon, tried to curb the 
	  expansionistic policies of Israel and bring about an improved living 
	  condition for the oppressed nation of Palestine. Should you believe that 
	  there have been such efforts on the side of U.S. administration, what has 
	  led to their failure, having in mind that they've repeatedly proclaimed 
	  their commitment to the security of Israel?
 
JB: There has not been 
	  the slightest interest on the part of any US president, I suspect, in 
	  improving the living conditions for the Palestinians. Halting Israeli 
	  expansion and getting Tel Aviv to withdraw from all the territories it 
	  conquered in 1967 has been seen as being in the U.S. national interest.
	  
 
All the past efforts have failed because none of the presidents 
	  have been willing to spend the domestic political capital that would be 
	  necessary to force an Israeli withdrawal and particularly so when they 
	  know their efforts will be opposed by the overwhelming majority of both 
	  houses of Congress irrespective of party affiliations as well as by the 
	  Zionist dominated media. 
The only one who made a serious effort and 
	  who was willing to confront the Zionist network and Congress was George 
	  Bush Sr., when he denied Israel its request for $10 billion in loan 
	  guarantees in 1991 and again in 1992 but even he was eventually forced to 
	  surrender.  
KZ: Israelis are used to employing the label 
	  anti-Semitism to defame and vilify whoever dares criticize their 
	  belligerent, aggressive policies and actions. They accuse whoever 
	  criticizes them of being anti-Semitist. This makes the politicians and 
	  opinion-makers hesitant and demoralized in talking of Israel negatively. 
	  Is there any solution to reveal the futility of anti-Semitism label and 
	  educate the public that the criticism of Israel is different from 
	  criticizing Judaism?
 
JB: The allegation of "anti-Semitism" leveled 
	  against critics of Israel does not carry the weight it once did but it 
	  still is extremely effective, particularly, when the accused is employed 
	  by the mainstream media as we have seen recently in the case of Helen 
	  Thomas, Octavia Nasr and Rick Sanchez, and in the film industry which has 
	  long been a Zionist bastion and which was brought into existence by Jews 
	  in the last century, although none at the time were Zionists.
 
The 
	  power of the accusation of anti-Semitism to bring public figures to their 
	  knees will continue to exist until there is a sufficient number of 
	  prominent Americans who are willing to challenge it. When that will be I 
	  won't begin to speculate.
 
KZ: Although undeclared, it's confirmed 
	  by the Federation of American Scientists that Israel possesses up to 200 
	  nuclear warheads. Being a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
	  Treaty, Israel has never allowed the IAEA to probe into its nuclear 
	  arsenal. We already know about the destiny of Mordecai Vanunu who swapped 
	  his freedom with the expression of truth. What's your viewpoint about the 
	  destiny of Israel's nuclear program? Will Tel Aviv continue enjoying 
	  immunity from responsibility?
 
JB: As long as the Zionist support 
	  network controls Congress and as long as no American president as the 
	  courage to even mention the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons, and 
	  while the U.S. continues to hold the purse strings to the UN, Israel will 
	  continue to enjoy both immunity and impunity. Had the leadership of the 
	  now non-existent anti-nuclear movement in the US, like the "peace 
	  movement" not been also Zionist-dominated, there might have been some 
	  debate on the issue but because it was, the subject was considered off 
	  limits.
KZ: Let's turn to Iran. Iran's is being portrayed by the 
	  U.S. mainstream media in a distorted and hypocritical way. Many Americans 
	  who even hadn't heard the name of Iran before are now exposed to a 
	  horrifying and dreadful image of the country presented to them by the 
	  Zionist-led media outlets. They aren't aware of the historical 
	  civilization of Iran and its unique cultural, social features. How is it 
	  possible to unveil the concealed realities of Iran for the Americans who 
	  don't find the proper opportunities to get familiarized with the 
	  misrepresented Iran?
 
JB: Most American would have a problem 
	  finding Iran or any other country in the Middle East, or for that matter, 
	  anywhere in the world on a map. They are, for the most part, what can be 
	  called "geographically challenged," as well as historically challenged. 
	  There is no antidote to that on the horizon which is why Washington is 
	  able to get away with making war on countries and peoples that have never 
	  done them harm. If there was a military draft as there was during the 
	  Vietnam War, neither the war in Iraq or Afghanistan would have gone on as 
	  long as they have and there would be opposition to an attack on Iran. 
	   
When Nixon cleverly halted the draft of 18-year olds in the early 
	  70s, that took the backbone out of the anti-war movement and that is the 
	  reason that as hard pressed as the U.S. is today to maintain an army large 
	  enough to fight multiple wars, Washington will not bring back the draft. 
	  Hiring private contractors became the alternative. Without the fear of 
	  18-year olds that they will be taken into the army, there is no anti-war 
	  movement and there is none worthy of the name at this moment in the United 
	  States.
KZ: Many people around the world have come to believe that 
	  the media in the United States are unrestrictedly free and can express 
	  whatever they want to, without any impediment or obstruction imposed on 
	  them by the administration. It's almost accurate to say that the U.S. 
	  government does not have any direct involvement in the media-related 
	  affairs; however, there seems to be an implicit pressure on the media not 
	  to cross the red lines and violate the unwritten laws, including the 
	  criticism of Israel. Can you elaborate on this more precisely?
 
JB: 
	  It is not the government that prevents criticism from Israel in the media 
	  but fear of the repercussions that are guaranteed to follow any genuine 
	  criticism be it written or in cartoon form in the U.S. media, even when 
	  that criticism is leveled by a Jewish journalist. There are several 
	  organizations, most prominently the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and 
	  HonestReporting which are able to unleash at a moment's notice a torrent 
	  of emails and letters to the editor, and in certain cases, visits to the 
	  offices of an offending newspaper, to make sure those in the media know 
	  what they can and cannot write. Since there is no corresponding pressure 
	  from Israel's critics in the public, most editors choose to avoid a fight.
	   
There was a time when a number of columnists in the mainstream press 
	  did write critically of Israel and got away with it. But that was 20 years 
	  ago and they are no longer around
KZ: As the final question, what's 
	  your prediction for the future of Israel? Will it continue to determine 
	  the U.S. foreign policy and rule the American politicians? Is it capable 
	  of maintaining the blockade of Gaza? After all, will Israel succeed in 
	  surviving politically?
 
JB: As long as Israel's supporters, or 
	  agents in the U.S., are able to control the U.S. Congress and intimidate 
	  whoever happens to be president and as long as those same forces dominate 
	  the media there will be no change in the U.S. or in the situation in Gaza. 
	  The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, while slowly growing in 
	  the U.S., does not have the intensity that it has elsewhere and its 
	  targets are limited to what Israel and U.S. companies do in the West Bank 
	  so, realistically, there is unlikely to be any meaningful pressure coming 
	  from the U.S.
 
What Israel does, however, may produce changes that 
	  are unpredictable at the moment. Having twice been defeated by Hezbollah, 
	  Israeli officials keep threatening another war on Lebanon and since the 
	  U.S., Europe and the UN have let them get away with all their previous 
	  wars on Lebanon, they are likely to try again. 
 
Unlike the 
	  Palestinians, the Lebanese are able and willing to aggressively fight back 
	  as the Israeli soldiers know all too well, from their resistance to 
	  occupation and their halting of the vaunted Israeli wehrmacht in 2006. 
	  Should Israel find a way to attack Iran, the repercussions from that might 
	  be sufficient to send Israel on the road to what will ultimately be viewed 
	  as self-destruction. At the moment, thanks to the unconditional backing by 
	  the U.S. for all it crimes, and given its arsenal of nuclear weapons, I 
	  consider Israel to be the most immediate threat to the future of the 
	  planet.