As I write this, President Obama and the militant wing of the U.S. Congress have been temporarily deflected from a war with Syria by events beyond their control — in this case, the actions of Vladimir Putin.  But we must have no illusions.  They will be back, stronger than ever, if given the slightest opening.  Assad will have to virtually surrender his entire nation over to the U.N. to avoid Obama’s wrath.  And when he does not, we can expect the missiles to begin flying.

The turn of events last week was revealing.  Perched on the very brink of war, Obama decided to ask Congress for cover; clearly he was afraid of launching a one-man war.  They are even afraid to call it a “war.”  Instead, we prefer euphemisms, like “authorized use of military force.”  But Congress never wants to do this, unless absolutely necessary, because they must then answer to the public.  And the American public realizes, for the most part, that wars are terrible things, and that military force ought to be an absolutely last resort.  Our representatives hate to answer to the people, and that is why Congress would much prefer the president act on his own, or through some vague legislation, “authorizing military force.”  

In a recent Reuter’s poll, just nine percent of Americans thought Obama should intervene in Syria.  Even if it were proven that Assad used chemical weapons, the figure rises to only 25 percent.  If Congress listened to the public, there would be no intervention.  But they don’t listen to the public, they listen to other voices.  And here is the root of the problem.

Just consider the hypocrisy involved here.  In the summer of 2006, Israel invaded Lebanon, killing some 1200 civilians.  There was no response from the U.S.  In 2008/2009, Israel attacked the people of Gaza, deploying white phosphorus and cluster bombs; they killed about 1400 people.  Again there was no action from the U.S.  Now, Assad allegedly gases 1400 people, in a fight against primarily foreign invaders, and we are appalled and ready to attack.  What accounts for this blatant and unconscionable double standard?

The answer is clear:  When Israel is the aggressor, it is “legitimate self defense.”  When it is an Arab or Muslim action, or even potential action, we get “red lines” and “the world must stand firm.”  So why does Israel merit such special consideration?

Again, we know the answer:  Money.  No group spends more to influence Washington than the Jewish lobby.  As has been reported many times, in multiple sources, over many years, the lobby donates, by far, the largest share of campaign funds of any special interest group; in fact, a shockingly large share.  For Republicans, it is in the range of 20 to 50 percent.  For Democrats, the figures are astounding:  Roughly 50 to 70 percent of all donations come from Jewish sources.  Thus, in either party, Jewish influence is dominant.  This is why Congress nearly always votes to support Israeli and Jewish interests, both here and abroad.  Nearly every time, and on nearly every issue, the Jewish lobby gets what it wants.

In the case of Syria, what does the Jewish lobby want?  They want war.  On August 8, The Jerusalem Post reported that fully two-thirds of Israelis want the U.S. to attack.  On September 4, the same paper reported that three influential groups—AIPAC, the ADL and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC)—would step up their lobbying efforts, in favor of military intervention.  The next day, Politico reported “AIPAC to go all-out on Syria.”  AIPAC is “planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria.”  (Interesting:  When a Congressman or woman listens to the public and opposes war, they are considered “wayward.”)  As the article continues, “Some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls” next week, “expecting to lobby virtually every member of Congress.”  When the guys with the money come to call, your voice and mine don’t stand a chance.

Lobbyist funding is just one part of the bigger picture; one in which military money dominates our national priorities.  The basic numbers are stunning.  When we combine all forms of military spending—the Pentagon, the war budgets for Iraq and Afghanistan, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and portions of the FBI, CIA, and NSA—the total figure comes to roughly $1.1 trillion per year.  The total income that the federal government receives, from all sources, is about $2.5 trillion.  Thus, we spend an incredible 45% of our national income on military-related expenses.  (Total spending is much higher than our income, because we currently borrow over $1 trillion per year just to make ends meet.)  This in a country where we can’t afford decent health care, can’t fix our roads and bridges, can’t provide tuition support to our students—and yet we can manage, somehow, to spend over $1 trillion annually on the military, much of it targeted against Arabs and Muslims around the world.

This also helps to explain why the NSA “routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel,” as The Guardian recently reported, with no legally binding restrictions on how the data is used.  

Publically, the NSA claims that there is mutual benefit in such data sharing, but the newspaper reports that “the relationship has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.”  In other words, Israel requests the data for their use and benefit and the NSA complies.  To put it bluntly: The NSA spies for Israel.  Only a high-level directive could allow such a thing to take place—direction that must be coming from the Department of Defense, the Cabinet, and even the president himself.  And this would not happen, were it not for the immense power of the Jewish lobby.

We need to be brutally honest.   We must call a spade a spade.  Pursuing military action against Syria, a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the U.S., is a war crime.  Once he launches his attack, President Obama will be a war criminal.  All the senators and congressmen who support him will also be war criminals.  Presently, both senators Levin and Stabenow support action against Syria; they must be called out as war criminals.  In our southeast Michigan congressional districts, Sander Levin also supports war crimes.  Kerry Bentivolio does not.  Dingell, Conyers, and Peters have not yet taken a stance; call them now, and tell them to oppose war crimes.  

The American people clearly don’t want this war.  Most Europeans don’t want it.  A large majority of Syrians support Assad; they obviously don’t want intervention.  Even the so-called rebel groups are divided, many of whom oppose U.S. intervention.  So it seems that no one wants this war—except AIPAC, Israel, the Jewish lobby and their congressional lackeys.  If war comes, we will know who calls the shots.

Thus, it should be no surprise that this nation — or at least our government — is profoundly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.  We don’t intervene in other global conflicts.  We don’t issue “red lines” to other nations.  We don’t launch other cruise missile attacks — except against Arabs and Muslims.  Then, all of a sudden, we take the high moral ground and become the great humanitarians of the world.  “American exceptionalism,” as Obama calls it, allows us to conduct actions that any other civilized nation would call a war crime.  It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Until the American people decide that money will not rule Washington, nothing will change.  Until that day, the moneychangers and war criminals will reign supreme.  And we, and the whole world, will suffer the consequences.  

— David Skrbina is a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.