Sunday, February 21, 2010

The tide in Britain turns against Israel

The tide in Britain turns against Israel

Now it’s time to rid government of Israel’s stooges

By Gilad Atzmon

20 February 2010

Gilad Atzmon argues that the odour of British complicity in the murder of a Hamas official in Dubai by Israeli Mossad agents using UK passports underlines the urgent need to purge the British government of Israeli agents and hirelings.

”Given that Zionism is a murderous, racist, expansionist ideology, it is natural to stress that people who are affiliated with Israel and Zionism must be removed immediately from any political, government, military or security posts.

“As much as Britain would refrain from delegating decisions regarding its security to Arab, Chinese or Russian nationalists, it should similarly treat Jewish nationalists with at least as much caution.”

London is “angry” over the use of stolen identities by the Dubai assassins and points its finger at the Jewish state and its notorious Mossad espionage agency. The Israeli ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, was invited to the Foreign Office on 18 February by Peter Ricketts, the head of the UK's diplomatic service, to “share information”. Although Britain stopped short of accusing Israel of involvement in the scandalous assassination of a top Hamas official, to signal its displeasure London ignored an Israeli plea to keep the meeting secret. "Relations were in the freezer before this. They are in the deep freeze now," a British official told the Guardian.

David Miliband’s duplicity

The British anger at Israel would have been a positive signal in the right direction had we not been aware of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband investing enormous efforts trying to alter Britain’s ethical stand just to appease Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and other Israeli leaders.

UK  passport with Star of David superimposed on it

The British Foreign Office’s reaction could almost be deemed a revelation, were we able to forget that just five weeks before Israel launched its lethal criminal attack against Gaza David Miliband visited Sderot, an Israeli town on the border with Gaza, to offer his support. "No country can accept constant bombardment of its citizens,” Miliband told the people of Sderot. He then continued: “Israel should, above all, seek to protect its own citizens."

It is that foolish statement by Britain’s foreign secretary that has made us all complicit in Israel’s flattening of Gaza. Bearing these facts in mind, it is rather unlikely that the Israeli ambassador to Britain was sweating while “sharing information” with the chief aid to the British foreign secretary.

British complicity is Dubai murder

In the last few days Robert Fisk reported from the Middle East that in Dubai there is not much doubt about Britain being involved in the Israeli blunder. "The British passports are real,” says one of Fisk’s sources in Dubai. “They are hologram pictures with the biometric stamp. They are not forged or fake. The names were really there. If you can fake a hologram or biometric stamp, what does this mean?" The truth about this had better be revealed.

As if this were not enough, the Israeli news website
Ynet reported today, quoting the Daily Mail, that Israel informed the British government that its agents were going to carry out an “overseas operation” using forged British passports. “It wasn't a request for permission, but rather a courtesy call.”

If Britain collaborated with Israel at any level, we should be told all about it, and we should be told who collaborated with Israel – a person, a body within the government or the intelligence services, or just an ordinary
sayan in the Home Office or some other government department. If there was British collaboration, we had better identify what it was exactly and who decided to serve the murderous Israeli interests. We had also better find out who in Britain decided to put British interests and British security in the Arab world at enormous risk.

In the Guardian yesterday
Seumas Milne didn’t mince his words either. “Instead of setting off a diplomatic backlash, the British government sat on its hands for almost a week after it was reportedly first passed details of the passport abuse. And while the Foreign Office finally summoned the Israeli ambassador to ‘share information’, rather than to protest, Gordon Brown could yesterday only promise a ‘full investigation’.”

Paralysed by Israel lobby

The truth of the matter is tragic. The British political system is paralysed by the Israel lobby. As with the USA, British national interests are sacrificed for the sake of dirty Zionist cash. If Britain wants to liberate itself from the Zionist grip and have any prospect of a future, it must move fast and clean the entire list of Zionist infiltrators from its political ranks, government offices and strategic positions. I am not talking here about Jews. In no way am I mentioning ethnicity or race. I am talking here about a political and ideological affiliation. Given that Zionism is a murderous, racist, expansionist ideology, it is natural to stress that people who are affiliated with Israel and Zionism must be removed immediately from any political, government, military or security posts.

As much as Britain would refrain from delegating decisions regarding its security to Arab, Chinese or Russian nationalists, it should similarly treat Jewish nationalists with at least as much caution.

Public patience with Israeli barbarism running out

But here is the good news. In contrast to the Zionized British political system, the British people and media are actually outraged. The Mossad’s blunder, as well as British political impotence, has been overwhelmingly exposed in the British media. It is on the front page of every British daily paper and it is featured on every TV news. There is no doubt that today patience with Israeli barbarism is running out.

"The British political system is paralysed by the Israel lobby. As with the USA, British national interests are sacrificed for the sake of dirty Zionist cash."

A few years back I was listening to a talk given by Dr Mustafa Barghouti who pointed out that back in 1948 the world stood silent watching 750,000 Palestinian people being driven out of their land, their villages and their cities through an orchestrated ethnic cleansing coupled with many massacres. The world kept silent when Israel created its racist return laws to prevent the Palestinians from returning to their land. In 1967, the developed world wasn’t just silent, it actually praised the Israeli expansionist extravaganza. It applauded the Israeli army as it cleansed tens of thousands of Palestinians out of their historic land.

But then things started to change. In the Lebanon war of 1982 the world at large was still pretty silent as 30,000 Palestinian and Lebanese were butchered by the Israeli air force and army. Yet this miraculously woke the left up from its terminal snooze. Some activists started to realize that Palestinians and their cause were at the heart of the battle for a better world. During the first and the second intifadas more and more people came to realize that Israel was the aggressor. In 2006 Israel again unleashed total havoc in Lebanon. This time Israel left 3,000 fatalities. However, the impact of these successive Israeli brutalities led to a drastic rise of anti Israeli feelings. It was in fact the second Lebanon war (rather than Iraq) that was the catalyst for Tony Blair’s overdue political downfall. Blair paid an immediate political price for condoning the war. The Gaza massacre of 2009 left 1,400 Palestinians dead – most of them women and children – and left Gaza in total ruin. But, as we know, it also led to the highest tide of anti Israeli resentment at every possible level in the media, in the street and even in the UN.

This week we learnt about Israel’s latest murderous blunder. It assassinated a Hamas military leader. While in the past Israel would have been praised for the courage of its assassin squads, those who are chasing the enemies of the Jews in faraway lands and beyond, the reaction this week was very different. The Jewish state is now regarded as a fully-fledged pariah state. The British media and people are starting to see through it. No one in the British media stood for Israel, no one tried to justify or advocate Israel’s acts. No one repeated the clichés about Hamas being a terrorist organization. I guess that by now people out there grasp that Hamas is Palestine’s democratically-elected leadership. People also realize that Hamas is justified in pursuing a fully legitimate struggle for liberation.

As much as Israelis and their supporters try to tell us that the diplomatic backlash is fuelled by merely technical matters such as “identity theft”, reading the British press conveys a far deeper resentment towards Israel, what it stands for and the way it operates.

For a while some of us have been talking about small signs showing that the tide is changing. As it happens, we are waking up to a new reality. The tide has changed already. Israel has exhausted the last drops of moral integrity, as if it possessed such integrity to start with. Britain and every Western country should move fast and identify the enemy within, those among us who support the Zionist project and are making us all complicit partners in Israel’s never-ending sin.

Sayan – a unique and important part of the Mossad's operation. The sayan (assistant) must be 100 per cent Jewish. The sayan supports the Israeli cause and assists the Mossad operation. Victor Ostrovsky, the veteran Mossad agent, says: “There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the list…”

Thursday, February 18, 2010

1,000 Architects and Engineers Call for Grand Jury into 9/11

1,000 Architects and Engineers Call for Grand Jury into 9/11!

1,000 Signatures from “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)” to be Submitted Today to Congress—Petition Cites New Scientific Evidence of Explosive Demolition at WTC

This GLOBAL MEDIA EVENT will be simultaneously hosted in over 23 cities worldwide!

WHEN: Friday February 19, 2010, 10:00-11:00 AM
WHERE: Ground Zero, Manhattan (in front of the PATH Station)

Actor Daniel Sunjata, and Author Sander Hicks, for AE911Truth, will discuss the evidence and the significance of this petition with the public at Ground Zero.

More than 1,000 independent architects and engineers world-wide now support the call for an independent investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings (1, 2, and 7).

These scientists have signed a 9/11 Truth Petition calling on Congress to launch a new investigation. calls for a Grand Jury probe into John Gross and Shyam Sunder, managers of the reports by National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).


* The discovery of advanced explosive nano-thermitic material found in each of the WTC dust samples by top nuclear physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones, and a peer-reviewed panel of top international scientists.
* Eyewitness testimony cited multiple experiences of secondary explosions, even before the first plane hit WTC 1.

The implications of these findings have the potential of profound impact on the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.

This press conference will be simultaneously hosted in over 23 cities worldwide, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Alexandria, VA, Tampa, as well as cities in Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand. The SF press conference will be accessible to media (audio and video) via webinar at at 11:00am PST on Friday Feb 19, 2010.

9/11 Commission Chairmen Kean & Hamilton seriously criticized their own Commission in their book "Without Precedent." They complained their investigation was "set up to fail" and that they had been lied to by NORAD. Their special counsel, John Farmer, recently wrote, "that "at some level of the government…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”

About AE911Truth
AE911Truth is a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the destruction of all three WTC high-rises on 9/11/2001.

Background on Sander Hicks, AE911Truth Affiliate:
Author and journalist, Hicks hosted the “We Demand Transparency” conference, which featured Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth. Hicks served as an “expert witness” on 9/11 in a recent NJ trial. See:

Background on Daniel Sunjata:
Daniel Sunjata is Tony-nominated actor and star of stage, screen and TV. He co-stars in the FX television show, “Rescue Me” alongside Dennis Leary. Earlier this year, a “Rescue Me” subplot even incorporated his belief that the attacks were an “inside job.”

Much more at 1,000,000 people for 911 TRUTH.

***************ZIONISM *******************


The best info on Zionisms history and 9/11:

911 MISSING LINKS: Goes where no other 911 documentary dares.

MOSSAD: Proof that ISRAEL was involved on 9/11.

Mossad Truck Bombs on Sept 11

Police Radio of Truck Bomb.

5 Dancing Mossad agents:

Israel: 5 Israeli's arrested on 9/11, what the media didnt tell you!

"We were there to Document the event":

Israeli 911 terrorism ties!! FOX news report now CLASSIFIED!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Airports: All 9/11 Airport security Serviced by One Israeli Owned Company!

Zionists: Zionist control in American Media, you should start from chapter 1!

Zionists: Jews are against the Zionists, protests in Israel

Zionists: Ariel Sharon says Israel Controls the US

***************HISTORY LINKS***************

History of False flag operations.

LAVON AFFAIR: The Lavon Affair, Egyptians? I don't think so!

USS LIBERTY: No investigation was ever done by the US govt on the USS Liberty!

USS COLE: USS Cole was a false flag operation.

TERROR ATTACKS: The history of Terror Attacks since 1968

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Dreyfus, the Protocols and Goldstone

by Gilad Atzmon


Alan Dershowitz on Judge Goldstone: “But now I see him as a traitor… It’s as if they would have taken a Jew to edit the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He uses his Jewish last name to kosher his slander of the Jewish People.”

For those who still cannot make their minds up about Jewish nationalism and the Zionist violent abuse of Western academic culture (tolerance, academic freedom, pluralism etc) Rabbi Shmully Hecht of Yale’s University Jewish society, gives an exemplary opportunity to see it all. Rabbi Hecht confronted Judge Goldstone last week while Goldstone was delivering an address at Yale University. Rabbi Hecht and his supporters held up a sign at the back of the conference room equating the Goldstone report with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Dreyfus affair.

For a while, the Dreyfus affair and the Protocols were pretty effective Zionist propaganda tools, they were used mainly to silence criticism of Jewish power, Jewish lobbying and Israel. However, it is about time to face the truth.

Drawing a parallel between the Dreyfus affair, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Goldstone report can also produce an interesting insight, but not for the reasons Rabbi Hecht or Dershowitz suggest. It allows us to look at Zionism in an historical perspective. We can review where Zionism started from and what it matured into.

The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal that divided France in the 1890s and the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Jewish descent. The Dreyfus affair had a huge impact on Herzl, the father of Zionism, who was assigned by a Viennese paper to cover the trial. Soon afterward, Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896) and founded the World Zionist Organization.

During the last century Zionists regarded the Dreyfus Affair as an exemplary case of anti Semitism motivated by racial discrimination. In fact the Zionists were wrong. For a century they have been misleading themselves and others. French society at the time was divided about Dreyfus. The Left and the intelligentsia rushed to support the young officer, which led eventually to a 2nd trial. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a Major in the French Army in 1906. However, the case of Goldstone is totally different. The images of the IDF’s white phosphorus shells bursting over UN refugee shelters are engraved in our collective memory. As if this is not enough, initial Israeli denial of the usage of white phosphorous is also stored in our minds. The perception that Israel committed a massacre in broad daylight is not going to be wiped out either.

Unlike divided France that couldn’t make up its mind about Dreyfus, we are not divided about Israel being a criminal state and the biggest threat to world peace. The repulsion towards Israel and its brutality is actually a growing unifying force amongst humanists, peace lovers and the world at large. Israel will not be exonerated and considering the fact that it defines itself as the Jewish state, its crimes reflect disastrously on Jews as a collective, something that not even a dozen Jewish anti Zionist activists around the world can change. From an historical perspective it is rather clear that Israel has been very successful in exhausting the last drops of sympathy garnered for the idea of Jewish nationalism. As it happens, not a single humanist stands up against Goldstone or his balanced report.

But the truth must be said. As much as humanists are united behind the Goldstone report, our democratically elected leaders are failing to confront Israel and its Jewish lobbies. They rush to appease AIPAC, they pocket money given by Zionist lords and Israeli Lobbies. Interestingly enough, the political morbid conditions in which we live was actually described by an unusual fictional text that was published in 1903 namely, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Protocols is widely considered a forgery. It is a manual for a prospective new member of the "Elders", describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation. Though the book is considered a hoax by most experts and regarded as a vile anti-Semitic text, it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe both the century unfolding and the political reality in which we live I am referring here to: AIPAC, The Credit Crunch, Lehman Brothers, Neocon wars, interventionist ideology, a British Foreign Secretary Listed as Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara) author trying to amend Britain’s ethical stand, a Zionist by admission put on an inquiry panel to investigate why Britain launched a Zionist war and so on.

As it happens staunch Zionists such as David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen and Alan Dershowitz use a very banal spin to divert the attention from the devastating prophetic reality depicted by the Protocols. A reality in which they themselves promote interventionist wars in our midst. Again and again they stress the fact that the Protocols was a forgery. They insist that we look at its anti Semitic origin while evading its content and meaning. However whether or not the Protocols is a fictional text or a forgery doesn’t change the fact that it explores our disastrous contemporary reality. A reality in which we are killing en mass the enemies of Israel in the ‘name of democracy’, a reality in which Dershowitz himself puts enormous effort into cleansing academia of any critical voices of Israel, Zionism and Jewish power in America and the West.

This is exactly where Goldstone is coming into the picture. In the last century we have been witnessing an evolving murderous Jewish nationalist movement. A movement that was born in part due to a calculated misinterpretation of the Dreyfus affair. For a century, the Zionist movement has managed to silence its critics using different tactics that are all explored in that fictional text from 1903. Zionism was very successful; it managed to mature into a state, at the expense of the Palestinian people. Only through violent expansionist methods including massacres and racially orientated ethnic cleansing have the Zionists and Israel managed to fulfill what they define as the Jewish national aspiration. But as Goldstone reveals, this aspiration matured into a criminal state that is terrorizing its indigenous population and threatening its neighbours

If we ever want to amend the reality we live in, we must curtail the Zionist operators in our midst, in the government, in politics, in the media, in academia, in finance and in the legal system. I am not talking here about Jews but about Zionists, people who are affiliated with a specific foreign tribal interest that counters universalism, ethics and humanism. Unless we do that we may soon have to face another Goldstone report investigating a much greater Zionist crime against humanity.

If we want to help Israelis and Jewish nationalists recover from their nationalist racist fanatical dream, we must persuade them that the Goldstone report is their new Bible, a recent catalogue of their departure from humanity.....

Without going into an endless discussion opposing the hordes of Protocol-debunkers to such historians as Oleg Platonov and others I would note a simple thing: if the Protocols are a forgery made by the Czarist secret service, that Czarist secret service employed analysts and futurologues whose skills can be compared with the greast prophets of human history, bar none. In that case, I cannot help but wonder why these Czarist anti-Semitic prophets failed to predict the largely Jewish Revolution of 1917 and the murder of the Czar and his family by Bolshevik Jews.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful

The label "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business.

For example, just this week - after Tony Blair was confronted by the Iraq Inquiry with evidence that he had used lies to sell the Iraq war - Blair dismissed the entire Iraq Inquiry as simply being part of Britain's "obsession with conspiracy theories". (Not only did Blair know that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but the French this week accused Blair of using of ‘Soviet-style' propaganda in run-up to the Iraq war).

Of course, the American government has been busted in the last couple of years in numerous conspiracies. For example, William K. Black - professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis - says that that the government's entire strategy now - as during the S&L crisis - is to cover up how bad things are ("the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts").Similarly , 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bank

rupt in the 1980's during the "Latin American Crisis", and the government's response was to cover up their insolvency.

And the government spied on American citizens (even before 9/11 ... confirmed here and here), while saying "we don't spy". The government tortured prisoners in Iraq, but said "we don't torture".

In other words, high-level government officials have conspired to cover up the truth.

And Tom Brokaw notes:

All wars are based on propaganda.
A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy.

Acceptable Versus Unacceptable Conspiracy Theories

Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials and judges have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

Indeed, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven by the evidence.

But - while people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies - they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

Indeed, those who most loudly attempt to ridicule and discredit conspiracy theories tend to focus on defending against criticism involving the powerful.

This may be partly due to psychology: it is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind. And see this.

For example, Obama's current head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - and a favored pick for the Supreme Court (Cass Sunstein) - previously:

Defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
He has called for the use of state power to crush conspiracy allegations of state wrongdoing. See this, this and this.


Michael Kelly, a Washington Post journalist and neoconservative critic of anti-war movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views.

In other words, prominent neocon writer Kelly believes that everyone who is not a booster for government power and war is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Similarly, psychologists who serve the government eagerly label anyone "taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, ... and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook" as crazy conspiracy theorists.

This is not really new. In Stalinist Russia, anyone who criticized the government was labeled crazy, and many were sent to insane asylums.

Using the Power of the State to Crush Criticism of the Government

The bottom line is that the power of the state is used to crush criticism of major government policies and actions (or failures to act) and high-level government officials.

Pay attention, and you'll notice that criticism of "conspiracy theories" is usually aimed at attempting to protect the state and key government players. The power of the state is seldom used to crush conspiracy theories regarding people who are not powerful . . . at least to the extent that they are not important to the government.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Ode to Cynthia

Ode to Cynthia

By Israel Shamir

Things must be bad indeed if a woman steps forward to the line of fire. Nature arranged that a woman does not court danger unless her land and her folks are in real trouble. But when she does, she teaches men a lesson of manly behaviour.

When France was fading away, a shepherd girl Jeanne d’Arc took a heavy sword and led the flower of French nobles to assault the walls of Orleans. When cities of Republican Spain was strafed by the Nazi Luftwaffe, it was a woman, Dolores Ibarruri, La Pasionaria, who said to her people: it is better to die tall, than to live on your knees. In 1990, when Mikhail Gorbachev led his country to disaster and disintegration, a year before the wealth of Russia was embezzled in privatisation spree, only one person has dared to raise her voice against the dictator in the parliament. She was the indomitable Sashie Umalatov, an MP from the Chechen Mountains.

Now it is the turn of the US to feel the chilly wind of eternity on its face. It came from unexpected direction. People of America became hostage in the hands of a few men with too many dollars in their pockets and endless greed in their hearts. For millennia, the difference of income, education, and standard of living was not so vast in one land. The wealth of the nation could provide every American with a superb education, perfect medical care, happy childhood, secure old age, guaranteed home, and free time to open one’s mind to new thoughts and old friends. America could be on its way to the Golden Age of universal happiness and wisdom.

Instead of it, a small group of men squeezes the nation in order to add another billion to their coffers. They would surely destroy the US by their limitless greed. The devotees of Mammon, they are totally devoid of compassion to the people they live amongst. They do not see the local people as ‘their own kind’. If they want to show compassion, they send money to Israel. Out of five dollars American taxpayer gives for aid, four dollars land in the coffers of the Jewish state. They appear unstoppable, as the politicians are scared of them and docilely raise their hands and sign the pledge promising to send more money to Israeli generals. Support of Israel is not a foreign policy. It is the covenant of the Mammonites, and you sign it with blood. With Palestinian blood.

But one woman refused to sign the pledge. One woman, Cynthia McKinney, a member for Georgia, dared to refuse. Four hundred congressmen signed it; they preferred their own personal advancement to the good of the country. Ancestors of Cynthia were slaves in her native Georgia. But she is one of a very few free persons in the US Congress. As we Israelis were used to say about our Golda Meir, she is the only man over there. She is a black woman, but she is the whitest man of them all, they would say before the Politically Correct era. She knew the billions of Israeli aid are needed for the poor people of the United States, for her own Afro-American community. She wanted to uphold the sovereignty of the people and congress of the United States, in face of encroaching servility to the Jewish Lobby.

She is not alone. Another wonderful Afro-American congresswoman, Barbara Lee, cast the only vote against the slaughter in Afghanistan; John Conyers, Jessie Jackson Jr, and Maxine Waters supported the cause of Palestine on different occasions. Ron Paul of Texas voted against all-house resolution sending obsequious greeting to General Sharon. Nick Rahall, John Sununu, David Bonior did not bend.

Cynthia was just more outspoken in seeing the evil. She said , “There are many Members of Congress who want to be free. I am one of them. I wanted to be free to vote according to my conscience, but I had been told that if I didn't sign a pledge supporting the military superiority of Israel, no support would come my way. And sure enough, I didn't sign the pledge and no support came my way. I suffered silently year in and year out, because I refused to sign that pledge. And then, like a slave that found a way to buy his freedom... I went to work ... I wanted to be free ... Free to cast the votes in the United States Congress as I saw fit and not as I was dictated to”.

Now she stands for re-election, and her chances are dim, as the frightful AIPAC, the spearhead of the organised Jewish community, targeted her. They do not want to see independent and free congressmen on the Capitol Hill. Their huge financial might, network of connections in the media and universities are used to smother every free voice. They succeeded to unseat Earl Hilliard, another Black Congressman, who did not bow to Sharon, and now plan to do Cynthia in. If they succeed, the cause of freedom will suffer a huge setback. If she succeeds, the myth of Jewish omnipotence will evaporate, and America will look towards better days, as support or rejection of segregated Israel speaks volumes about true agenda of a candidate.

Cynthia is not ‘against Jews’, as there are many very good folks of Jewish origin. While the organised Jewish community implements quite a disgusting policy, in domestic and foreign affairs alike, there are wonderful outsiders, ‘the remnant of Israel’. Rejected by the community and rejecting it, they stand for integration in Palestine and in the US. Some of them have supported Cynthia’s campaign; another outsider manages her campaign. Through them, ‘you will be blessed by all people’, the Lord’s promise to Abraham is made true.

I am not sure whether Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun, a “Progressive Jewish monthly” from California, will be equally blessed. Rabbi Lerner has spoken in support of Cynthia McKinney, but demanded in return to “call for Israel to be given either membership in NATO or a mutual defence pact with the U.S.” Such a support defeats its purpose. As if the military and political US backing of the racist Jewish state were not sufficient, Lerner wants to establish it in law. Cynthia openly spoke against hegemony of the Zionist Lobby, against Israel connection. Lerner offers to achieve the purpose of the Zionist lobby under pretence of fighting it. This sophisticated cunning is not unusual for crypto-Zionists, acting as deep penetration agents outside their milieu, and Lerner already has performed a similar task for the Zionists during Durban Conference . Next time, he will fight heroin addiction by demanding the drug to be sold in every shop. Cynthia and other congressmen should accept his offer of help for what it is worth, but reject his demand of political payoff to Zionists.

Cynthia’s is not a divisive voice of Blacks vs. Whites, nor Democrats vs. Republicans, neither Left against Right. She speaks for the people of the US against foreign interests. She is the congresswoman who dared to remind of the USS Liberty seamen, butchered by Israeli heavy machine guns and missiles. She reminded her audience of the last stand of Faris Ode, the brave Palestinian kid who faced the Israeli tank with a stone and was murdered. She stands against corporate greed. She stands for the nature deemed expendable by the Greedies.

This woman with a name from the love lyrics of Propertius, the delicate Greek poet, who called himself ‘a pale knight in thrall of my angry Cynthia’, is an all-American figure, brought forth by the spirit of America. The great country does not want to die. In such moments, the land calls for its sons and daughters to step forward to the line of fire. Cynthia heard the call. Support of Cynthia is the ultimate test of love to America, of belief in America’s future in the family of nations, as an equal and friendly nation, not as an enforcer for creed of Greed.

It is paramount to rally around her, as the French nobles rallied to Jeanne d’Arc. Whether you are a descendant of African slaves or Muslim immigrants, a son of Confederacy or a Daughter of American Revolution, a freedom-loving Jew or a born-again Christian - it is the time to unite for Cynthia and for America.

Monday, February 8, 2010

The Role of the CIA: Behind the Dalai Lama’s Holy Cloak

The Role of the CIA:

Behind the Dalai Lama’s Holy Cloak

Such a CIA resume.....:

Since 1959 His Holiness has received more than 84 awards, honorary
doctorates, prizes, etc., in recognition of his message of peace,
non- violence, inter-religious understanding, universal
responsibility and compassion. His Holiness has also authored more
than 72 books.

Is it enviable? Or is it an embarassment?

Such a dual role:

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is both the head of
state and the spiritual leader of Tibet.

Is it meaningful? Or is it a conflicting role, especially for those
who aspire to follow the Buddha, the one who discovered that the only
way to achieve cessation of all human sufferings is to surrender all
worldly desires?

The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center:

After ten years of planning and fundraising, the $110 million Freedom
Center/CIA.... opened to the public on August 3, 2004 . . .

First Lady Laura Bush, Oprah Winfrey, and Muhammad Ali attended the
groundbreaking ceremony on June 17, 2002.

Is it a project to abolish human enslavement and secure freedom for
all people, as its charter claims? Or is it an exploitation of the
African American heritage for the purpose of promoting neoconservative
agendas such as to incite for more faith-based nation-building, a task
the Dalai Lama who, in their advertisement for their latest handing
out of their "freedom conductor" awards, "is both", ahem, "the head of
state and the spiritual leader of Tibet", purportedly is fighting for?

If we would recall that the notion of a faith-based nation-building is
so foreign to the American belief in the separation of the church and
the state, no wonder that none of the African Americans who were in
the forefront of the civil right movement was mentioned in the list of
celebrities attending the groundbreaking ceremony of this out fit.

And so, the more money the Dalai Lama gets from the CIA and their NGO
fronts and the more awards and honorary degrees from these so-called
"non-profit museums" like this "Freedom Center" with another colorful
modifier he will receive, the longer the Tibetan people will suffer.
It's a cruel joke for the Tibetan people to believe in this illusion
which is run by a man who is called a "head of state and the spiritual
leader of Tibet" but who actually was in the employ of the CIA for
decades and whose blood relatives were doing the same.

No matter how clumsy the Chinese government is handling the Tibetan
situation, the "free Tibet" crowd is relying on this phony man to lead
them from Egypt and into the promised land....?

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Israël, Synagogue de Satan

Israël, Synagogue de Satan

Zacharias du site La Question vient de terminer un texte magistral sur “Israël, synagogue de Satan”. Nous encourageons tous les catholiques et les non-catholiques à lire ce texte et les précédents textes de Zacharias qui traitent de l’antijudaïsme théologique de l’Eglise catholique. Il n’est plus permis de douter à la lumière d’une interprétation fidèle des textes saints. Toutes les dérives de notre temps apocalyptique résident dans la question sioniste.

"...Only those who are unconditionally capable for firm, even if it be to cruelty, direct rule will receive the reins of rule from our learned elders."

"What do they want with an angelic spirit in a king? What they have to see in him is the personification of force and power." No. 24

As this King in person, as they refer to, I confirm all this.... and my first edict will be to have those same elders be hanged...

..starting with the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

As explained in this authentic 100 years old document, they keep me separate from the people through an artificial "War on Terror" that they (the Elders of Zion) themselves have created and initiated....

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The Continuing Aims of Zionist Policies in the Middle East

The Continuing Aims of Zionist Policies in the Middle East

Israel Shahak

Dr. Shahak is Professor of Chemistry at Hebrew University and
President of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He is a
survivor of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The purpose of this
article is to investigate the real aims of Zionist policies in the
Middle East (not only or even chiefly in relation to the Palestinians)
and the inevitable consequences of the support, whether intentional or
not, by the United States of those aims over a long period of time.

The reason for using the expression "Zionist policies" in the title is
to draw the attention to the remarkable fact that the present Israeli
establishment continues to pursue with remarkable constancy policies
which began around 1917-22. Also, from that time up to the present,
there has been a remarkable continuity in the actual composition of
the ruling establishment. In spite of the many and frequent changes of
the government and of the ruling parties, the new wielders of power
have always been people who spent long years serving the previous
regimes in military or political capacities, and presumably accepting
the majority of their policies. This includes all of the more
important politicians of the Likud. Yitzhak Shamir was for sixteen
years in Mossad (Israel's Secret Service) under Ben Gurion and Levi
Eshkol; Ariel Sharon was a favorite of Ben Gurion. Menachem Begin, as
the head of the major opposition party, for many years was informed of
everything and in return gave his loyal support to most of the foreign
policies of Israel. Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin played the same
game from 1977-84, even during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. In fact,
with the exception of small groups on the right and the left margins
of the political spectrum, Israeli foreign policies, like the Zionist
policies before them, have been governed by a consensus (as it is
called in Israel) which has endured now for more than sixty years,
during which time the cohesion of this basic unity has very rarely
been shaken or even threatened. The Zionist establishment is in fact
the oldest in the Middle East, for its continuity has never been
broken, either by a revolution or by a large-scale influx of persons
with a different education or outlook from the founding fathers'.
During the same period, all Arab countries experienced one or both of
these disruptive phenomena.

This long continuity is one of the most important components of
Israeli strength. But the resulting inertia and reliance on old
precedents is also a source of weakness, particularly when new
policies or new approaches have to be devised. In particular, Israeli
policymakers will usually view the Arab world from a static point of
view and try to ignore the changes, particularly the social changes,
taking place in it.

As this analysis is concerned with long-term aims, I will ignore the
differences among "hawks" and "doves" within the Israeli
establishment. These are less significant than outsiders suppose and
are concerned mainly with means rather than ends. For example, many of
the Israeli establishment "doves" opposed Sharon in 1982 because they
were of the opinion that a much greater military effort should be
mounted against the Syrians, or that the alliance inside Lebanon
should not have been made with Phalangists, or not exclusively with
them. They were especially divided over how to represent the war to
the Israeli public or to world opinion. War itself was very little
opposed from inside the Israeli military establishment, although
everybody knew that it was coming. In a similar way in 1956, the
leftist opposition within the establishment opposed the Israeli
alliance with Britain and France but was of the opinion that Israel
should have attacked Egypt without them and changed the regime there.
In the same way, the Israeli attacks on Jordan in 1966-67 and the
attacks on the Syrian airforce over Damascus airspace ("in order to
change the Syrian regime" as Yitzhak Rabin, then the Chief of Staff,
proudly declared) which led to the six day war were supported by the
whole Israeli establishment. Of course, within this concensus there
are numerous pragmatic disagreements, but for the purpose of
discovering real long-term aims they can be ignored. Those aims can be
discovered first, from activities of the Israeli government; second,
from declarations obviously intended for the internal consumption of
the Israeli establishment itself; and third, from the rich historical
literature in Hebrew dealing with the history of the last sixty to
eighty years, some of which is on a very high level of veracity and

It is quite clear that the domination of the whole Middle East by
Israel is the constant aim of Israeli (and before this of Zionist)
policies and that this aim is shared (within the establishment) by
both "doves" and "hawks." The disagreement is about the means: whether
by war -- carried out by Israel alone or in alliance and on behalf of
stronger powers -- or by economic domination. This can best be shown
not so much by the case of the Palestinians, where the immediate
expropriation may obscure the wider thrust of policy, but in the cases
of Egypt, Syria and even Iraq. As early as the 1920s, all the
influence of the Zionist pressure-block in Britain was pitted against
the Egyptian National Movement, led then by Zaglul Pasha and the Wafd
Party. Both Chaim Weitzmann and Vladimir Jabotinsky opposed what they
called "British concessions" to Egyptians.

An important part of the argument about the long-term Zionist aims is
the fact that the opposition of Weitzmann, the supposed "dove," was
actually stronger and more adamant than that of Jabotinsky, who is
usually considered a hawk. Weitzmann opposed every Arab movement,
based -- as was inevitable and natural in the twenties -- on the
rising Arab middle class, and he did this by propagating among his
British friends a type of anti-Arab racism which can only be compared
to Nazi anti-Semitic outbursts. For exmaple, Weitzmann wrote to
Balfour on May 30, 1918:

The Arabs, who are superficially clever and quick-witted, worship one
thing and one thing only, power and success. . . . The British
authorities, . . . knowing as they do the treacherous nature of the
Arab, have to watch carefully and constantly that nothing should
happen which might give the Arabs the slightest grievance or ground of
complaint. In other words, the Arabs have to be "nursed," lest they
should stab the army in the back. The Arab, quick as he is to gauge
such a situation, tries to make the most of it. He screams as often as
he can, and blackmails as much as he can. . . . The fairer the English
regime tries to be, the more arrogant the Arab becomes.
(quoted from the original files of the British Foreign Office in
Publish It Not: the Middle East Cover-Up, by Mayhew and Adams,
Longman, 1975).

The Zionist, and later the Israeli, policies of opposition to every
step on the road to Egyptian independence, backed at least in private
by arguments of a similar type, continued to the point of formal
demands made by the newly created State of Israel to Britain not to
remove its troops in the early fifties from the canal zone. The
notorious "Lavon affair," in which an Israeli spy ring based on
members of the Jewish Egyptian community tried to put bombs in
Egyptian cinemas or in the American Library there, was similarly
intended to prevent the evacuation of the British troops from Egyptian
territory and to create the impression that the Egyptians are
terrorists, a theme which is still used about the whole Arab world.
Similarly, the aim of the 1956 Suez war from the Israeli point of view
was not only the destruction of the Egyptian army or the annexation of
Sinai, but the change of the Egyptian regime of that time. In fact,
Lova Eliav, then and now one of the leaders of the Israeli doves,
headed, by his own subsequent admission in 1972, a special task group
which was intended, in cooperation with the French government and
support from within the then-existing Jewish community of Cairo, to
carry out a coup d'etat and put into power politicians whom Israel
thought reliable. The plan was only prevented, to the great regret of
Israeli "doves," because it was made behind the back of the British
government of that time, which discovered it at the last moment and
vetoed it.

Through this whole long period from the twenties, the Zionist movement
and Israel were indeed in contact -- sometimes very intimate contact
-- with Egyptian politicians who were prepared to undertake policies
which would have entailed the continuation of Egyptian dependence on
outside powers and its separation from the rest of the Arab world as
the price of support for themselves. This aim was only achieved by
Begin's alliance with Sadat, which continued long-term tendencies,
with the United States being substituted for Britain and France. This
was made clear in 1977-1978 inside Israel, when the real compensation
for the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was explained as being "the
drawing of a wedge between Egypt and the rest of the Arab world," and,
even more important, making Egypt completely dependent on yearly
financial support from the U.S. Congress, where Israel holds virtual
veto power, a sort of sword of Damocles over Egyptian policy.

One can say that the major difference between the so-called "doves" of
the Israeli establishment and the real radical opposition is with
regard to this policy. The establishment "doves" not only support it
but consider that it can be made into a permanent situation, while the
anti-establishment radicals understand that ultimately such policy is
self-defeating in terms of Egyptian society because it increasingly
alienates the Egyptian government which tries to carry it out. In
addition, the American aid, over which Israel has a veto power, must
be of such nature as to prevent any real development of Egyptian
economy or society, as has indeed happened.

A very good recent example of this constant attitude can be found in
the September 1985 issue of New Outlook, widely considered to be a
"peace journal," in an interview with Professor Shimon Shamir about
the Israeli achievements in Egypt made possible by the Camp David
agreement and the Israeli-Egyptian peace. In the opinion of Professor
Shamir, an Israeli Arabist with great influence on the government, one
of the Israeli achievements is that the Egyptian army is occupied now
with the construction of roads and buildings and even the baking of
bread. In other words, since it undergoes little military training, it
is a weak army. Can a state with a very weak army be called truly
independent? Can the majority of a people desire, or long tolerate, a
bread-baking army? We will return to a deeper consideration of these
questions after considering Zionist policies toward other Arab

An even better example is the now-revealed affair of Israeli relations
with the Syrian regime of Husni Zaim in 1949-50. That very unstable
and narrowly based regime wanted desperately to acquire American
support, and thought that it could do so by offering to "solve" the
Palestinian "problem" in the interest of Israel, by settling all the
Palestinian refugees in the Syrian territory beyond the Euphrates --
that is, as far away from Palestine as possible. The scheme was
vigorously pursued until the very moment when Husni Zaim was
assassinated. A high-level CIA dignitary was actually present in
Damascus at the time of the assassination to serve as a messenger from
the Israeli government, according to a report released from the
Israeli archives in accordance with the thirty-year rule of secrecy.
But the most illuminating part of that affair, as it affects present
Israeli policies, is the manner and the reason for its publication in
spring 1985. It was published in Al Hamishmar, the paper of the Mapam
Party (now formally in opposition, but really a part of the
establishment), as part of an argument against Ben Gurion, who did not
pursue, in the opinion of the "dovish" author, this scheme as fast as
he should and so missed the opportunity for peace. I am passing over
the Palestinian aspect of this scheme as being clear enough. But what
about the assumption of the Israeli "doves" about Syria or the rest of
the Arab world? It is obvious that any Syrian government which
attempted to carry out such a policy would have become alienated from
its own people, and thus completely dependent on the outside support
of Israel and the United States. Even with such support, of whatever
magnitude, it could not endure for long.

But for Israeli establishment "doves," this elementary point cannot be
grasped, even now. Israeli policy towards Syria can only be
comprehended if one understands the social fact that the whole Israeli
establishment, "doves" included, not only believes in making "deals"
-- such as the one described above -- with Arab regimes but also
disregards the certainty that regimes which consent to such deals will
become as alienated from their own people as the "Village Leagues" in
the West Bank or the "South Lebanese Army" are at present.

To cite a further example, in 1930-32 the Jewish community of Baghdad
was incited to oppose, openly and formally (but unsuccessfully) in
petitions to the British government and the League of Nations, the
change of status of Iraq from a mandate to a formally independent
country. The expulsion of Jews from Iraq in the early fifties is now
known, from reports released from Israeli archives, to have been
carried out with the full cooperation of Israeli agents who were
established in Baghdad at the time and who not only negotiated with
the Iraqi government and with the real ruler of the country, Nuri
Said, but actually boasted in a telegram sent to Tel Aviv that they
were "cooking more quickly" the law expelling the Jews from Iraq. The
"quick cooking" involved anti-Iraqi activities in the United States in
which American Jews took a prominent part. It seems that the Israeli
influence on Iraqi policies in the period before 1958 was quite deep
and extensive, and was probably one of the reasons for the fall of the

These are examples of activities which were not condemned within the
Israeli establishment when they were published in recent years,
despite the deep intervention in Lebanon. Many similar discussions
about proposals from the same period made both by "doves" and "hawks"
could be quoted to illustrate the thesis that the domination of the
whole Middle East, either by a warlike conquest of parts of it or by
alliances with regimes which necessarily become alienated because of
such alliances, or by making those regimes dependent on an internal
power structure over which Israel (or the Zionist movement) has a
great influence, has been and remains the real Israeli aim. In
pursuing this aim the Israeli establishment has shown both flexibility
and tenacity in the methods employed, and also in being ready to make
significant retreats when under compulsion.

There are two principal examples of such retreats: the retreat from
Sinai from 1956-57, made because of the insistence of the two
superpowers, and the retreat from most of the area of South Lebanon,
made under the pressure of popular resistance. The lesson of 1956-57
has been absorbed by the Israeli establishment. All possible efforts
have been made (and will be made) to prevent any cooperation between
the United States and the USSR on Middle Eastern affairs, with great
prospect of success in that direction. The lesson of guerrilla warfare
based on popular support in Lebanon in 1983-85 has not been absorbed
in Israel. In fact, the profound social change which has occurred in
most Arab countries since the fifties is not understood. The inertia
resulting from long continuity produces the effect that the only
"model" of an Arab regime (or movement) which the Israeli
establishment -- the "doves" particularly -- assumes and wants, are
such as were only too prevalent from the twenties to the fifties, and
whose most characteristic feature was dependency on outside powers
combined with alienation at home. Sadat of the last few months of his
life fit the model perfectly.

The invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the subsequent Israeli opposition
to that war have created in some circles outside Israel a false
picture of a change within the Israeli establishment which did not
happen. Since I am describing here the mainstream of Israeli opinion,
I will ignore the radical opposition to the war to concentrate on one
aspect of the debate within the establishment. Sharon and his henchmen
were accused, time and again, of deceiving the Israeli government and
the public as to the extent and the firepower of the PLO armed forces
and the Syrian units in Lebanon. Sharon claimed that they were huge
and so had to be destroyed because the very existence of such a
military force is a "reason" for an Israeli attack. His establishment
opponents, who were factually correct, said that the PLO and Syrian
armed forces in Lebanon were small. Both sides actually shared the
same assumption, which dates from the early fifties, that the very
existence of an Arab state with a military force, beyond certain
debatable qualitative and quantitative bounds, is a "reason" for an
Israeli preventive attack on it. Consideration of parity between
Israel and the other state is out of the question.

It is extremely important to understand that this fixed policy is now
propagated with full force as the reason" for the next Israeli
preventive war. There has been a whole series of very serious
predictions from the highest military sources (from October 1984) that
war with Syria is "inevitable." On June 10, 1985, Tali Zelinger, the
military correspondent of Davar, announced in the name of the
"security apparatus" (the army together with the various intelligence
systems) that "the evaluation today is that sooner or later a war
between Syria and Israel will break out." Even more open was Ran
Edelist, the military correspondent of Monitin, the most prestigious
Hebrew monthly, in the August 1985 issue (which appears at the end of
July). To explain better what he did and how the Israeli establishment
can find ways to circumvent censorship in order to show to its members
which way the wind is blowing, it is necessary to explain that
subtitles of articles in the Hebrew press do not have to pass the
censor but are added by the author or the editor at the last moment.
Ran Edelist, who enjoys the best contacts with Israeli generals,
interviewed first a colonel in the reserves, Haim Yaabetz, who has
just retired from long and distinguished service in military
intelligence which included in its last years strong support for the
"strategic megalomania of Arik Sharon." He then added to the
interview, which proceeded along the usual lines of the inevitability
of war (not only with Syria, but as a permanent characteristic of
Israeli existence in the Middle East) the following subtitle quite
unconnected with the text:

Division commander in the North, D., ordered his officers to make
known to all soldiers of this division that the war with Syria is very
near, and I, a red-haired brigade commander, told all comrades: ‘This
is what is going to be, this is what exists, so let us fall to work'.
The author then discusses in considerable detail "the price" in number
of victims that Israel is going to pay for its future victory over
Syria. I emphasize that such announcements, especially those made to
officers by division or brigade commanders in Israel, are to be
regarded very seriously, since it is by such means that the real
decision makers in Israel (who are not the government, which is
informed at the last moment) communicate their decisions to the most
important part of the Israeli establishment. The real decisions to
attack Egypt (in 1956) or to invade Lebanon (in 1982) were
communicated in exactly the same way. In 1967 although Nasser's steps
hastened the process, the officers knew that Israel was going to
attack weeks before it happened, while the majority of the Israeli
government fondly imagined that war could yet be averted.

Of even greater importance are the clear signs in the Hebrew press and
other Israeli sources which predict an Israeli attack on Jordan.
Again, if we will free our minds of cant and of the influence of
Israeli official propaganda and take a hard look at Israeli actions
through the years, we will see that the actual type of an Arab regime
(monarchical or republican, "right" or "left") is of no importance to
Israel. What is important is whether it is strong or weak militarily
and otherwise, and whether it enjoys a measure of popularity with its
subjects. A Middle Eastern Arab state which is developing military
strength is going to be attacked for this very reason (when the
conditions are favorable), and those interested in Middle Eastern
politics should accept this high probability as a fact of life, until
it is altered by a basic change within the Israeli Jewish society. Let
me quote rather extensively from the Hebrew press, which, as usual,
explains this in advance to its readers. Reuven Padahtzur, the
correspondent of Haaretz on military affairs and one of the most
serious and better informed writers on that subject in Israel, writes
under the title "Who Wants a Preventive Blow?" (Haaretz, July 4,

Supplying the Jordanian army with advanced fighter planes and mobile
land-air missiles might force Israel to react with a preventive blow
in the case of a war breaking out in the region. The American-
Jordanian arms deal must be considered not only from the relatively
narrow viewpoint of direct military risks emanating from the supply of
modern, sophisticated weapons to the Jordanian army. One of the
interesting, dangerous and undesirable repercussions of this
transaction is the almost total limitation of the variety of military
options that the Israeli Defense Army will have. The introduction of
advanced fighter planes and of mobile land-air missile batteries into
Hussein's army might force Israel to react in advance with a
preventive blow against this army, in every case of war breaking out
in the region.
After giving in great detail the military equipment which Jordan has,
or is going to purchase mainly from the United States but also from
the USSR, and after highlighting the great danger to Israel from the
"joint maneuvers by the Jordanian and American forces," since those
exercises are an important contribution to the improvement of the
offensive capacity of the Jordanian army, the author concludes:

Israel's security policy must have an answer also for the worst
scenario. One of these scenarios, taking into account a situation when
Israel has to face the outbreak of war on the eastern front, including
the armies of Syria, Jordan, as well as Iraqi expeditionary
contingents, forces the Israeli Defense Army to take immediate steps
in order to neutralize the threat to sensitive targets inside Israel.
For this purpose it seems that there will be no choice but to inflict
a preconceived preventive blow on Jordan.

Thus, paradoxically, the supply of modern sophisticated weapons to the
Jordanian army not only does not enhance the security of the Kingdom
of Jordan, but even involves a great danger to its army (my emphasis).
The same theme was taken (among many others) by the famous Zeev
Schiff, also in Haaretz (August 16, 1985) in an article entitled "Who
Wants to Finish Off Hussein?" After pointing out that the old, well-
known plan of Sharon for what he calls "a Palestinization of
Jordan," (which means an Israeli conquest of Jordan and an
establishment of a "Palestinian" regime there of the "Village League"
variety) has also been supported for many years by some Israeli
leaders of the Labor Party, he describes the ways in which a "case"
for such a step will be built in Israeli public opinion (and a part of
American opinion as well, one may add):

One does not begin with sudden (airforce) bombardments in the center
of Amman. Also in Lebanon it did not begin with the invasion itself
and the military advance on Beirut. Before this, "the case" should be
built, the threat should be cultivated, until it becomes something
insupportable as a threat to existence, in the eyes of (Israeli)
public opinion (my emphasis).
He even hints at further very interesting possibilities: After
pointing out that "the modern history of the Middle East is full of
examples of removing a ruler by means of murder" and that King Hussein
was a target for such attempts in the past, he sagely observes that in
the past, "those who indulged in such machinations were always Arabs,
but it should not be so in the future. Different scenarios are
possible in such a situation. If someday the responsibility for the
Israeli Intelligence and Security Services falls into the hands of a
person without restraint, everything is possible" (my emphasis). As we
say in Hebrew, a hint to the wise is enough, and here we have much
more than a hint; we have a full scenario which is not dependent,
except in timing and outward presentation, on Sharon becoming once
more the power inside the Israeli government, but on the same basic
reasons which have ruled Israeli (and before this the Zionist)
policies for a long time. Incidentally, Schiff quickly adduces as the
"reason" which worries Sharon and pushes him to advocate an Israeli
"preventive" attack on Jordan, "that a part of the PLO is becoming
more moderate." In this there is also nothing new; the careful
observation of the cease-fire by the PLO between August 1981 and June
1982 was one of the reasons, freely admitted inside Israel, why Israel
invaded Lebanon. This is part of a familiar pattern.

I will only briefly mention the "reasons" which are being given to the
more gullible parts of public opinion, especially in the United
States, for such scenarios: "The fight against terror," particularly
world terror, is one of the most important of them, and of course
protecting "Western civilization," as has been said countless times in
the past. Here, too, nothing changes. Indeed the main point of this
article is that the policies of the Zionist and Israeli establishment
are, so far, constant, and therefore an unprejudiced analysis of the
past can be a guide to the contingencies of the future.

This analysis can be confirmed by an examination of the official
"reasons" put forth inside Israel for the present "missile conflict"
with Syria. Briefly, Israel claims for itself the right to dictate
where, on its own territory, Syria will or will not station weapons
(even such defensive weapons as anti-aircraft missiles). It is
important to perceive that all public opinion in Israel, except the
opposition from the left to the present National Unity government
(about 13 percent of the political strength as expressed by Knesset
seats), is united on this point. The whole debate, as freely expressed
in the Hebrew press (not in the Jerusalem Post, of course), is whether
Israel should first take the diplomatic road and only afterward attack
Syria, or attack without diplomacy at a time of its own convenience.
The principle of domination -- that Israel can unilaterally dictate to
an independent state about defensive weapons on its own territory --
is accepted by a great majority of the Israeli public, including,
contrary to the myths propagated among both the Western and the Arab
publics, the "Peace Now" movement. Nor is this the first demand of its
kind. On the contrary, like the political demands discussed above, the
demand that the Arabs disarm or limit their armaments goes back to
1918-20, and continues throughout Zionist history. To limit discussion
only to the last few years: 1) the overflights of the Saudi bases like
Tabuk, which reinforced the Israeli demand that Saudi planes or other
equipment should not be based there, and 2) the demands to limit the
sales of sophisticated defensive weapons to Jordan and countless
others are of exactly the same kind and illustrate the same principle
of domination of the whole Middle East which not only Israeli
governments (and before them the Zionist leadership) but the great
majority of the Israeli public support as a principle of such
overwhelming importance that it justifies waging a war.

It is even more important to perceive that the United States now, like
Britain and France before it, agrees in principle to those
imperialistic Israeli policies and only tries to soften them in their
practical application. American diplomats carried the Israelis'
demands (which by any standard, whether that of international law or
the principle of self-determination, were outrageous) to Syria in the
winter of 1985-86, as they carried similar demands to Saudi Arabia
before. The American government and an overwhelming part of public
opinion, as expressed in the media, accept without discussion the
"principle" that Israel can dictate through the United States to Arab
states, but not of course the reverse. It is acceptable to the
American Congress that a discussion of national dimensions should be
held about whether AWACS planes in Saudi Arabia are a danger to
Israel, but there is no record of any discussion in the Congress over
whether any of the many types of offensive weapons delivered to Israel
by the United States is a danger to any or all Arab states.

Of course, such "principles" are used, and have been used through the
ages, in relations between the superpowers and weaker states. But the
extraordinary and exceptional case of Zionism and Israel consists
exactly in this: that Israel by itself does not have the strength to
be a superpower dominating the Middle East, even through military
conquest. It employs to a great extent the strength of others, relying
on internal manipulation of the public opinion of the really strong
powers. This fact, however obscured in the Western media and unclear
(I think) to a great part of the pro-Western Arab establishments, is
quite clear to the Arab peoples. The diplomats can be, perforce,
satisfied with humiliating arrangements which achieve some small
measure of practical success, i.e. the Israeli flights over Saudi
territory cease after a time, or after a great dispute some old
Hercules planes are delivered by the United States to Egypt. But the
people, particularly the educated people, who are interested in
politics and determine it in the long run, feel the humiliating
principle involved and become -- indeed must become -- more and more
alienated from their pro-American regimes and also more anti-American.

As I have tried to show, this has also been one of the constant aims
of Zionist and Israeli policies. The effect of these popular pressures
in Arab countries, whether expressed in demonstrations and protests or
in individual acts of indiscriminate terror which have a measure of
popular support, is the same. I am not discussing here acts which I
condemn on moral grounds, but rather their social and political causes
and effects. A vicious circle is created in which precisely those
basic discriminatory anti-Arab principles of American policy are being
reinforced, and they in turn reinforce the alienation of the Arab
peoples from all pro-American regimes. No merely diplomatic solution
of any kind, no "peace process" can break this vicious circle so long
as the principles which the United States inherited from Britain and
France and which are constant in Zionist and Israeli policies, remain
unchanged and undiscussed. The present course of affairs will lead
necessarily to either another "ordinary" war or to a much bigger
conflict of catastrophic dimensions.

One relatively recent example of American policy in the Middle East
can illustrate the basic principles involved and their perception by
all the peoples of the Middle East (Jews as well as Arabs, only in a
contrary sense). I refer to the affair of the American intervention in
Sudan to help (by corruption, bribery and undue influence) the Falasha
Ethiopian Jews to come to Israel, where many of them were settled in
the West Bank despite some feeble official American protests, which
were treated by Israel with justified contempt. The facts are clear
enough, although widely disregarded by the American media: Sudan and
Ethiopia are full of starving refugees numbering many millions. In the
midst of this general human misery, an enormous American effort both
in money and politics, involving the Vice President of the United
States, was spent on helping a small group of people whose sole
criterion was that they were recognized as being Jews by the Jewish

Politically, this effort was one of the main causes, perhaps the most
important immediate cause, of the fall of the Numeiri regime. The
trials, now continuing, of the highest Sudanese officials, followed by
all Middle East people with great interest, reveal to all of them the
fundamental principle of American (and of course Israeli) policy in
the Middle East: racist discrimination. Human suffering by itself does
not count; the most important, almost the only, criterion is to what
group of people the human being belongs. If he belongs to the group
considered superior (in a similar way to the superiority, assumed
fifty years ago about the "Aryans") then all the effort of the United
States will be spent on his behalf, even to the extent of harming the
immediate pragmatic interests of the United States. But if he belongs
to the millions of "inferior" people, to which all non-Jews of the
Middle East belong according to accepted principles of American
politics, then very little is owed to his human suffering and nothing
to his human dignity. The word "fanaticism" is very often on American
and Israeli lips where Arabs are concerned, but it should be
recognized that the Zionist and Israeli principles of policy with
regard to the Arab peoples of the Middle East are fanatical, both in
their total disregard for reason and social facts, and in their
application, which continuously defies most considerations of
political interest or "Realpolitik." Without this necessary
recognition of the blind fanaticism involved in the real Zionist and
Israeli policies and in the acceptance and internationalization of
this fanatical approach by the American establishment, no
understanding of the actual course of politics in the Middle East is
possible. With the acceptance of this as the main explanatory factor,
the actual course of affairs can be understood, both the past and as
far as possible the future as well.

Professor Edward Said, in his most important work, Orientalism, has
pointed out how the mainstream of the Western "Orientalist" research
served, consciously or unconsciously, the aim of domination of the
Arab world by the Western powers. However, one should add to his
analysis one important factor: Orientalism was indeed a powerful
instrument of penetration and conquest because it contained useful
facts, however maliciously arranged, and also because the Arab world
was almost completely ignorant about the West. A corresponding
situation exists now: Israel and "Israeli friends" in the West are
well-informed about the Arab world, at least factually, even though
that information is usually arranged in the interest of Israeli
domination. On the other hand, an almost complete ignorance about
Israel prevails, as can be deduced from the fact that a serious and
comprehensive survey of the Hebrew press does not exist outside
Israel, certainly not in the Arab world. (Incidentally, one can say
that the ignorance of Palestinians, except those living in Israel,
about Israeli affairs is as great as that of the other Arab peoples).
Although, as has been implied above, this does not prevent these
peoples from perceiving the basic truth and from acting accordingly
after a period of time, it prevents the average Arab intellectual and
also the small minority of Western people who do not accept anti-Arab
fanaticism from analyzing the situation before it is too late. As
Francis Bacon said, knowledge is power; this applies also to political
knowledge. The accurate, factual and ideological knowledge of Zionism
and of Israeli society and politics is the most important single
condition for breaking the vicious circle of the attempted Zionist
domination of the Middle East. This domination is ultimately doomed to
failure, but in the absence of knowledge this failure will cost much
more in blood and human suffering than otherwise.