The Battle of Lebanon; New names, same games


posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 05/28/2009 @ 10:55am

Five days before the crucial elections in Iran on June 12, voters go to the polls in another Middle East country: Lebanon. The stakes in Lebanon are high, since it’s looking more and more likely that Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite fundamentalist group, and its allies will win a majority and take control of the government in Beirut. That would create a fundamental choice for the Obama administration: does the United States continue to have contact with, and send military aid to, a Lebanese government controlled by Israel’s implacable foe?

Last year, in a power-sharing deal brokered by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, Hezbollah was given a share of power in the Lebanese state proportional to its strength in parliament and on the ground, after massive pro-Hezbollah demonstrations rocked the country.

Expect a lot of outside meddling in Lebanon during the next two weeks — on all sides.

An early shot was fired this week from Germany, where Der Spiegel, the conservative weekly magazine, revealed that investigators probing the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri have concluded that Hezbollah, and not Syria, is responsible for the spectacular bombing that killed Hariri, a pro-Western billionaire with close ties to France and Saudi Arabia. (Hariri’s son, Saad Hariri, is leading the anti-Hezbollah coalition in the June 7 election.)

What’s interesting about the Der Spiegel exclusive, if true, is not only that it exonerates Syria, but that it blames Hezbollah. The magazine reports that the UN special tribunal in the case intended to withhold its conclusion until late June, i.e., until after the election. The fact that it is now being reported makes the Spiegel report seem like a calculated leak designed to undercut Hezbollah’s election chances.

Reports the magazine:

Spiegel has learned from sources close to the tribunal and verified by examining internal documents, that the Hariri case is about to take a sensational turn. Intensive investigations in Lebanon are all pointing to a new conclusion: that it was not the Syrians, but instead special forces of the Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah (“Party of God”) that planned and executed the diabolical attack. Tribunal chief prosecutor Bellemare and his judges apparently want to hold back this information, of which they been aware for about a month. What are they afraid of?

That’s a good question — “What are they afraid of?” — but another good question is: what’s the motive of the people who leaked the super-secret conclusion? (And two other questions: is the Der Spiegel report correct that the UN panel has concluded that Hezbollah killed Hariri? And, if they have concluded that, is their conclusion true?)

Writing in the Washington Times, former Dick Cheney aide John Hannah, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel thinktank with neoconservative ties, rings every alarm bell he can reach:

Make no mistake: Hezbollah’s triumph would constitute a major U.S. defeat. Despite the Obama administration’s overtures to Iran, it remains the case that across the Middle East, the battle for Lebanon is understood as part of a much larger struggle for power being waged by Washington and Tehran.

The formal collapse of the Cedar Revolution would send shockwaves throughout the region, providing powerful confirmation of Iran’s ascendancy and America’s decline. It would dramatically embolden Teheran at a time when Washington hopes to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, its support for terrorism and its escalating efforts — frequently using Hezbollah operatives — to subvert pro-U.S. governments across the Arab world from Iraq to Egypt to Morocco.

From Iraq to Morocco! Whew! Talk about the Domino Theory. In fact, the Hezbollah victory would do nothing of the kind, except that it would ratify the democratic expression of what the Lebanese people want. If Hezbollah does win, its victory will be marginal, only a few points, and Lebanese politics will continue to be balanced on a knife’s edge, complicated by the presence of armed militias and ethnic warlords across the political spectrum.

America’s view of the Lebanon election is pretty clear. Recently, both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made high-profile visits to Beirut to boost the chances of the Hariri-led coalition. No doubt, pro-American, conservative Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are pouring millions of dollars into the anti-Hezbollah effort, while Iran is doing the same — along with Syria — for the other side.

Meanwhile, less might be at stake than Hannah suggests. As the Jerusalem Post notes, Hezbollah will be a power in Lebanon whether it wins or loses:

Even if Hizbullah loses the upcoming election, it will continue to control Lebanon. It is the strongest force in Lebanon by far, and the country’s Shi’ite community is growing. The Christians in the North have been weakened, and the Druse in the central region will strike a deal with anyone who furthers their interests. Nobody will separate Hizbullah from its weapons, and the group will continue to strengthen and deepen its control of Lebanon.

What’s really at stake is not Hezbollah’s power and its ability to send dominos toppling, but its international credibility — and the crucial question of whether the United States will (a) deal with a Hezbollah-controlled government or (b) treat it like Hamas, which was duly elected in the Palestinian territories and then quarantined by the United States.

As the New York Times reports today, Hezbollah is already gaining legitimacy:

Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group, has talked with the International Monetary Fund and the European Union about continued financial support to Lebanon in the event the group’s political alliance wins the June 7 parliamentary elections, Hezbollah officials said Wednesday.

In Beirut last week, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said future American support to Lebanon, which includes military aid, would depend on the elections’ outcome.

European governments have not issued any such veiled threats, and Western leaders have recently shown a greater willingness to engage in political dialogue with Hezbollah’s patrons, Iran and Syria. Britain’s Foreign Office said in March that it would re-establish relations with Hezbollah’s political wing.

My guess: if Hezbollah wins, the Obama administration will figure out a way to finesse its dislike of the group, hold its nose, and continue to support the Lebanese government. To the utter consternation of John Hannah, the neoconservatives, the Israel lobby, and Israel’s new right-wing government.

Interestingly, the elections come just two days after President Obama delivers a major speech in Cairo aimed at “re-booting” US relations with the Muslim world. Isolating Hezbollah, should it win a free and fair vote — at least, as free and fair as Lebanon can produce! — won’t help with the rebooting, unless Obama’s main audience is the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

New names, same games for Lebanon

“…. Influence in Lebanon is both a means to an end, and an end in itself, they say, and proven culpability for the assassination of al-Hariri would seriously hinder this status quo. With each criminal action, goes the tale, Syria is attempting to jeopardise the work of the tribunal and blackmail Lebanon. ….In a process which Syria had always condemned as being politicised from the start, it was ruled there would be no judging without sufficient evidence. While this should have momentarily brought the accusations to a full circle, there seems to be little wish to tone down the rhetoric….

Amid the crescendo of accusations about Syria and its allies, the biggest threat which never ceased to manifest itself remained Israel, whose savage July 2006 onslaught sent droves of Lebanese refugees across the Syrian border, where they were welcomed with open arms and homes.

Not only did this war bring back a dose of reality about the bigger stakes, but it also put Lebanon’s current majority in a difficult position against Hezbollah and effectively on Israel’s side.

The war was a turning point where real alliances could not remain in the background any longer….

No matter how it is packaged, and even if it was explained as Hezbollah being responsible for provoking Israel by seizing its soldiers, the enormity of this situation was unprecedented. It laid the ground for the next big crisis which would hit Lebanon in May 2007,…..

In the days of Pax Syriana following the Taif agreement which ended the Lebanese civil war and established Syria as the de facto boss, most parties complied with the S-S dynamic ruling their lives – as long as Syria and Saudi Arabia agreed on the path to follow, Lebanon was relatively quiet.

Today, while the major regional players are the same, they are betting on different horses…. Until there is a new census reflecting current demographics, most groups in the country are secure in the fact that they have a voice in government. It does matter, of course, who wins the most seats and who is charged with forming a government, and many observers wonder whether Hezbollah’s time has come to become the majority.

Given the clumsy foreign interference…. there seem to be real questions on the latter’s capacity or even desire to reach office.

While Aoun would certainly welcome a presidential role eventually, Hezbollah would probably be happy to remain in opposition, especially since it has already proved its capacity to overturn decisions when needed. ….This situation would also serve Syria’s interests for the time being…. Even without their own man in office in Lebanon, the Syrians know there is now little chance for any government to provoke it on the big issues and only need to wait for the other foreign powers to come to terms with this reality…”

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 10:14 AM

Toothless counsel

Toothless counsel

Opposition forces have been reduced by Arab regimes to servile advice givers, neglecting the aspirations of the people whose interests they exist to better defend, writes Azmi Bishara

Some Arab opposition forces criticise this regime or that for pursuing policies that run counter to its own interests. On what grounds does the opposition presume it is more aware of the regime’s interests than the regime itself? The very charge is a sign of weakness in the opposition force that levels it. It is not the job of the opposition to offer advice on what is in a regime’s best interests. Its job is to criticise a regime’s policies on the basis of their assessment of what is in the country’s and the people’s best interests.

Opposition in politics does not exist for its own sake. The exception to this is the critical eye of a handful of intellectuals who make a mission of constant critique and analysis. While such a practice plays a part in politics it is generally not politicised. Still, it remains an essential complement to political activity and in order to perform its function its practitioners must avoid the type of attitudes and behaviour that cheapen it, such as superficiality, vanity, exhibitionism and egoism. By the latter I mean indulging such personal whims or obsessions by playing the role of victim; venting emotions such as love, hate, envy or rancour; or avenging oneself on particular people. By exhibitionism, I refer to the tendency of the critic to care less about his subject and his function and more about projecting an image of himself as an enfant terrible or a permanent and flippant devil’s advocate.

Apart from this there is no opposition in politics for opposition’s sake. Of course there are people who oppose out of personal motives. A person might, for example, aspire to a government post and attempt to fulfil this ambition by grandstanding in the hope of forcing the government to award him an appointment merely to shut him up. Another may be similarly opportunistic, but his ambitions overlap with the aims of the opposition — his hope for growing status and influence is linked with the arrival of the opposition to power. Such personal motives are considered legitimate in politics, albeit within limits. In all events, they have little bearing on our subject here, which is the political opposition movement or party.

In pluralistic democracies that permit for the peaceful rotation of power, the opposition advocates a platform of policies that conflict with those of the government. It claims that in order for these policies to be put into effect it must be voted into power or invited into sharing power. Protest movements and pressure groups, by contrast, try to influence the ruling government but do not strive for power. They do not present themselves as alternatives to the government. Rather, they oppose certain policies and try to press the government into changing these policies and meeting their demands. In democratic states there are numerous instances of protest movements transforming themselves into political parties after having accomplished their initial mission. There are also cases of opposition parties or forces using protest movements for their own ends. If the government is unable or unwilling to meet the protesters’ demands, they can be mobilised in favour of the opposition. Conversely, the opposition may attempt to infiltrate the protest movement and manoeuvre it in such a way as to forestall the government’s meeting its demands, for fear that if the government did concede this would weaken the opposition and undermine its prospects for the next elections. Protest movements sometimes try to steer clear of the influence of opposition parties and forces precisely because they fear the reaction of the ruling authorities that are perfectly aware of the aforementioned tactics.

The aim of the political opposition in democratic systems is to attain and/or share power. This is the only reason for establishing and organising a political party. Of course one occasionally finds fringe parties in democratic countries that have other designs, such as overthrowing the entire system of government, attaining power by subverting the rules of the game, or merely to advocate an idea different from the rivals in the mainstream. In the latter case, such parties gradually evolve into something more akin to an intellectual club or a cult in some cases.

Returning to our opening point, we stress again that an opposition party does not see it as one of its functions to counsel the ruling party or government on its best interests. Rather, it operates on the premise that it knows better than the government what is best for the country. It may go so far as to charge that the interests of the current government are at odds with the interests of the country. But his is not advice, but rather censure. To be thorough and precise, we must exempt from this rule certain extreme situations in which there is an overwhelming national consensus, as occurs when a country is under attack or suffers a natural catastrophe. In such cases, a wise government may actively solicit the advice of the opposition and the opposition may sincerely tender it on the overriding matters of national security on which they are in full accord in order to safeguard the political order in which they share a common interest and which embraces their democratic rivalry.

But if the above applies to democratic countries, does it also apply to non-democratic ones? Do not opposition forces in such countries also aspire to power? They certainly do. In modern non-democratic states, opposition forces organise themselves, per force, in clandestine or semi-clandestine parties that aim to leverage themselves into a position to put their political programmes — whether democratic or anti-democratic — into effect. Of course, non-democratic regimes may experience changes in rule or power structure without the direct influence of opposition parties. Political reforms or coups undertaken by the ruling party, the army or other agencies are the two major avenues towards this end. The new authorities may bring the opposition parties onboard or, conversely, they may step up the repression of these parties. Both trends are probably equally commonplace. Be that as it may, let us not be detracted from our primary concern here, which is the state of opposition parties themselves in non-democratic countries, Arab countries included.

A regime consolidates and bolsters itself by expanding its support base of beneficiaries and creating new sectors dependent upon it and/or by effectively suppressing and fracturing the opposition by means of clampdowns, detentions and exile. The longer a party remains in opposition under such circumstances the greater the chances that its remnants will also consolidate and perpetuate themselves. Some may strike a bargain with the ruling regime enabling them to function legitimately or semi-legitimately as an opposition party with a margin of freedom to criticise from the fringes of political life, resulting in a kind of permanent loyal opposition that prohibits itself from so much as thinking about attaining power. As we suggested above, a party that resigns itself to eternal opposition and, for the sake of self- preservation, to operate semi-legitimately in accordance with the conditions set by the regime gradually forfeits its capacity as a political party and loses its politicised character. It survives solely by power of inertia, awaiting an opportunity that will never come because it has effectively thrown in the towel in terms of its structure, ideas, aims and aspirations for power.

One of the peculiar phenomena such a situation gives rise to is a critical political discourse crafted and packaged as “advice” so as not to upset the regime and call down upon itself the authorities’ wrath. It will say, for example, “it is in the interests of the regime to change its policy and side with the resistance,” or “the regime would be well-advised to examine the concerns it has in common with other Arab nations,” or “it would do credit to the regime to sever relations with Israel,” and so on. I imagine the authorities smile contentedly when they hear such “criticism”. It performs a service for them as it reveals that the opposition is operating on the premise of the interests of the regime. Indeed, it elevates this premise to a national axiom above discussion while simultaneously putting paid to the political and social functions a real opposition party should perform. Offering advice is a task suited to an advisor not to an opposition party that hopes to expose the futility or misguidedness of a government’s policies or the inability of this government to safeguard and promote the welfare of society and the people.

Another curious phenomenon occurs when the opposition — Arab nationalist as a rule — acts as though it has some claim to authority and pretends to take the hand of the regime, the king or president, as though it were a guardian figure imparting wisdom to a minor. Now surely a regime that has remained in power for decades, if not necessarily wise, is far from a doltish minor. The perpetual opposition, meanwhile, has yet to prove that it could govern if it ever came to power, let alone offer sound advice to those in power. A real opposition, on the other hand, concerns itself with establishing that the government is acting against the interests of the people and the country or contrary to the principles (or its understanding of the principles) that underpin the national consensus. In addition, by means of its ability to mobilise, lead and organise its followers and the people it also establishes its credentials as a potential candidate for power. If a regime made a strategic decision to place its country in the American camp and believes that its relationship with Israel will help strengthen its relationship with the US, what stance should the opposition take? Should it say that this is not really in the interests of the regime or should it say that this runs counter to the interests of the country and the people? Should the Palestinian opposition try to convince the Palestinian Authority (PA) president that he would be doing himself a favour by cooperating with the resistance? Surely he is more aware than the opposition that his perpetuation in power is contingent upon his alliance with the US and Israel and that to change this policy in a way consistent with national unity is to change the security basis on which the PA is founded and thus to change its leader. So, if it makes little sense to offer such advice to the head of a Palestinian Authority that has no sovereign capacity it makes even less sense to offer similar advice to fully-fledged regimes with decades of experience in perpetuating their rule.

If the interests of the regime are founded on notions and policies that the opposition believes run counter to the welfare of the country then it’s the job of the opposition to expose this on the basis of facts and logical arguments that proceed from these facts. The opposition should make solid criticism its mission, even if the prospect of attaining power is beyond it or not on its agenda. In the pursuit of this mission it should take the interests of the country — as opposed to the interests of the ruling regime — as its springboard.

Explaining Israel’s Mysterious Imperial Agenda



Islam and Politics

Written by Imran N. Hosein

When Harry Belafonte declared that US President George W. Bush was “the world’s greatest terrorist”, it was clear that while he had not studied the subject sufficiently, since that notorious distinction belongs to Israel and not to Bush, he certainly showed greater understanding of the subject and more courage than most politicians and leaders today.

But Israel has another unique distinction that continuously escapes the attention of scribes, scholars and politicians. It is the only state in the world that has continuously waged unjust war with disdain for ‘gentile’ opinion, and even escalate its warfare while rendering the rest of the world powerless to do anything tangible to prevent it.

The rest of the world, that is, except Islam!

Israel’s deliberately barbarous and disproportionate military response to the Sunni Islamic resistance’s capture of one enemy soldier in the Gaza Strip, and the further capture of two more enemy soldiers by the Shia Islamic resistance in Southern Lebanon, not only constitutes yet another Israeli war crime but also sets up Israel once again for eventual retributive punishment that would be commensurate with all those war crimes. Neither Prophets David nor Solomon (peace be upon them both) ever waged war the Israeli way, with a barbarian ethical code of warfare which permits the indiscriminate bombing-destruction of entire civilian populations, men women and children, in their homes, villages, temples, and bomb-shelters (60 just killed in a village bomb-shelter in Qana, including 37 children) as well as the destruction of civilian airports, roads, bridges, electricity power plants, water works, etc., and the displacement of almost half the population of a country as refugees fleeing for their lives.

One can only wonder why the Israelite Jews who lived in peace with Muslims in the Muslim world for more than a thousand years prior to the birth of the Euro-Jewish State of Israel, have not as yet asked themselves whether Israel’s Euro-Jewish rulers are really Jews, or whether they are Euro-barbarians who disguise themselves as Jews.


The world must now know that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has prophesied Israel’s final and just retribution at the hands of a Muslim army. Israel has already had a taste of that coming retribution. In an essay published in the ‘Daily Express’, columnist Raffique Shah, himself trained in military strategy, described what happened when Israel attempted a ground assault on the Southern Lebanese village of Bint Jabeel:

“Having pounded the enemy for days, they thought they would have encountered only rubble. Instead, they ran into ambush after ambush, mounted by men seasoned in desert warfare. Within hours, 11 Israeli soldiers lay dead with scores more seriously wounded. The wounded were crying in agony as the Hezbullah fighters poured more fire on them. It took the Israelis several hours to extricate their troops, and that only by using their finest tanks as ambulances. Reporters on the Israeli side of the border wrote of weeping commanders and soldiers, dazed by a taste of real battle, wandering back to safety like a bedraggled, defeated army.”

Bint Jabeel, in Arabic, means Jabeel’s ‘daughter’, while Bin or Ibn Jabeel would be his ‘son’. Israel must now pause and ponder. If Bint Jabeel could fight like that, how will Bin Jabeel fight?

Israel’s final retribution, as prophesied by Prophet Muhammad in words that are engraved in the hearts of millions of Muslims around the world, would come to pass only after Jesus returns. The Prophet declared:
“You would fight the Jews and you would (succeed in) killing them (to such an extent that even) a stone would speak (and would say): Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me so come and kill him!”
(Bukhari, Muslim)

That prophecy suffices today to distinguish the true Muslim from the pseudo Muslim. The true Muslim is unafraid to declare that the Jihad (just war) to liberate the Holy Land from Israeli oppression has already begun. Pseudo Muslims, from captain to cook, hurry to distance themselves from any armed struggle while insisting that Jihad is an exclusive ‘inner’ moral and spiritual struggle and has nothing at all to do with that just armed struggle.

The enemies of Islam can bite their finger-tips in frustration and with rage as they criticize and condemn those powerful words of the Prophet as ‘incitement to terrorism’. Misguided Muslim apologists can exhaust the ink in their pens as they furiously deny that Prophet Muhammad ever made such a prophecy. They can even try to sugarcoat those words with a ‘progressive interpretation’. Israel can go on to attack Iran and to madly destroy even more of the Arab/Muslim world after destroying Gaza and Lebanon. Yet none can avert the eventual fulfillment of the Prophet’s prophecy that Islam’s armed resistance to Israeli oppression would eventually be successful. On that day of success when even the stones would speak, Islam would have triumphed over all her rivals!

But while the final success of that armed resistance and retributive punishment on Israel would have to wait until Jesus (peace be upon him) returns, it is quite likely that Israel’s present political and military leadership would take the world to the brink of utter destruction if and when Israel launches a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran. (See essay entitled “Will Israel attack Iran?”) Such a nuclear attack on Iran would be designed to provoke that country, in the unlikely event that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons, to retaliate in kind. If Iran does not do so, Israel would still press on to destroy all Iranian nuclear power plants and other related infrastructures that could possibly be used for the development of an indigenous Iranian nuclear deterrent.

If Iran does possess nuclear weapons purchased from others, and chooses to retaliate with them, such a preemptive Israeli nuclear attack could eventually result in the death of hundreds of thousands of both

Israelis and Iranians, and that would land us all in the pit of blazing fire! If it turns out that Iran did not possess nuclear weapons, then Iranian gentile deaths do not really count as deaths with God’s so-called ‘chosen people’.

An Israeli nuclear attack on Iran could ignite such disastrous economic and monetary crises around the world that the present Pax Americana world-order could collapse and be replaced by another world-order dominated by Israel.

I believe that Israel no longer has any use for a United Nations Organization that has already been successfully used to protect the Jewish State through infancy and childhood to her present superpower status. The UN would be a cumbersome hindrance for the universal messianic dictatorship that would be Pax Judaica. Perhaps the deliberate and contemptuous murder of four UN Observer personnel that resulted from the recent Israeli bombing of the UN Observer Post in Southern Lebanon was meant to deliver to the world a message that the UN’s days are now numbered.

Islam the religion is the only significant force in the world today offering armed resistance to oppression in and around what should properly be known as the Holy Land. Islam now occupies center-stage in international affairs and the central importance of the religion can only increase as Israel relentlessly pursues the realization of her messianic destiny with an abandon that defies both morality and common sense. Islam alone is both accurately explaining the strange world today, and is correctly anticipating tomorrow’s even more horrendously evil world.

And yet, while others have privileged access to the media to articulate their viewpoint in a country which declares, “here every creed and race finds an equal place”, there is no column on Islam in any daily newspaper in Trinidad and Tobago. This Muslim scribe, who is a senior Islamic scholar and writer in the country, is forced to solicit donations with which to buy expensive newspaper space in order to explain the Islamic viewpoint on such crucially important subjects as addressed in this essay. He also has to correct misinformation and lies about Islam from the malicious pens of an ever-increasing number of crusading scribes who, with a straight face, would attempt to convince readers to accept a ‘kiskedee’ (a favorite local bird) to be a ‘corbeaux’ (a vulture). One of them just explained to us, again with a straight face, that when Prophet Muhammad declared “a people who choose a woman to rule over them would never be successful”, what he really meant (in her progressive interpretation) was that it was permissible for Muslims to choose a woman to rule over them!

This writer also has to constantly defend against devilish attempts at character assassination that maliciously seek to portray him as a “terrorist” and “a great security risk”. And if that was not enough, he also has to prepare himself for the new so-called ‘democratic’ dispensation now underway (i.e. the tribal dictatorship and police state that this country’s ruling tribe is pursuing with pig-headed determination) when freedom to buy even newspaper space would also be denied to Islam.


This essay suggests the existence of three basic stages in a mysteriously unfolding master-plan through which Israel seeks to realize her messianic destiny. The master-plan is culminating at this time when the so-called ‘chosen people’ have been mysteriously brought back from 2000 years of exile to reclaim the Holy Land as their own. Their ultimate destiny, they believe, is to rule the world from what would appear to be a restored Biblical Holy State of Israel located in the Holy Land. (The word rule is continuously italicized because of the pivotal place it occupies in the mission of the Anti-Christ.) That ultimate destiny appears soon to be realized, and so it is time enough for our readers to try to understand the subject from the perspective of Islam. In explaining those three stages of the master-plan we can, in fact, also explain much of the history of international politics and economics over the last few centuries.

In the first stage, which lasted for a long time, a Pax Britanica world-order waged strange colonial wars on the rest of the world and eventually and cleverly succeeded in ‘liberating’ the Holy Land from benevolent Muslim rule, and in presiding over the birth of the imposter Euro-Jewish State of Israel. Along the way the world witnessed the strange and otherwise inexplicable event of a secular Britain pledging, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the secular British Government’s commitment to deliver a national homeland in the Holy Land to the Jewish people. Our thesis offers to readers an explanation for that mysterious British obsession with the Holy Land.

We must also carefully note that in the effort to establish itself as the ruling State in the world, Britain had to take the initial steps towards control of the world’s money. (See the writer’s seminar on ‘Islam and Money’ available on his website And so the British sterling pound became the international currency, and Britain became the money-lender par excellence of the world. This was a unique event in monetary history.

Then in the second stage of that master-plan – a stage which is still in progress and which will last for a shorter time than the first – a Pax Americana world-order replaced Pax Britanica and has proceeded to mysteriously protect the arrogant, aggressive and expansionist Euro-Jewish State with countless UN Security Council’s vetoes. That world-order has also been waging wars on Israel’s behalf in order to make the world safe for Israel to grow into a nuclear-armed superpower. Instead of the spectacular colonial wars which delivered to Britain the status of a ruling state, it took two world wars to bring about the transfer of power from the first to the second ruling state.

Our thesis offers to readers an explanation for that equally mysterious American obsession with the Holy Land.

There was, in addition, a monetary component to the process of emergence of USA as the second ruling state since the US dollar replaced the Sterling pound as the international currency, and USA became the money-lender par excellence of the world.

The history of these two ruling states, Britain and USA, suggests that whoever achieves control over the world’s money, can also control the world. Control over money can be used to prevent the circulation of wealth through the economy, thus ensuring that the rich remained permanently rich and the poor, permanently poverty. Control over money could also be used to buy the allegiance of the rich who would grow constantly richer, and who would join the oppressor and assist him in controlling the world. It would also reduce the poor to such impotence that they become helpless to resist oppression. That is precisely the state of the world today and it constitutes a critically important goal of the master-plan.

And then in the third, final and briefest stage of the master-plan, a Pax Judaica world-order is about to replace Pax Americana. The passage from the second to the third and final ruling state in the master-plan is again taking place through a series of strange wars. Israel would soon replace USA as the ruling state in the world and when that occurs, a Jew would eventually rule the world from Jerusalem and claim to be the true Messiah! But he would not be Jesus the true Messiah. Rather, Prophet Muhammad explained that he would be Dajjal the false Messiah (Anti-Christ).

We are now very close indeed to the culmination of that devilish master-plan that has been ominously unfolding ever since the small island Britain startled the world a few centuries ago by becoming the first ruling state in post-Biblical history (i.e., since David and Solomon created the world’s first ruling state).


The passage from the first to the second stage of the master-plan was initiated through an act of carefully planned terrorism, i.e., the assassination of the Grand Duke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo in the summer of 1914. Those who planned the assassination (was Trotsky part of the plot?) also planted false footprints at the crime-scene that led to Russia. It paved the way for the First World War which, in turn, was successfully used to dismember the Ottoman Islamic Empire and to ‘liberate’ (i.e., from the Jewish perspective) the Holy Land.

The passage from the second to the third stage of the master-plan was also initiated through an act of less-carefully planned terrorism, i.e., the 9/11 terrorist attack on America. This time around the false footprints that were planted at the crime-scene led to Arabs and Muslims, and that created opportunities for an arrogant and power-drunk USA and its Euro-allies to wage a series of wars (still in progress) to eventually impose total control over the world’s major oil resources that were not already controlled – hence American war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israeli wars on Lebanon, Gaza Strip, and eventually Syria and Iran. War on Venezuela as well seems inevitable, and that, perhaps, explains the haste with which the ruling tribe in Trinidad and Tobago is seeking to establish its tribal dictatorship.

Today’s wars also allow USA/Israel to eventually control the new electronic money-system of the world that would soon replace paper money when the US dollar collapses. Anti-terrorism legislation and war on terrorism (which is a euphemism for war on Islam) would eventually pave the way, in the name of international security, for the imposition of a new international monetary system of electronic money. That monetary system would make the world even safer for Israel since anyone who dared to oppose Israel could be targeted as a terrorist and could have his wealth electronically short-circuited.

The most important point this essay makes is the world is now located at that moment in time when stage two of the master-plan is culminating and stage three is commencing.


I believe that Prophet Muhammad prophesied these three stages of the master-plan (i.e., the ultimate world-system) through which Dajjal the false Messiah (Anti-Christ) would eventually accomplish his mission of impersonating the true Messiah and thus of ruling the world from an imposter State of Israel in the Holy Land. The Prophet said:
“… when Dajjal is released he would live on earth for forty days — a day like a year — a day like a month — a day like a week — and all his days (i.e., all the rest of his days) like your days.”
(Sahih Muslim)

He also prophesied, in what has come to be known as the Hadith of Tamim Dari, that Dajjal’s initial base, i.e., in the first stage of his mission that would last for ‘a day like a year’, would be an island which specialized in spying, and was located about one month’s journey by sea from Arabia. I believe that island could not have been other than Britain!

The Bible described the very same three-stage process that would culminate with a new international monetary system of electronic money and with the Anti-Christ ruling the world from Jerusalem. It did so when it declared:
“…and he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred — three score — and six.”
(Revelation: 13:16-18)

When the Bible’s religious symbolism is analysed it clearly reveals that the number ‘six hundred’ in relation to the Anti-Christ refers to the first stage of the master plan that lasted for a long time and witnessed the emergence of the first ruling state in post-Biblical history and to Pax Britanica. The number ‘three score’ refers to the present second stage that lasts for a shorter period of time and witnesses the emergence of the second ruling state and to Pax Americana. Finally the number ‘six’ refers to the third and last stage of the master plan with which the Anti-Christ finally completes his mission and emerges in human form to rule the world from Jerusalem and from an imposter ruling State of Israel with Pax Judaica.

The most distinctive features of that unfolding master-plan from its very beginning, with the Euro-Christian crusades, to this day, have been its godlessness, decadence, deception and barbaric oppression. Only those who are deaf, dumb and blind would recognize the above as evidence of divine grace.

We now look at differing responses to oppression.


Muslims who live in the modern age have long been inspired by the prince of believers, Malcolm X, who once addressed the subject and explained the differing responses to oppression endured by slaves. The ‘house slave’ was subject to the same oppression as the ‘field slave’. Both were without ‘external’ freedom and hence in ‘external’ slavery. But while the ‘field slave’ hated that oppression and slavery, the ‘house slave’ submitted to it, identified with the slave master, and accepted his slavery. He was so brainwashed and ‘internally’ blind that he became an appendage of the slave master. He was always there to serve the slave master, however required, and whenever the slave master needed him. When the slave master was ill, the ‘house slave’ would feel his master’s pain and suffering and would declare to his master: “we sick!” The ‘house slave’ was both ‘internally’ as well as ’externally’ a slave. He became a part of the system of slavery (the ‘internally’ blind always end up as slaves). The slave master rewarded the ‘house slave’ for his faithful service by ‘buttering’ his bread. He still does that today with a US visa, or with jobs and protection in exchange for political support for the ruling tribe!

Around the world today ‘house slaves’ have hoisted themselves up to become leaders of Muslim communities.

The ‘field slave’ on the other hand was ‘externally’ a slave but ‘internally’ a free man. Because of that ‘internal’ freedom, the ‘field slave’ had the capacity to ‘see’ and to thus recognize the slave master’s oppression and wickedness, and he hated it with all his heart and soul. The ‘field slave’ never submitted to oppression and wickedness but, rather, longed to regain his freedom and to dismantle

the system of slavery. And so the ‘field slave’ responded to oppression and slavery in a manner that was anti-systemic. The slave master who was an oppressor was his enemy with whom he would never play football or cricket. Hence he would also never host either of today’s football or cricket World Cup competitions. Instead, when the slave master’s house was on fire the ‘field slave’ prayed to God to send a strong wind which would burn down the house. The slave master despised the ‘field slave’ and made him pay a terrible price for his refusal to submit and become a willing part of the system of slavery.

Muslims who faithfully follow Prophet Muhammad are today’s ‘field slaves’! Field slaves who dare to offer armed resistance to Israel’s barbarous oppression in the Holy Land and elsewhere are today demonized as terrorists. Had Malcolm X been still alive today, it is certain that he would have been declared a “terrorist” and “a great security risk”. His entry into most Caribbean states would certainly have been banned.

The Anglo-American-Israeli alliance, which today rules the world, once demonized South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) as a terrorist organization. In fact the ANC at that time was comprised exclusively of ‘field slaves’! Today, of course, there is a house-slave/field-slave struggle within the ANC. Yesterday’s heroic field-slave freedom-fighters around the world must be turning in their graves as their children succeed them as rulers and are transformed into Massa’s house-slaves.

When US President George Bush (Jr.) was preparing to wage his own unjust war on Iraq, the ANC demonstrated courage and integrity in responding with a massive street demonstration of protest. I marched with them in Johannesburg three years ago (2003) on a bright sunny February morning when Zulu dancers stole my heart with their hauntingly beautiful tribal chants and dances, and Nelson Mandela defiantly denounced the war as an attempt to steal Iraq’s oil. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir also, did not hesitate to denounce both the war on Iraq as well as the 9/11 terrorist attack on America as events planned and executed on Israel’s behalf.

Trinidad and Tobago’s tribal government could not have been unaware of the shameful implications of Prime Minister Manning’s ill-advised recent diplomatic pilgrimage to Jerusalem in which he confirmed his government’s friendship for the Euro-Jewish State of Israel. Perhaps this extraordinary high-profile diplomatic initiative was required of him because an Israeli national was embarrassingly caught red-handed while holed-up in a forest-shack close to the town of Arouca in illegal possession of a Trinidad and Tobago immigration stamp. Had he who was so caught been a Muslim he would never have been allowed to fly out of the country with a light $2000 court fine and with narry a hint of any charge connected to terrorism. Around the world today, Massa’s native house slaves would have eagerly consented to his extradition to that curious new manifestation of Republican America’s great symbol of democracy, i.e, a torture camp in Guantanamo where American military personnel have been known to urinate on copies of the Qur’an and to even flush copies of the Holy Book down the toilet..

Apart from a few misguided so-called Muslim leaders in Trinidad and Tobago who share with this country’s ruling tribe an embarrassing friendship for the oppressor State of Israel, most local Muslims oppose the Euro-Jewish state and many would gladly join in the struggle for liberation from Israeli oppression. They are not alone in their opposition to that oppression as is evident from recent essays by David Abdullah and Raffique Shah published in local newspapers. Indeed as long ago as the 17th century the English poet, John Donne (1572-1631) recognized in verse what the ruling tribe in this country still cannot recognize:
“And when the ‘chosen people’ grew more strong, Their righteous cause became the wrong.”

As the full picture of Israel’s continuing aerial bombardment and destruction of Gaza and Lebanon continues to unfold, and as Israel continues to expand the mad war of destruction now underway, perhaps to test whether Iran has nuclear weapons, we can confidently expect more people of this country to denounce Israel for its war crimes. Politicians, however, and regretfully so, hardly ever muster the integrity and fortitude to call a spade a spade when Israel happens to be the spade!


Many Christians declare that the birth of the Euro-Jewish State of Israel was an act of divine grace that fulfilled Biblical prophesy. It was also divine grace, in their view, which explained the seemingly miraculous return of the Jews to the Holy Land to reclaim it as their own some 2000 years after they were expelled therefrom by divine decree.

Such misguided people do not pause to consider that the essentially godless, decadent and oppressive Euro-world-order that ‘liberated’ the Holy Land from benevolent Muslim rule and made possible the return of the Jews to that Holy Land could not possibly have been an instrument of such divine grace since truth is incompatible with godlessness, decadence and oppression.

They believe that today’s Euro-Jewish State of Israel is destined to rule the world and that its destiny would finally be realized with crowning glory when God Himself, in the person of the true Messiah the son of the Virgin Mary, returns to rule the world from Jerusalem. They believe that end of history to be now close at hand, and when it does materialize they believe it would confirm the Christian claim to truth. In the meantime they insist that every bloody step that Israel takes to expand her control over territory and to impose her authority over the surrounding Arab/Muslim world must be supported since it fulfills corrupted imperialist Biblical prophesy (“every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours”; Deuteronomy: -11-24.). They close their eyes to Israel’s shedding of innocent blood since they believe that the evil Israeli war dance is morally and spiritually justified in the context of the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

According to Christian supporters, Israel’s conduct may appear to be that of an oppressor, but there is a mysterious moral philosophy somewhere in the universe (perhaps in Hollywood) that exonerates Israel and justifies as divine punishment the oppression and wanton slaughter that she has unleashed on largely defenseless Arabs, Christians, as well as Muslims. They regard all those who oppose and resist Israel to be evil. And since the true followers of Prophet Muhammad remain the only significant force resisting the Euro-Jewish state’s oppression, they consider Muslims to be the most evil people in the world. When David Abdullah asked “Has Israel has gone mad?”, and Raffique Shah warned “Don’t cry for Israel when retribution comes”, they probably blame the ‘misguidance’ of these two scribes on the Muslim connection implicit in their names. They are convinced that Muslims must be the evil Gog and Magog tribes mentioned in their scriptures, and that Prophet Muhammad must have been the Anti-Christ.


If the evangelical Christian view of modern-day Israel is so difficult to digest, what are we to make of the prevalent Jewish view that believes Jesus to be a ‘bastard’ and false Messiah, and Muhammad to be a false Prophet?

Most Jews believe that the birth of modern Israel and the return of the Jews to the Holy Land herald the imminent advent of the true Messiah who would rule the world from Jerusalem and through whom truth in Judaism would be validated. Such validation of truth in Judaism, they believe, would ipso facto invalidate Christian and Muslim claims to truth, and would also confirm the Jews as the “chosen people” to whom God had granted the Holy Land unconditionally and in perpetuity.

Now the secularism of modern western civilization has led western society increasingly towards atheism and godlessness. The West also has a despicable record of oppression of non-Europeans.

People who worship the God of Abraham cannot become allies of those with a record of such atheism, godlessness and oppression. But Jewish Israel believes that it has a divine right to use whatever means may be necessary to realize its goal of ruling the world from Jerusalem since the ‘end’ justifies the ‘means’. What also appears to Israel’s critics as oppression and barbarism on Ishmaelite Muslims is, in their view, divine punishment that is justified by the Torah. How so?

Arabs and Muslims have descended from Abraham’s son, Ishmael, who was condemned in the Torah as:
“… a wild ass of a man; his hand against every man (i.e., he is a bandit), and everyone’s hand against him (i.e., all of mankind would hate him and
fight against him).”
(Genesis: -16:12)

The Torah also falsely proclaimed that the Holy Land was given to the seed of Abraham through Isaac (Ishmael being falsely excluded as legitimate seed) and that the Israelite claim to the title deed of the Holy Land remains valid regardless of whether or not they are righteous in conduct:
“Know therefore that it is not for thy righteousness that the Lord thy God giveth thee this good land to possess it; for thou art a stiff-necked people.” (Deuteronomy 9:6)

But most alarming of all is the Torah’s frontiers of the Holy Land: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying:
“To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates . . . .”
(Genesis: -15:18)

Our readers can now understand the connection between distortions in a corrupted Torah and Israel’s ominously ever-expanding territorial frontiers.


The Qur’an makes a crucially important statement concerning certain Christians and Jews who would eventually emerge in history. It says:

“You will find (time and again) that the most hostile of all people to the believers (i.e., Muslims) would be the Jews and those who are idol-worshippers or pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers would be those who say, ‘We are Christians’, because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.”
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:82)

It prohibits Muslim friendship or alliance with a Judeo-Christian alliance:
“Oh you who believe (in this Qur’an), do not take (such) Jews and the Christians as (your) friends and allies who themselves are friends and allies of each other. And whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, Allah does not guide such evildoers.”
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:51)

It has corrected the falsehood about Ishmael:
“Also mention in the Book (the story of) Ishmael: He was (strictly) true to whatever he promised and he was an Apostle (and) a Prophet. He used to enjoin on his people prayer and charity and he was most acceptable in the sight of his Lord.”
(Qur’an, Maryam, 19:54-5)

It has also corrected the falsehood concerning the alleged unconditional grant of the Holy Land to the Israelite people. Rather, Allah Most High granted them the Holy Land conditional on “faith in Allah” and “righteous conduct”:
“… and We declared in (both) the Torah and the Psalms (of David) that (only) Our righteous servants shall inherit the earth or land (i.e., the Holy Land).”
(Qur’an, Prophets, 21:105)

This statement of the Qur’an is supported by some of the Psalms:
“But the meek shall inherit the earth or land (i.e., the Holy Land); and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” (Psalm, 37:11)
“The righteous shall inherit the earth or land (i.e., the Holy Land), and dwell therein forever (i.e. provided that they remain righteous).” (Psalm, 37:29)
“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth or land (i.e., the Holy Land).” (Matthew, 5:5)

The Qur’an has explained that whenever the Israelites violated the divine conditions of inheritance of the Holy Land (i.e., faith in God and righteous conduct) Allah Most High expelled them from that Land. The first expulsion took place after the death of Solomon (peace be upon him) as a consequence of their “telling lies about Allah” (i.e., rewriting the scriptures to plant falsehoods in them). They were exiled to Babylon. Upon their return to the Holy Land they again violated those divine conditions when they rebelled against Allah’s Prophets and killed several of them. They even boasted of how they had crucified Jesus. As a consequence they were again expelled from the Holy Land.

After that last expulsion took place in the wake of the rejection of the true Messiah and the attempt to crucify him, Allah Most High declared
“… if you return (i.e., to the Holy Land with your wickedness and oppression), We would return (with Our punishment).”
(Qur’an, the Israelites, 17: 8)

The Israelites have today returned to the Holy Land with more wickedness and oppression than ever before, and hence it should be quite clear to those who can recognize wickedness and oppression that Divine retributive punishment as promised in the Qur’an is also certain.

Who Killed Rafiq Hariri?

Who Killed Rafiq Hariri?

Spies, Lies and Mr. Lebanon’s Demise


There are agents, like Mahmoud Rafea, who confessed to have delivered bags with explosives. Other collaborators have confessed to have carried out field reconnaissance missions. Others have facilitated the entrance and exit of Israelis after accomplishing their missions. This is what is meant by executive agents. The door must be opened wide … this Israeli path should be scrutinized so as to reach a place where we would find information about many crimes, particularly 2005 onwards.”

– Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, commenting on the recent spate of Israeli spy
arrests during a rally marking the ninth anniversary of the removal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, 22 May 2009.

Israel suffered two defeats in Lebanon, and both were against Hezbollah. The first occurred in May 2000 when Israeli troops were expelled (or withdrew, depending on which side of the border you are on) from southern Lebanon after a 22-year occupation. The second was the premeditated yet disastrous 34-day war waged in the summer of 2006. It may have succeeded in ravaging Lebanon but it certainly did not vanquish Hezbollah. They fought the mighty Israel Defense Forces to a draw, and in the minds of many this itself constituted victory.

Israel has neither forgiven nor forgotten these losses. For them, the war against Lebanon and Hezbollah did not end in 2000 or in 2006 but continues today, albeit in different form. And events of the past several weeks revealed exactly what Israel has been up to.


There have always been Lebanese nationals acting as spies for Israel, but this should come as no surprise. They fought on their behalf for two decades after all, as members of the now-defunct South Lebanon Army during the occupation of the south.

Although initially receiving little attention, a crackdown on these spy networks began late last year. Rapid advances in breaking them have evidently occurred, as dozens of suspects have been taken into custody since April.

“If the Lebanese authorities say they have caught Israeli spies, there’s a high likelihood that it’s true,” said Shlomo Brom, former chief of strategic planning for the Israeli military.

The Lebanese government is currently holding 30 suspects and has already charged 21 with spying for Israel in an ever-widening investigation. Those detained include an army colonel, a retired general, a deputy mayor, a truck driver and a mobile phone salesman, which two managed to escape across the border into Israel before being caught. Confiscated high-tech equipment and electronics used to transmit information to the Mossad were put on display by Lebanese Internal Security afterward.

Because intelligence provided by certain agents may have led to increased destruction in the 2006 war (which killed 1,200 Lebanese, the vast majority civilians), Nasrallah demanded the death penalty be levied against those found to be complicit. As he declared in his speech on “Resistance and Liberation Day”:

“I ask on your behalf and on behalf of the families of the martyrs and the wounded, on behalf of those whose homes were demolished and those who paid taxes to rebuild their infrastructure, I demand that the collaborators who provided the enemy with the data that had caused all of this, be sentenced to death.”


In the midst of unraveling and dismantling these espionage rings operating in Lebanon, a report penned by Erich Follath surfaced in the sensationalist, pro-Israel German weekly Der Spiegel implicating Hezbollah in the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The allegation was immediately dismissed by Hezbollah who claimed it was simply an attempt to sully its image prior to the upcoming June parliamentary elections as well as sow discord between Sunnis and Shias.

But does it have any merit?

Not a single piece of credible evidence was presented to substantiate Follath’s claim. No sources were named, no documents were produced and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon charged with investigating the Hariri assassination denied ever coming to those conclusions (yet alone discussing them with Follath).

“We don’t know where the Der Spiegel magazine did get their information from and we don’t know where they brought this story from. No one in the prosecutor’s office has spoken to the German magazine about anything,” said the spokeswoman for the Tribunal.

According to Nasrallah, “The Israelis and the Americans wondered how to scuttle the election and influence its outcome. Der Spiegel was their answer.”

The case against Hezbollah is not only flimsy, but one likely fabricated by the author’s anonymous “sources.” It was discounted or simply ignored in Lebanon, even by Hezbollah’s opponents; Saad Hariri refused comment and Walid Jumblatt cautioned it may “derail justice.”

Readers are referred to the trenchant reporting of Dr. Franklin Lamb who clearly exposed the gaping holes in, and unanswered questions of, Follath’s article.

‘Mr. Lebanon’

It is important to appreciate that the killing of “Mr. Lebanon” in February 2005 shook the country and ultimately led to the creation of the opposing March 8 and March 14 Alliances. It sharply divided Lebanese along sectarian lines and led to mutual recriminations and prolonged political paralysis.

The confluence of the aforementioned events – discovering the extent of Israeli spy networks in Lebanon, followed by publication of the Der Spiegel article two weeks prior to crucial elections accusing Hezbollah of ordering the hit on Hariri – is no coincidence.

So how do they relate to one another?

Nasrallah stated it candidly:

“The Israelis are acting preemptively before it is discovered that their spy networks were involved in assassinations in Lebanon.”

Could it be that information fed from Israel to a friendly German periodical was done not just to foment Sunni-Shia tension prior to the June election or divert attention away from an imploding espionage ring, but to obfuscate Israel’s role in Hariri’s murder (which may be disclosed by their captured spies)?

Unlike his son Saad today, Rafiq Hariri had good personal relations with Nasrallah and Hezbollah generally – facts Follath conveniently overlooked – making their participation in his murder especially unlikely.

But, division and destabilization in Lebanon works to Israel’s advantage, and instigating political disorder and civil turmoil has always been its modusoperandi. Indeed, the fallout from Hariri’s assassination nearly sparked another civil war.

Should Israel be implicated in his death however, all of Lebanon’s political parties and confessional groups would unite against them in an instant.

The cases of four pro-Syrian generals thought to be involved in the crime and held for four years without charge were recently dismissed by the Special Tribunal due to lack of evidence and recanted witness testimony. When it becomes clear the case against Hezbollah is likewise without merit and Israeli espionage rings operating in Lebanon are fully exposed, the Special Tribunal should waste no time in investigating Israel for its possible involvement in the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator. He may be reached at: rbamiri AT yahoo DOT com.


May 30, 2009Posted by Elias

Abuse photos suppressed by Obama is another crime

Taguba denies he’s seen it
he was misunderstood

The general told a U.K. paper about images he saw investigating Abu Ghraib — not photos Obama wants kept secret.

By Mark Benjamin

Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba

Reuters/Larry Downing

Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba testifies in 2004 before the Senate Armed Services Committee to answer questions about the abuse by U.S. military personnel of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

May 30, 2009 Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba denied reports that he has seen the prisoner-abuse photos that President Obama is fighting to keep secret, in an exclusive interview with Salon Friday night.

On Thursday an article in the Daily Telegraph reported that Taguba, the lead investigator into Abu Ghraib abuse, had seen images Obama wanted suppressed, and supported the president’s decision to fight their release. The paper quoted Taguba as saying, “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.”

But Taguba says he wasn’t talking about the 44 photographs that are the subject of an ongoing ACLU lawsuit that Obama is fighting.

“The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen,” Taguba told Salon Friday night. The actual quote in the Telegraph was accurate, Taguba said — but he was referring to the hundreds of images he reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — not the photos of abuse that Obama is seeking to suppress.

In March 2006 Salon published “The Abu Ghraib Files,” 279 photographs and 19 videos collected by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division as it examined the shocking cases of prisoner abuse at the notorious Baghdad prison. The photos depict scenes of extreme cruelty – prisoners forced to publicly masturbate, naked prisoners held in extreme stress positions, or being walked naked by a female guard. Some photos show prisoners bloodied and otherwise injured, with untrained guards tending to their wounds.

Several news organizations have described some of those same images as among the ones Obama is seeking to suppress, when in fact, they’ve already been published by Salon.

Taguba says the Telegraph story got one important fact right: He said he does support Obama’s decision to fight the release of the images subject to the lawsuit, even though he has not seen those images. “No other photographs should be released,” Taguba told Salon, because he worries additional images might threaten the safety of U.S. troops.

Iraqi victims recall U.S. abuse

Fri May 29, 2009 1:00pm BST


By Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The marks on Firas al-Sammarrai’s body from when he says U.S. soldiers repeatedly electrocuted him are one reason he can’t forget his abuse at their hands, even if other Iraqis want to move on.

U.S. President Barack Obama this month blocked the release of new detainee abuse photos on fears they may trigger more attacks against the U.S. military. The move enflamed Western opinion, but elicited little response in Iraq.

After years of bombings and sectarian slayings many Iraqis say they have seen worse, and some add the release of the photos has much to do with the U.S. image abroad as Obama attempts to mend ties with the Muslim world.

He is due to give a major speech in Egypt on June 4.

Sammarrai, a senior Foreign Ministry official under Saddam Hussein, said he was stripped naked, had cold water thrown over him in winter and was repeatedly beaten and electrocuted.

He says there are still pits in his elbows and knees where the electrodes were attached.

“Iraqis at times are trapped between wanting to forget and wanting to remember,” he told Reuters by phone from Sweden, where he fled after being released. He found it hard to describe what had happened to him.

“They want to forget so they can move on, but at the same time they don’t want to forget because it was such a scandal.

“But deciding to cover the photos up in order to manipulate world opinion … I believe this is another crime against the Iraqi people and humanity in general.”

Mohammed Ali, 23, is another person who says he was abused by U.S. military. Speaking from Falluja in Anbar province, he recalled hearing U.S. soldiers take photos while he was beaten, a bag shoved over his head. He needed two operations to repair damage to his stomach, he said.

“I was sat on the floor. (They) would beat me two at a time. They put cigarettes out on me and threw cold water on me. That lasted for two days,” he said.

“I think it’s better for the pictures to be released so those in the Middle East and the West can see what happened.”


Many Iraqis who never faced alleged U.S. abuse greeted Obama’s decision to block the release of new photos of torture with a shrug.

“I think the pictures won’t affect Iraqis, but it will affect world opinion. The methods of the Americans are well known to Iraqis, who see worse than this every day,” said Hameed Fadhil, an engineer out with his family in a Baghdad park.

Iraqis have only recently started to make forays into parks after violence fell sharply over the last year. Some feared the photos would risk reversing the fragile security gains.

“It’s the first time I’ve heard of more photos. It’s old now, it’s over … The people that want to destabilise Iraq will use these pictures, the rest of us just want to get by and finish with this matter,” said Radwan Uday, a shopkeeper.

Pictures of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison, where Saddam Hussein used to have his opponents tortured, shocked the world in 2004. They included inmates being threatened by dogs and forced into sexually degrading poses.

“When you see body parts scattered after a bomb, a picture of a man being beaten is a simple thing,” said Imad al-Sabty, sat in Baghdad’s Kheyteh coffee shop.

While Iraqis may now be numb to such images, some said there would be a stronger reaction if, as reported in Britain’s Daily Telegraph this week, photos blocked by Obama had included scenes of rape and sexual abuse. The Pentagon denied the report.

“We can take anything except an assault on our honour. That will shake this country,” said Zahra Monem, out shopping.

After Saddam’s brutal rule and six years of U.S. occupation, torture is nothing new to some. Saddam’s security men were infamous for it, including hanging people from ceilings and removing fingernails.

Obama’s refusal to release more photos barely registered in Iraq’s media, which this week reported hundreds of cases of abuse against Iraqis by Iraq’s own security forces.

“People are not bothered. They’re unemployed and struggling to get by. Everyone knows about this. Torture has become normal here. I’m 66 and I’ve seen it all now,” said Abu Qasim.


Harith al-Ubaidi, a member of parliament’s human rights committee, said he understood why Iraqis struggling with a lack of jobs and services might ignore more photos of abuse, but he contested Obama’s reasoning for holding them back.

“This is an absolutely invalid excuse. If armed groups could exert more pressure, they wouldn’t wait for the photos.”

In Ubaidi’s view Obama is trying to avoid whipping up Arab opinion as he attempts to repair U.S.-Middle East relations, damaged under former President George W. Bush, and was also protecting interrogators guilty of abuse.

Obama has said CIA agents who followed legal guidance on interrogation would not be prosecuted, but left the door open to prosecuting Bush-era officials who developed the policies.

Ubaidi said Obama’s overtures to Muslims in Egypt next week are likely to fail if he is seen as continuing Bush’s policy of secrecy over detainees, or as blocking efforts to hold those who abused prisoners accountable.

Laila al-Khafaji, another member of Iraq’s parliament, said she preferred to forget the past.

“The page of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal was turned a long time ago and it’s time to forget. What’s the point of reminding us of these pains?”

(Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed, Sattar Rahim in Sadr City and Fadhel al-Badrani in Falluja, Editing by Michael Christie and Sara Ledwith)

The Pathologies of Israel’s Guilty Conscience


Negating the truth about the Nakbah — the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from what became Israel in 1948 — has been a staple of Jewish-nationalist propaganda as long as I can remember: As a youngster in Habonim, I was told bubbemeis tales about foolish Arabs marching off into the wilderness like zombies after being hypnotized by radio broadcasts urging them to leave; a “miracle” on a par with the parting of the Red Sea that ostensibly gave the Zionist movement the “land without a people” about which it had fantasized. It should have been painfully obvious that this was a preposterous self-serving myth (which even then didn’t account for the fact that the ethnic cleansing was sealed by Israel in one of its founding laws that denied the right of any Arab absent from their property on the day of Israel’s creation to return to that property). But to suggest anything less than a miraculous conception and bloodless birth for the state of Israel was to deny its “legitimacy”, we were told. As international pressure grows for an historic reckoning between Israelis and Palestinians, the frenzy of denial and negation has intensified. Suddenly, Netanyahu is demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”, even though to do so requires that Palestinian refugees simply sign away their birthright, erase their history and identity. Even more bizarre, perhaps, is the effort by members of Israel’s parliament to outlaw commemoration of the Nakba. There are other Israelis, of course, who don’t deny the Nakba, but strive to reveal its history to their fellow citizens, precisely because the pathological denial of their own country’s own history as perpetrators of dispossession and ethnic cleansing, there can be no true healing between Israelis and Palestinians. One such brave and visionary Israeli is Eitan Bronstein, whom I had the pleasure of meeting last year. He graciously agreed to allow Rootless Cosmopolitan to republish an English translation of his article published in Yediot Ahoronot today article challenging the proposed Nakba law.

A Response to the Proposal to Ban Commemoration of the Nakba on Independence Day

By Eitan Bronstein

The proposal to legally bar the commemoration of the Nakba on Israel’s Independence Day reflects growing trepidation in Israel about the inevitable encounter with the Palestinian Nakba and the understanding that the Nakba is a foundational part of Israeli identity. Until recently, the threat of exposing the Nakba was barely felt. There was no need to fight this repressed demon, which might suddenly reveal itself and disrupt the seeming calm of a harmonious Jewish democracy. But the Nakba is not a demon, not the fruit of deceptive imagination, and therefore we should not underestimate the challenge facing Israeli society: to recognize Israel’s part in the expulsion of most of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land in 1948, the destruction of most of their localities (upwards of five hundred), the annihilation of urban Palestinian culture, and tens of massacres, rapes, incidents of looting, and dispossession. Looking into so dark a mirror takes courage and maturity, demonstrated in the research of such scholars as Morris, Gelber, Milstein, Khalidi, Pappe, and others, as well as in the diaries of Netiva Ben Yehuda and Yosef Nahmani.

It is not surprising that the “appropriate Zionist response,” to inscribe the forgetting of this human horror into law, comes from the circles of the political right-wing. They have always been more sincere in their racist attitudes toward Arabs in Israel, compared to the Left, which marketed to the world and to us its honest (yet illusory) longing for peace.

More than eighty years ago, it was clear to Jabotinsky, the leader of the historic Right and perhaps the most realistic Zionist thinker, that the establishment of the Jewish state required citizens to be forever soldiers under the protection of the “Iron Wall.” Jabotinsky understood that Jewish existence depended upon violent strength, on killing and being killed in a predominantly Arab region that would never accept them. A year ago his student, Tzipi Livni, suggested that Palestinians remove the word ‘Nakba’ from their lexicon as part of a comprehensive peace deal. Our current Prime Minister announced during his recent campaign that he would expunge the Nakba from educational curricula (since when has the Nakba been taught anyway?) and would order the teaching of Jabotinsky’s legacy.

The Greek philosopher Thrasymachus taught us that “the law is what is good for the stronger,” but no law, not even that of the democratic Jewish Knesset, can erase the horrors of history. Traces of these horrors will always be visible, in both personal and collective memory and forgetfulness. In Israel, the sabras, prickly cactus bushes, have become vivid and thorny monuments of the Palestinian Nakba. This obstinate plant was brought by the Palestinians from Mexico to mark and defend their territory. The sabra not only persists in the landscape long after Israel expelled those who planted it, it also grows wild despite attempts to eradicate it. Perhaps, in response, the Israeli government should make it unlawful to eat its fruit?

At the same time, remembrance of the Nakba is growing and takes root in the deepening fissures in the Iron Wall. The Palestinian refugees – the majority of Palestinians are, indeed, refugees – have mourned the Nakba from the moment it occurred and demand justice. After the Oslo Accords, when they realized their concerns would be pushed aside indefinitely, they began to struggle effectively against the worldwide disregard for their tragedy. However, the proposed law to forget the Nakba is in actuality a response to cultural shifts in Jewish-Israeli society to coping with this disaster. The real threat to the colonialist Iron Wall occurs as the majority of its soldiers refuse to obey the commandment not to remember. In the last few years, hundreds of Jews in Israel (and around the world) have participated in events commemorating the Nakba during Israel’s Independence Day. In recent years hundreds of Israelis have turned to Zochrot – an organization working to bring the Nakba to the consciousness of Jews in Israel – to request information on the topic. Journalists, writers, architects, as well as people in film, television, and theater who grew up on the good old stories of Israel seek to discover their repressed past. Educators are requesting the educational packet on the Nakba developed by Zochrot. Soldiers from the Palmach are turning to Zochrot towards the end of their lives to share stories of what they did and saw in 1948.

Who knows, maybe the day is not far off when the choice at the center of the political debate will be the State of Israel as it is today versus recognition of the Nakba and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. When this day comes, the citizens of Israel will be able to choose between two clear visions: separation and perpetual violence versus a life of equality for all the country’s residents and refugees. To hurry this day forward, maybe we should make up another Hebrew word: “de-colonization.”

Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Faces New and Dangerous Challenges

Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Faces New and Dangerous Challenges

Mohamad Shmaysani

29/05/2009 In the framework of celebrating the ninth anniversary of the liberation of most of Lebanon from the Israeli occupation, Hezbollah marked Resistance and Liberation Day in the city of Baalbek.

Tens of thousands of people, including religious, political and military figures attended the festival and waited with strong enthusiasm Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Nasrallah to appear and address them live through a giant screen.

Amid cheers and pledges of allegiance to the path of the resistance, Sayyed Nasralla hailed Baalbek, the reservoir of the resistance, and the entire Bekaa region. He congratulated them as well as all the Lebanese on this glorious day.

“I address all our people in the Bekaa, particularly in the Baalbek-Hermel region and congratulate you on the ninth anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation day; this Day that you fully contributed in achieving and this resistance that you spearheaded be it in founding it or in scarifying in its ranks.

This region that was the launch pad of the resistance from the very first day in the Imam Montazar hawza (pbuh), was the core of Hezbollah, under the guardianship of our great teacher Sayyed Abbas Moussawi.

In very fast pace, the Bekaa and Baalbek-Hermel embraced everyone who migrated to it from south Lebanon, Western Bekaa and Rashayya, Beirut’s southern suburb and Mount Lebanon after the zionists occupied them. Later on, recruitment, training, arming and rehabilitating stations were established and the resistance rised. This region’s participation was not only logistic, but its sons have sacrificed and fought until liberation was achieved in 2000. They also fought in Beirut’s southern suburb and in south Lebanon, even after the Israelis withdrew to the security zone. You have offered martyrs and bore the burdens of the resistance during the 2006 war, when your brothers and sons were fighting in the battlefield. We all remember the bombing that led to the martyrdom of many of your loved ones in the city of Baalbek and other places. Sacrifice reached its peak when the Bekaa and the south were destroyed and their residents displaced. You could have said that you are a deprived and neglected region and that you have nothing to do with this battle, but you did not. You continued to support the resistance. I hereby bare witness that you acted with a clear background of faith, ethics and patriotism. You resisted and bore the hardship of resistance, but you did not wait for anyone in this world – even in Lebanon – to support you, just like those who had faith in the resistance and embraced it; you did not wait for national consensus, although we would have loved such consensus to have taken place.

Since the very beginning, there was no national consensus on the resistance. Therefore we did not lose national consensus because you cannot lose what you don’t have. How can Lebanon come first, and Israel is violating its airspace every day? How can Lebanon come first, and the Shebaa Farms and the Kafarshouba Hills are still occupied? How can Lebanon come first, and it is still in the circle of danger and threats, at a time we are not taking real action to confront this?

This is your Day. This is the Day of the families of the martyrs and the injured and the liberated detainees. This is your Day that bares the memory of martyrs Sayyed Abbas Moussawi, his wife Um Yasser and their child Hussein. This is the Day of all the martyrs of this resistance that you took part in founding and launching; in its path and its victories and challenges.

This resistance today is facing new challenges.”

“The resistance faces today new and serious challenges that prompt us to assume great responsibilities. Following the 2000 victory, the zionists have worked on a new strategy which was frequently declared by former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. He said that Israel will work on a new strategy through which the whole international community will be put in the face of Hezbollah. He also said that Israel will work on issuing international resolutions to put an end to Hezbollah and establish it as a terrorist organization. The zionists exerted massive efforts. Some countries responded to the zionists and enrolled Hezbollah on their terror lists like the United States and Holland, however other countries like France and the United Kingdom, have refused this notion from the beginning. The Zionist lobby spared no effort to convince world governments to list Hezbollah on their terror organizations lists.

This is not analysis, this is what Shalom had said and admitted that UNSCR 1559 was made by Israel. Some of the Lebanese may have contributed in issuing this resolution, whether they were aware of it or not. I do not wish to charge anyone with treason, but interests had intersected and eventually led to this resolution. But Shalom acknowledges that this is an Israeli made resolution.

Pressuring the resistance was followed by the 9/11 events, the occupation of Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, the assassination of martyr Rafiq Hariri, the pullout of Syrian forces from Lebanon and the general elections that brought the current political bloc at the helm of rule. Ever since, and despite our quadripartite alliance, our openness and our cooperation, the focus of this bloc has been on the arms of the resistance. They know that the resistance can never be disarmed by force, so they started to speak about handing Hezbollah’s arms to the army. As if there is no economic problem, no financial problem, no social problem, and no deprived regions; as if there is no problem in Lebanon but the arms of the resistance. How can Lebanon be in a good state with $50 billion debt, detainees in Israeli jails and daily violation of the Lebanese sovereignty? There is no problem in Lebanon but the arms of the resistance that liberated Lebanon and defended it against the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I used to tell that ruling political bloc to solve the problems of the people and make them feel safe…consolidate the army and then assail the arms of the resistance; you will find all the people with you against us. But it seems that they had limited time.

On the other hand, we called for dialogue and for a defensive strategy for Lebanon and this was mentioned in our understanding with the Free Patriotic Movement. Throughout the past years, we sensed that some sides did not give heed to ways to protect this country, to liberate the remaining occupied lands, to release the rest of the detainees from Israeli jails and to confront the daily violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty. All they care about is how to disarm this resistance. This is the same mentality that exposed Lebanon.

In 1967, the Israeli chief of staff said the Lebanon only needs a military orchestra. But today, what made Lebanon strong, ready and undaunted to confront the Israeli army’s five divisions, even all its divisions, is you and your resistance.

We came under tremendous pressure but we held on to our right. When the political efforts failed, the 2006 war was waged on us with the aim to crush the resistance and the popular base that embraces it, however this war also failed with help of Allah and your steadfastness as well as the bravery of our fighters. When the war ended, they returned to raising the issue of disarming the resistance, as if there were no other problems caused by the 2006 war.

Israel acknowledged its defeat three years ago and embarked on tackling its mistakes and defects. For three years, Israel has been training, conducting maneuvers and arming itself with modern fighter jets. Israel is working on restoring its broken image and strength. On the other hand, for the past three years, the resistance that defeated Israel has been arguing and discussing those who are demanding it to lay down its arms. Where is the logic in this? How can this be fair? Israel is preparing itself and Lebanon is not taking action to strengthen the army and arming it or to adopt a defensive strategy; on the contrary, they are working on eliminating the element of strength that achieved victory in the 2006 war.”

“We have been calling for building a strong state and we will be very relieved to have a strong state, but who is ready to finance and arm the Lebanese army? After all these experiences, we all know that the US and the West as well as the vast majority of world is not willing to arm the Lebanese army against Israel. Their justification is that the weapons will reach Hezbollah; this is ridiculous. Hezbollah has enough weapons that can destroy the Israeli army’s divisions; it does not need the weapons that the US will give to anyone in Lebanon.

The real reason is the US does not consent giving the Lebanese army weapons to fight Israel. Who is ready to arm the Lebanese army? Vote for the opposition and I will then tell you who. For instance, did the government ask for weapons from Syria and it said no?

I followed up President Sleiman’s visit to Iran. True, Iran did not offer arms to Lebanon and will not offer, because this is not logical. But, until this moment, Lebanon did ask for weapons from Iran. If Iran had offered to arm the Lebanese army, they would have said that Tehran wants to push Lebanon into war and include it in the Syrian-Iranian axis. This is why no one should wait for Iran to offer arms, however any Lebanese government in the future will have to ask Iran for arms.

The US Vice President brought us a few tanks and a few cannons; what are they good for? Had Lebanon asked Iran for weapons, what would the Islamic Republic’s response be? Will it help Lebanon or not? I know the answer but I will not say it; you all know it. I know that Iran and Imam Khamenei in particular will not withhold anything that could render Lebanon a strong and honorable country without preconditions.

I tell you this: if the opposition alliance won the upcoming elections and formed a national government will work on having a strong national army capable of defending Lebanon. They ask us to hand over our arms to the Lebanese army. This cannot be because the types of weapons we have are of no use for a regular army; they are only useful for a popular resistance.”

“Yes, the war that the zionists are threatening to wage is still standing, though unlikely. They know very well that Israeli war have failed in the past and they will fail in the future to eliminate the resistance. This is why they will probably continue working on assassinations as they did with our dear brother martyr Imad Moghniyeh. This also explains the huge number of spy cells and collaborators seeking targets. Yet, the most important and most dangerous challenge that we are facing is the persistence of Shalom’s strategy after 2000 which is to introduce Hezbollah as a terrorist organization that attacks nations and peoples and threatens international security. The worst is the attempt to accuse Hezbollah of assassination martyr Rafiq Hariri so as to create sedition in Lebanon. Our information is that the Der Spiegel report is Israeli made and this accusation is Israeli made. You have noticed how the Israelis swiftly launched statements which, unfortunately, speak clearly of the entity’s relation with the international investigation. They have been making schemes against Hezbollah and the arms of the resistance as well as its popular base. They have been preparing security, military and political schemes while others have been working on redirecting the course of the Hariri investigation towards Hezbollah because the consumed everything within their reach. They have killed Sayyed Abbas, they have killed Hajj Imad, they have destroyed homes and waged war in vain. They are facing a resistance that believes in what Imam Khomeini had said: Kill us and our people will become more aware.

What is the worst thing they can threaten us with? Death? Our answer is clear. It has been our answer for hundreds of years; the answer that our fathers raised us on: You threaten us with death? It is hour habitude to be killed and it is the honor Allah has granted us to be martyrs.

They realized that killings, massacres, assassinations, destruction and instigation are futile when it comes to Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance and the blessed people who support us. What else do they have? We have passed through a dangerous phase, but thanks to Allah and the awareness of officials and leaders, the Der Spiegel report was exposed. However, the challenge is still standing because there are some who have decided to continue this since there is no other way. God willing, we will proceed through this challenge with our heads high, just like we have always done. I assure you that we want a national unity government following the June 7 elections. We want understanding and cooperation even we followed a review policy to draw lessons. We support dialogue because we want a defensive strategy that the government, the people and the resistance would commit to.”

“Have the consecutive governments considered the Bakaa region part of Lebanon? The government must answer this question. This is about the state’s mentality. In recent years, someone told the Bekaa residents that they are being punished because you support Hezbollah and the resistance. This is not true. The problem does not lie in the Bekaa alone, but in Akkar in the north, in south Lebanon and all precincts.

In south Lebanon’s festival I read an important text by Imam Sahrafeddine, and today I will read another text by the Imam directed to then President Bshara el-Khouri. Back then, a problem had occurred in the Bekaa and some members of the region’s tribes escaped to barren mountains. The government dispatched a massive armed force after them, and the catastrophe was on the brink of taking place. Imam Sharafeddine sent a letter to the President in September 1949 saying: The tribes in Hermel did not rise against the authorities nor did they abandon any community. I fear of weepers filling every house in Lebanon…and blood calling for more blood. Would your Excellency consider reviewing the methods of disciplining the delinquent? Wouldn’t you consider invading them with tolerance? Wouldn’t you consider disciplining them to take them from unemployment to jobs and from despair to hope? Don’t you believe that building schools and hospitals would be more useful that building prisons and digging graves? Yes, we are sure that your noble character is enough to make this happen and to guarantee the prosperity of Lebanon.

Peace be upon Imam Sharafeddine who did not receive any answer. Since the establishment of the state of Lebanon, the Bekaa has proven through its patriotic conduct and sacrifices that it is one of the dearest parts of this country.

We tried – as Hezbollah – to treat some of the aspects of deprivation in this region. Our MP brothers have worked incessantly to realize something, however there is no party or side that can take the full responsibility with respect to this region as the government ought to. In the elections of 2005, we had a chance. We had hoped that we would be able to serve this region through our four-party alliance. Unfortunately, the former government’s priorities were different. It had other political commitments. Whenever we talked to them about Bekaa, they talk back to us about the arms of the resistance.

Four years have passed and they were not in Lebanon’s interest. In the elections of 2009, we have another even better chance. We should all vote for a cohesive political alliance that proved its strength against tough challenges. Should we help this alliance to win, we would be in front of a new government with a new mentality towards deprived regions and balanced development in those regions. Political cunning has even deprived the city of Baalbek of a mayor.”

“I would like to stress that we will also work on the issue of the tens of thousands of arrest warrants in Bekaa. If the opposition wins the coming elections, it will call for the formation of a joint ministerial-judicial-legal panel to study this file from a to z. I am not promising a general pardon. There are killers and thieves and they should be punished, but there are other arrest warrants for other reasons that can be tackled, particularly that there are too many legal problems in this region; problems that the consecutive government are responsible for. We don’t want to see any armed conflict with the army and security forces in this region. They are our brothers and our sons. We will not settle for a temporary solution. What we need is a radical solution to this issue. Another top priority will be agriculture. They campaign against growing drug plants and we agree with them, but there should be alternatives. If the opposition wins elections, the entire Bekaa region will benefit economically as the new government will not be engaged in a conflict with Syria and this will soothe Lebanese – Syrian relations. There is absolutely nothing to be scared of in case the opposition won. They might say that Lebanon would turn into another Gaza, but the circumstances in Lebanon are totally different. We should compete wherever there is completion in constituencies. When there is no completion, like in south Lebanon, we should vote to hold a referendum on the resistance and its arms. In Zahle and western Bekaa, we clearly and proudly back the opposition. I hereby call on our supporters in the Bekaa to consider every opposition candidate as Hezbollah’s candidate, as the resistance’s candidate and as Sayyed Abbas Moussawi’s candidate. I would like to renew my gratitude to the Loyalty to the Resistance deputies, MP Jamal Taqsh, MP Hasan Hobballah, MP Mohammad Haidar and MP Amine Sherri who sacrificed for the sake of the resistance and the alliance. I would also like to thank MPs and dear brothers Ismail Sukkariyeh and Pierre Serhal.

We are facing an election in which the US administration is directly involved in, not through a Secretary of State by through the US Vice President in person. If they had the capacity to spend more money to bring Obama to Lebanon they would have went for it. The elections we are facing are also plagued with rumors.

When Iranian President Dr. Ahmadinejad speaks about elections but does not interfere in them and does not call for voting for this group or against that group. What Ahmadinejad does is analyzing what the situation would be like in case the opposition won the elections; he says that in this case things will change and the resistance will be stronger. What’s astonishing is that all those who commented on President Ahmadinejad’s words have not yet commented on (Israeli Defense Minister) Ehud Barak’s threats to Lebanon; when he warned the Lebanese against voting for Hezbollah and said that if the opposition wins, the Lebanese people will have to face the might of the Israeli army! The might of the Israeli army has been crushed under the feet of our children, not only our fighters. Barak still thinks that this is 1948, 1967 or 1982.

The triumph of the opposition means that the rulers of Lebanon will be true believers that Lebanon’s strength is in its strength not its weakness. It means that those who will rule in Lebanon will not be intimidated by Israel’s threats. You will decide on the 7th of June.

You, the people of Baalbek and Hermel have protected the resistance but the country was not rebuilt. The 2009 elections are different. This election is to protect the resistance that protects the country. It’s an election for building the country, uniting the country and strengthening it.

You, the patriotic people who have rushed to sacrifice themselves will also rush to vote. We count on you, the proud and the dignified …. You, who humiliated the arrogant zionists and the arrogant world, who yelled with resolve the slogan of you Imam, the greatest of martyrs, in karbala (PBUH) who yelled: Disgrace, how remote. You sacrificed and you showed patience in the battlefield, and the result was the resistance, jihad and victory. You, the protectors of the country, the martyrs of resistance, the trustful, the loyal to the vow, the gallantry, the enthusiastic and the arduous , the 7th of June is waiting for you, the people who took the pledge with Imam Moussa Sadr at this very square. You, who renewed your pledge with Sayed Abbas Mousawi at this square also and were loyal to your vow all these years while facing all the challenges. You are invited to show a strong presence and a new vow and a new gallantry on the 7th of June.

We bargain on you, your loyalty, your sincerity, your presence and your will to renew your pledge of allegiance to the resistance on the 7th of June. I congratulate you on the glorious Day that you made with blood, tears, patience, sincerity and sacrifices. There shall be no more defeats, there shall be only victories. Long live your resistance, long live Lebanon. Peace be upon all of you.”

At a breaking point: "Young Freud in Gaza"

Maymanah Farhat, The Electronic Intifada, 29 May 2009

A scene from Young Freud in Gaza.

In addition to a long list of films exploring themes of social injustice and conflict, Swedish filmmaker PeÅ Holmquist has directed several on Palestine. Young Freud in Gaza (2008), his most recent documentary on the subject, enters the recesses of Palestinian society as it copes with life under Israeli occupation. Directed with Holmquist’s longtime partner, Beirut-born Armenian filmmaker and journalist Suzanne Khardalian, the 60-minute film follows Ayed, a 27-year-old psychologist working for the Palestinian Authority’s Clinic for Mental Health in northern Gaza. The only field psychologist in the area, Ayed frequently makes home visits, treating patients of all ages, from diverse backgrounds.

The film chronicles his consultations from 2006 to 2008, as the psychologist and his community are surrounded by crippling economic sanctions, violent clashes between the Hamas and Fatah factions and frequent Israeli missile attacks. The film not only accompanies Ayed as he administers counseling sessions but also when he is at home with family and friends. A looming element that is often present is the outcome of Hamas’ win of the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections and the subsequent changes Gaza is made to endure. This has a profound affect on Ayed and his patients as they experience significant backlash from Israel and witness growing internal political divisions. In the span of time covered in the film, Gaza’s state plummets, as its civil infrastructure is debilitated and violence increases.

Despite this grim reality, Ayed remains dedicated to treating his patients and works to gain their trust from the onset. Even the most guarded and skeptical individuals, such as maimed Hamas fighters, put their faith in him once their treatment begins. From chronic depression to eating disorders, Ayed’s patients experience a range of mental health issues. A common variable in their stories, however, is the Israeli occupation and the significant physical and psychological damage it has caused to Gaza’s residents.

Abed is a young man who was severely injured in a failed suicide mission in Israel. Suffering from partial memory loss, Ayed attempts to help him remember the events of that day as a way of relieving stress and alleviating physical pain. As his story unfolds, we learn that he barely escaped death after being chased by Israeli authorities. The details of Abed’s situation are later revealed when he describes having been paid to execute the foiled attack. Out of desperation and the prospect of providing momentary financial stability for his impoverished family, Abed decided to work with militants and pursued the assignment. This speaks volumes about the dire circumstances experienced in Gaza and the wide-scale violence instigated by the occupation.

Another case involves Inas, a teenage girl who is severely traumatized by a childhood experience. Having come upon the body of a classmate killed by Israeli fire near her school, Inas has suffered from depression and anxiety throughout her adolescence. Ayed attempts to counsel Inas on dealing with her mental state, while struggling to involve her parents who have grown impatient with the lengthy road to recovery. Some of the most telling scenes of the film occur when he lectures Inas’ parents on the importance of visiting the clinic for further treatment. Stern and unyielding, he admonishes them for their lack of commitment and the effects it has on Inas. It is here that we witness one of the many challenges facing a psychologist working with few resources and little community support. As Ayed confirms, Gaza is badly in need of “a million psychologists.”

Often frustrated and let down, he eventually finds himself torn between continuing his practice and enduring its psychological toll or resigning from his position in search of peace of mind.

Young Freud in Gaza provides a much-needed look into a community struggling to survive amidst abject poverty and brutal assaults as it resides under the shadows of collective trauma. With the international blockade leaving the territory virtually cut off from the outside world, the documentary not only offers a glimpse into the private lives of Palestinians in Gaza, it serves as an important historical record.

Grounded in the conversations that occur during Ayed’s counseling sessions, the film works to draw the viewer in as though they are witnessing these exchanges firsthand. The directors are physically absent as Ayed narrates scenes, conducts interviews or goes about his day. During some of his most vulnerable moments, namely when he begins to doubt the effectiveness of his work amidst deadly factional violence, the camera serves as a confessional of sorts.

This intimate setting is also created by the camera’s close proximity to its subjects and the capturing of the interior spaces of daily life. From Ayed’s medical office to modest dwellings in refugee camps, the viewer is brought into Gaza’s internal realms. Yet at all times the film evokes the external forces that deeply impact residents. Shots of a hovering Israeli surveillance blimp, news footage and scenes showing outbreaks of fighting among Hamas and Fatah forces serve as constant reminders of the grave environment that lies just beyond the safe haven Ayed creates for his patients.

Although informative and engaging, Young Freud in Gaza is perhaps best understood by viewers familiar with the contemporary history of Palestine and the Israeli occupation. Lacking an overall historical context, the film assumes the viewer possess some knowledge of recent events in the occupied territories, labeling certain scenes with simple titles and little explanation. Clues to the details of these events can be found mainly when Ayed references them in passing, such as when he explains to a patient that the clinic’s shortage of antidepressants is a result of the Israeli-led blockade. More details on the cause of the confrontations between factions, which dominate the film, would provide a more comprehensive approach to representing the situation in Gaza during that time.

Lengthier accounts of each patient’s treatment and their progress would have also enhanced the film, as their stories are seemingly incomplete. In the end one is left wishing that the filmmakers would have incorporated more footage so as to expand their narrative. Given Israel’s vicious attack on Gaza earlier this year, however, Young Freud in Gaza nevertheless speaks with a profound urgency.

Maymanah Farhat specializes in modern and contemporary Arab art. Her collected writings can be viewed online at

Rabbis: Soldiers must refuse IDF orders

Soldiers must refuse IDF orders


Leading religious Zionist rabbis called Wednesday evening on IDF soldiers and officers to disobey orders to dismantle and evacuate outposts and settlements in Judea and Samaria.

“The holy Torah prohibits taking part in any act of uprooting Jews from any part of our sacred land,” wrote the group of rabbis that included Hebron-Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi Dov Lior, Beit El Chief Rabbi Zalman Melamed, Yitzhar Rabbi David Dudkevitch, Rabbi Haim Steiner of Yeshivat Mercaz Harav and Rabbi Ya’acov Yosef, the eldest son of Shas mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

“We call on all security personnel to refuse expulsion orders. A soldier or a policeman who is asked to take part in an uprooting operation is obligated to refuse this order, which goes against Torah values,” they said.

The rabbis met in a synagogue at the Givat Asaf outpost located at the entrance to Beit El in Samaria.

Abu Sitta: Returning Palestinians can generate permanent Peace, prosperity, justice for all


A Guide to the Depopulated And Present Palestine Towns And Villages and Holy Sites

Salman Abu Sitta, Copyright 1998

“A powerful display and information-packed maps on Palestine, the Palestinian refugees and the Right of Return.

Be patient and go through each segment. You will not be disappointed.”

The largest planned ethnic cleansing operation in modern history

posted by annie at 5:34 AM

Spies, Lies, and Mr. Lebanon’s Demise


By Rannie Amiri

“There are agents, like Mahmoud Rafea, who confessed to have delivered bags with explosives. Other collaborators have confessed to have carried out field reconnaissance missions. Others have facilitated the entrance and exit of Israelis after accomplishing their missions. This is what is meant by executive agents. The door must be opened wide … this Israeli path should be scrutinized so as to reach a place where we would find information about many crimes, particularly 2005 onwards.” – Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, commenting on the recent spate of Israeli spy arrests during a rally marking the ninth anniversary of the removal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, 22 May 2009.

Israel suffered two defeats in Lebanon, and both were by Hezbollah. The first occurred in May 2000 when Israeli troops were expelled (or withdrew, depending on which side of the border you are on) from southern Lebanon after a 22-year occupation. The second was the premeditated yet disastrous 34-day war waged in the summer of 2006. It may have succeeded in ravaging Lebanon but it certainly did not vanquish Hezbollah. They fought the mighty Israel Defense Forces to a draw, and in the minds of many this itself constituted victory.

Israel has neither forgiven nor forgotten these losses. For them, the war against Lebanon and Hezbollah did not end in 2000 or in 2006 but continues today, albeit in different form. And events of the past several weeks revealed exactly what Israel has been up to.


There have always been Lebanese nationals acting as spies for Israel, but this should come as no surprise. They fought on their behalf for two decades after all, as members of the now-defunct South Lebanon Army during the occupation of the south.

Although initially receiving little attention, a crackdown on these spy networks began late last year. Rapid advances in breaking them have evidently occurred, as dozens of suspects have been taken into custody since April.

“If the Lebanese authorities say they have caught Israeli spies, there’s a high likelihood that it’s true,” said Shlomo Brom, former chief of strategic planning for the Israeli military.

The Lebanese government is currently holding 30 suspects and has already charged 21 with spying for Israel in an ever-widening investigation. Those detained include an army colonel, a retired general, a deputy mayor, a truck driver and a mobile phone salesman, which two managed to escape across the border into Israel before being caught. Confiscated high-tech equipment and electronics used to transmit information to the Mossad were put on display by Lebanese Internal Security afterward.

Because intelligence provided by certain agents may have led to increased destruction in the 2006 war (which killed 1,200 Lebanese, the vast majority civilians), Nasrallah demanded the death penalty be levied against those found to be complicit. As he declared in his speech on “Resistance and Liberation Day”:

“I ask on your behalf and on behalf of the families of the martyrs and the wounded, on behalf of those whose homes were demolished and those who paid taxes to rebuild their infrastructure, I demand that the collaborators who provided the enemy with the data that had caused all of this, be sentenced to death.”


In the midst of unraveling and dismantling these espionage rings operating in Lebanon, a report penned by Erich Follath surfaced in the sensationalist, pro-Israel German weekly Der Spiegel implicating Hezbollah in the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The allegation was immediately dismissed by Hezbollah who claimed it was simply an attempt to sully its image prior to the upcoming June parliamentary elections as well as sow discord between Sunnis and Shias.

But does it have any merit?

Not a single piece of credible evidence was presented to substantiate Follath’s claim. No sources were named, no documents were produced and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon charged with investigating the Hariri assassination denied ever coming to those conclusions (yet alone discussing them with Follath).

“We don’t know where the Der Spiegel magazine did get their information from and we don’t know where they brought this story from. No one in the prosecutor’s office has spoken to the German magazine about anything,” said the spokeswoman for the Tribunal.

According to Nasrallah, “The Israelis and the Americans wondered how to scuttle the election and influence its outcome. Der Spiegel was their answer.”

The case against Hezbollah is not only flimsy, but one likely fabricated by the author’s anonymous “sources.” It was discounted or simply ignored in Lebanon, even by Hezbollah’s opponents; Saad Hariri refused comment and Walid Jumblatt cautioned it may “derail justice.”

Readers are referred to the trenchant reporting of Dr. Franklin Lamb who clearly exposed the gaping holes in, and unanswered questions of, Follath’s article.

‘Mr. Lebanon’

It is important to appreciate that the killing of “Mr. Lebanon” in February 2005 shook the country and ultimately led to the creation of the opposing March 8 and March 14 Alliances. It sharply divided Lebanese along sectarian lines and led to mutual recriminations and prolonged political paralysis.

The confluence of the aforementioned events – discovering the extent of Israeli spy networks in Lebanon, followed by publication of the Der Spiegel article two weeks prior to crucial elections accusing Hezbollah of ordering the hit on Hariri – is no coincidence.

So how do they relate to one another?

Nasrallah stated it candidly:

“The Israelis are acting preemptively before it is discovered that their spy networks were involved in assassinations in Lebanon.”

Could it be that information fed from Israel to a friendly German periodical was done not just to foment Sunni-Shia tension prior to the June election or divert attention away from an imploding espionage ring, but to obfuscate Israel’s role in Hariri’s murder (which may be disclosed by their captured spies)?

Unlike his son Saad today, Rafiq Hariri had good personal relations with Nasrallah and Hezbollah generally – facts Follath conveniently overlooked – making their participation in his murder especially unlikely.

But, division and destabilization in Lebanon works to Israel’s advantage, and instigating political disorder and civil turmoil has always been its modus operandi. Indeed, the fallout from Hariri’s assassination nearly sparked another civil war.

Should Israel be implicated in his death however, all of Lebanon’s political parties and confessional groups would unite against them in an instant.

The cases of four pro-Syrian generals thought to be involved in the crime and held for four years without charge were recently dismissed by the Special Tribunal due to lack of evidence and recanted witness testimony. When it becomes clear the case against Hezbollah is likewise without merit and Israeli espionage rings operating in Lebanon are fully exposed, the Special Tribunal should waste no time in investigating Israel for its possible involvement in the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

– Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.

Posted by JNOUBIYEH at 7:26 PM

" Normalisation "

Translation :
Hurry up !!
because you have a meeting about the Normalisation

at 11.00 am.
and later at 12.00 you have a Peace-negotiation

and at 16.00 hrs a meeting on the siege of Gaza

Normalisation , with an enemy is a treason
Normalisation , with the oppressor is a submission
Normalisation, with the occupier is collaboration
Normalisation , with the colonialist is opportunism
Normalisation, with Israel is high-treason and defeatism

May I suggest we bring all those business-people
and all industrialists who are taking part in that
“Normalisation” into a Popular-Court of Justice
even if it were “legal” to do so !!!

What is the use of “legality”
when it is immoral ???

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 1:47 PM

Why Der Speigel was wrong


The Truth about Rafik Hariri

The Truth about Rafik Hariri

By Sami Moubayed

One week before his assassination in February 2005, former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, out of office at the time, told Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah: “I believe in this resistance. And I am telling you that if I become prime minister again I will not implement the [disarmament] article of [UN] Resolution 1559. I swear to you that the resistance and its weapons will remain until the day a comprehensive regional settlement is reached, not just until [the Israeli] withdrawal from the Sheba’a Farms.”

Hariri added, “On that day, when that agreement is reached, I will sit with you and say: ‘Sir, there is no further need for the resistance and its weapons.’ If we agree, that’s what will be. If we disagree, I swear to you and before God [he also swore by his deceased son Hussam] that I will not fight the resistance. I will resign and leave the country [before that happens].”

Hariri after all, was an Arab nationalist at heart and a one-time member of the Movement of Arab Nationalists, who was strongly bent on breaking Israel – only through economic strength, rather than military power.

This conversation came to mind while reading the sensational report published in the German magazine Der Speigel, which accused Hezbollah – without a shred of evidence – of having ordered Hariri’s killing. The magazine reported that these findings have been kept secret by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which opened in March in the Netherlands, adding, “investigators now believe Hezbollah was behind the Hariri murder.”

It adds that a “special force” from Hezbollah, “planned and executed the diabolical attack”. The magazine does not quote sources, nor does it support its argument with documents, simply firing off accusations that it expects readers to accept as fact.

Among other things, it said that cellular phone lines linked to the murder were the property of Hezbollah, and trace directly to a certain Hajj Salim (no last name), who the magazine describes as second-in-command of Hezbollah and head of a special operational unit. It adds that this was discovered when a Hezbollah commando used one of the hot lines to telephone his girlfriend.

It claims – again with no evidence – that Nasrallah felt threatened by Hariri’s popularity, because “the billionaire began to outstrip the revolutionary leader in terms of popularity”. Hariri was, in a sense, the alternative to Nasrallah”. Anybody familiar with Lebanese politics knows that this is untrue, since each man represented a different constituency.

Hariri, a smart man, never tried to penetrate the Shiite strongholds of Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah. Likewise, although many Sunnis supported Nasrallah, they never saw him as their champion. The conversation between the men, and a study of the Nasrallah-Hariri relationship in 1992-2005, is testimony that Hezbollah had no business eliminating a man who had supported its war during his different tenures as prime minister. It would have been like shooting itself in the foot.

The cellular phone story is grossly flawed, since the lines mentioned were bought by a Sunni group in Tripoli, and not by Hezbollah, a fact that was stated by the first Special Tribunal for Lebanon prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, and confirmed by all his successors, including the incumbent, Daniel Bellemare.

Let us keep in mind that if Hezbollah wanted to purchase the lines, it certainly would not have sent certified Hezbollah members to do the job. Simply put, the group is too smart to leave behind a smoking gun. Hezbollah does not perform reckless acts. It would certainly not allow one of its members to call a girlfriend from a phone number tied to an assassination of this magnitude.

The 62-year-old magazine has a long track record of misconduct and is often accused of sensationalising stories for the sake of sales. It became notorious in 1950, when the federal parliament launched an inquiry into the magazine’s accusations that bribes had been paid to members of parliament to ensure that Bonn, rather than Frankfurt, became the seat of the West German government.

In 1962, there was the so-called ‘Spiegel Scandal’, after the magazine published a report on the low state of readiness of the German armed forces – prompting authorities to launch an investigation, raid its offices and arrest its editors. Wolf Schneider, an eminent German journalist, has called the magazine “the biggest mangler of the German language”.

Many believe that the magazine’s latest accusations are linked directly to the upcoming Lebanese elections, and have been fabricated by a certain party to hurt Hezbollah’s chances. The organisation itself expects a landslide victory and several countries have already said that they are willing to deal with any elected Lebanese government. Many in Lebanon and Israel are not happy about this, and would go to great lengths to try to change perceptions about Hezbollah two weeks ahead of the election.

Hezbollah has called what was published in Der Spiegel lies and called on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to take action against the magazine.

As the story snowballed, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora yesterday downplayed the information published in Der Spiegel, while Druze leader Walid Junblatt added that Israel was behind the story, warning that it might trigger another civil war. The controversy will have a direct impact on the elections – in Nasrallah’s favour.

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.

Palestinians Shall be Free – Palfest Participants Tour al-Khalil (Hebron)


Palfest 2009: al-Khalil/Hebron:

“Though its impossible to show to extent of what’s happening in al-Khalil / Hebron, this video follows the PalFest group on a tour of the old city.”

Palestine Video – A Palestine Vlog

Israel Sings "Kumbaya" We Love All People


Ha, gotcha!

Let’s do a little experiment, c’mon now, it’ll be fun!

First, read the post below and see if YOU think it is “racist” or not?

The Apartheid Broadcasting Authority, has reversed it’s original decision to not broadcast an advertisement that offers assistance to White women trapped in Abusive marriages.

The 40 second ad, developed by the White Anti-Assimilation Organisation, better known as WAAO, was originally rejected for being “racist”

The add opens with the story of a white woman, whose “young charming” non-white husband turned out to be a violent abuser. “I was sure I’d never get out,” the woman says, “until someone passed me the phone numbers of WAAO.”

The broadcast continues, “”If you are also in a mixed marriage, threatened, beaten, powerless and with no rights… WAAO will help you to escape and to rehabilitate yourself.”

The radio broadcast is part of WAAO’s efforts to combat what they call “assimilation” in America, which primarily takes the form of marriages between White women and Black men.

Ok, What did you think, clearly racist right? No doubt what so ever this is racism at its worst Now let’s see the REAL article below:

The Israel Broadcasting Authority has reversed an earlier decision and agreed to run a radio advertisement that offers assistance to Jewish women trapped in abusive marriages

The 40-second spot, developed by the Yad L’Achim counter-missionary and anti-assimilation organization, was originally rejected for being “racist”.

The ad opens with the story of a woman whose “young, charming” non-Jewish husband turned out to be a violent abuser. “I was sure I’d never get out,” the woman says, “until someone passed me the phone number of Yad L’Achim.”

The broadcast continues, “If you are also in a mixed marriage, threatened, beaten, powerless and with no rights… Yad L’Achim will help you to escape and to rehabilitate yourself.”

The radio broadcast is part of Yad L’Achim’s efforts to combat what they call “assimilation” in Israel, which primarily takes the form of marriages between Jewish women and Arab men. link

Need any more PROOF Israel is a racist Apartheid state?

Posted by Free Palestine Writers at 9:00 PM



This video takes you back in time. It shows actual footage of Israelis and Arabs dancing together in the streets, when violence was uncommon, when life passages were shared, and the sight of Arabs and Jews huddling and speaking companionably to one another, was the norm.

Traversing the time lines, this video then takes you on a journey from the days of Herzl to today, showing numerous scenes that many of us in the West are completely ignorant–such as what occurred in Deir Yassin, Jenin, Lebanon, and many other cities that raised the Arabs’ ire.

You will see much rare footage, which has been previously unknown to most of us in the West. Most of this footage was taken by individuals with video cameras, since camera crews are often forbidden in the midst of these ongoing battles.

This video is not for the timid.

Posted by Barbara L at 6:52 PM Links to this post

Mohamed Khodr – The Three Branches of the AIPAC: The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial


By Mohamed Khodr May 28th, 2009 at 17:06 • Category: Analysis, Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Israel, Newswire, Palestine, Religion, Somoud: Arab Voices of Resistance, War, Zionism

The actions of some of our United States Zionists will eventually prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done. I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.”
–President Harry Truman in a Letter to Eleanor Roosevelt (“Truman”, David McCullough, p. 598). Although Truman is the one most directly responsible for the creation of Israel, he has now joined the Pantheon of “Anti-Semites”.

“Back in the 1950s, the frustrated Secretary of State John Foster Dulles unambiguously stated: We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem. ” To the owner of Time Inc. Henry Luce he said: “I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. [But] I am going to try to have one. This does not mean I am anti-Jewish, but I believe in what George Washington said in his farewell address, that an emotional attachment to another country should not interfere.”

–B. R. Gowani, “The Lobby as Juggernaut”, Counterpunch, September 1, 2008

.I.P.A.C.: American Israel Public Affairs Committee

According to the New York Times, April 26, 1998, article, “For 47 Years, a Lobby Group With Muscle Has Tirelessly Tended U.S.-Israel Ties.”

“Of all the Jewish organizations devoted to channeling that popular opinion into American policy, there is none so influential — or so feared — as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC.”

AIPAC’s main influence and domination is in Congress although it certainly impacts all levels of the U.S. Government. Its main concern is U.S. foreign policy vis à vis Israel, the Middle East, and the Muslim world in general. It has succeeded for decades in preventing the development of any good relations between the Arab, Muslim world and the U.S. It focuses primarily on diplomatic, military, and financial aid to Israel as well as forcing the adoption of Israel’s enemies as America’s enemies so that what’s good for Israel is automatically good for America; yet if all of that is true, why have a lobby?

The very word AIPAC strikes the deepest fear and intimidation into the very souls of every American politician from the smallest town in America to the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. This lobby for decades has demonstrated its power in electing subservient Congressmen and destroying those who dare speak against Israel. Every new Congressmen gets a crash course on how to respond when AIPAC calls, or else. It indoctrinates our politicians through what it calls “educational trips” to Israel, all expenses paid. It trains Jewish interns and staffers to join Congressional offices. It has a national network of stealth political action committees (PAC’s) in every state ready to donate campaign money to the pandering politician, attack Israel’s opponents, rapidly respond to any hint of criticism of divine Israel, provide staffers to Governors and State Legislatures, and have media savvy spokespersons dominate media reporting.

AIPAC holds an annual conference in Washington D.C. where one half to three fourths of all members of Congress are obliged to attend. The President, Vice President, Cabinet officers, Supreme Court Justices, as well as Israel’s Prime Minister are usually in attendance. Candidates for higher office compete to present their devotional commitment to Israel for Jewish money and media support. AIPAC has annual themes meant to be adopted as governmental policy, recall the devastation of Iraq; and now the agenda has shifted to Iran.

For this annual conference (May 3-5, 2009) AIPAC provided a private jet to Shimon Peres, President of Israel, to travel within the U.S. while attending AIPAC’s annual conference. According to Haaretz, May 12, 2009, Odit Sirkis, the legal counsel to President Peres justified her approval of the use of the private plane by saying that “since AIPAC is a known organization, which works in the U.S. for Israel, I thought there was no legal obstacle to having the organizing group pay for the flight…”.

Yet AIPAC has never been required to register as a foreign lobbying agent for Israel due to its clout on Congress.

America, when a soldier dies in Iraq, think AIPAC. When American Embassies are bombed in Kenya And Tanzania, think AIPAC. When you remember 9/11, think AIPAC. When you recall the bombing of the USS Cole, think AIPAC. When you remember the massive treasonous cover-up of Israel’s deliberate bombing and shelling of the USS Liberty in 1967 killing 34 Americans and wounding 172 that has festered without any Congressional investigation, think AIPAC. When you think of the murder of the young beautiful idealistic American woman, Rachel Corrie, by an Israeli bulldozer and the silence of our Congress and media toward this tragedy, think AIPAC. When you learn of trillions of your tax dollars being funneled to Israel free of charge, the sixteenth richest nation on earth, at a time of huge budget deficits, at a time when American families are struggling to find food and shelter, think AIPAC.

Yes, America, whenever you visit Washington D.C. and see the White House and Congress, think AIPAC, for that is the true power, the true government, the true intimidator and terminator of politicians who don’t tow Israel’s line.

The problem America is that we have become unthinking spectators and consumers of lies, myths, and corporate products that dominate our superficial existence as we live our bland lives as worker bees for the small powerful illuminati elite who run our corporations and our government while herding us from one sale to another awaiting the next hallmark moment to give meaning to our empty lives. How tragic and pitiful that we pay and die for their pockets and causes, not our national interests. How long must we suffer before we revolt and reclaim our government, for the people, by the people?

Bring up the issues of Jews, Judaism, and Israel in a conversation and you’ll discover the most tense, uncomfortable silence in any conversation. It’s as if we’ve been vaccinated with the Eleventh Commandment—Thou shall not speak, think, feel, or do anything against the Chosen Few and the Holy Land they stole from the followers of Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both.

The Judaziation of the world’s intellect, emotions, and policies is almost complete.

“We are organizing Jewry for its coming destiny. “
–Theodore Herzl (Father of Zionism)

Three brief recent examples will illustrate how the tribal network of committed organized Jews to Israel and to each other manifest in AIPAC’s city, Washington D.C.

1. AIPAC’s Espionage Case:

In May 2004 the FBI arrested Larry Franklin, the Pentagon’s top Iran analysts, after he was caught transferring secret documents to two AIPAC employees; Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, along with the Israeli Embassy’s Mossad station chief Naor Gilon. While Franklin was jailed for 12 years, the two indicted AIPAC employees underwent a lengthy, often postponed, and cumbersome trial due to the Judge’s friendly rulings in favor of AIPAC.

Suddenly and unexpectedly, the Department of Justice, apparently with Obama’s approval, dropped the case without any rational explanations. Bottom line is that our government fears confronting AIPAC, it’s U.S. Congress and the media. This despite Attorney General Eric Holder’s proclamation that “no one is above the law”. Obviously, unlike U.S. citizens, AIPAC is above the law.

The influential Jewish paper the Washington Post even carried an editorial supporting AIPAC in this espionage case by urging the Justice Department to drop the case against Rosen and Weissman. The editorial was titled, “Time to Call It Quits: The Justice Department should drop its misguided prosecution of two former AIPAC officials”. March 11, 2009

2. The Case Against the Jewish Representative Jane Harman of California.

Shortly after the arrests of the two AIPAC employees on spying for Israel another issue arose that is related to these two employees. Apparently a “suspected Israeli agent” contacted Rep. Jane Harman who sits on the House Intelligence Committee on a quid pro quo deal. If she can use her influence to reduce the charges against the two men, the agent would arrange for an AIPAC fundraiser from California, suspected to be Billionaire Haim Saban who’s said his one issue in life is Israel, and a large donor to Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House to be, to place pressure on Ms. Pelosi to appoint Harman as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman agreed, however, the conversation with the suspected Israeli agent was caught on tape by federal investigators. Thus a Congressional Jew was selling her country for a powerful position, a position that could allegedly even be more helpful to Israel’s interests. Pelosi refused to appoint Harman to the position. The Justice Department lawyers wanted to proceed to investigate this matter which they called a “completed crime”. But remember, this is AIPAC. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales killed the investigation in appreciation of Harman’s role in killing a New York Times story on wireless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and for her strong support of the Iraq War.

Tribal support in the mainly Jewish media for Harman was palpable in two ways—in avoiding the story, and two, coming to her defense. David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush and author of “axis of evil” wrote an article defending Harman in “”, April 23, 2009, titled; “The real Jane Harman scandal. Sometimes in Washington, what is most scandalous is the attempt to create a scandal where none exists”.

3. The AIPAC Smear of Ambassador Chas Freeman, nominated to head the National Intelligence Council.

The highly respected and qualified veteran diplomat, Chas Freeman, was nominated by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence to head the National Intelligence Council, the same Council that reported in 2007 that Iran had halted its nuclear program in 2003 that infuriated Israel. Because of Freeman’s known positions against the Iraq War and Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories a strong smear campaign was launched to derail his appointment, begun by none other than the AIPAC indicted espionage man, Steve Rosen.

The attacks spread like wildfire through all the right wing Pro Israel media along with enormous pressure on the Congress to deny supporting his appointment although he did not require Senate approval. In Congress the attacks were led by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer, both Jewish, along with Rep’s Steve Israel, Shelley Berkley, and Eric Cantor, all Jewish. Representative Frank Wolf, (R-Va) even took to writing an op-ed in the Washington Post criticizing Freeman on a whole host of issues that had no basis in fact; what was a fact is the much increased campaign donation Mr. Wolf received from Pro Israel PAC’s.

Ambassador Freeman withdrew his nomination and wrote a scathing letter attacking AIPAC and the Israel Lobby for their power of intimidation and their silencing of any debate on Israel and its impact on U.S. Foreign Policy.

“The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors”

–Text of Ambassador Chas Freeman’s Withdrawal Letter, March 10, 2009, (Chas Freeman speaks: By vetoing U.S. appointments, the Israel lobby is enforcing adherence to a foreign government (1)

The Washington Post again came to the defense of AIPAC in an editorial entitled “Blame the Lobby. The Obama administration’s latest failed nominee peddles a conspiracy theory”. March 12, 2009

One only needs to look at who the columnists and contributors are at the Washington Post to understand the power of the tribe in influencing policy and in defending each other.

Stephen Stromberg, Richard Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, Anne Applebaum, Michael Kinsley, Michael Gerson, Fred Hiatt, Robert Kagan, Marisa Katz, William Kistol, Haold Meyerson, Steven Stein

AIPAC and the Supreme Court: (2)

In 1989 seven prominent veteran diplomats sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to require AIPAC to publish details of its income and expenditures as required by law.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided against the complainants and ruled for the FEC, i.e. for AIPAC, not to have to disclose its financial activities. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the lower court’s ruling and upheld the Complaint against the FEC to require AIPAC to publish the details of its finances.

AIPAC appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court in 1998. Arguing the case for the FEC and in favor of AIPAC at the Supreme Court was Seth Paul Waxman (Jewish) who was the Solicitor General of the United States

The case was decided by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Jewish). Justice Breyer’s twisted and illogical decision in favor of the FEC and AIPAC rested on semantic definitions as to what constitutes a “political committee” and a “membership organization”. He sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

AIPAC despite boasting of being Israel’s most powerful lobby has still avoided the requirement to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department or to disclose its financial activities to the F.E.C. It was kismet that both the Solicitor General defending their case and the Supreme Court Justice who was assigned the case just happened to be Jewish.

Mr. Waxman later received the Anti-Defamation League’s Benjamin N. Cardozo Certificate of Merit. (Cardozo was a Jewish Supreme Court Justice)

A.I.P.A.C. and the Executive and Legislative Branches:

For decades AIPAC ensured that in the Executive Branch there is a large and disproportionate Jewish representation in the key areas of foreign policy, defense, intelligence, and the treasury—areas that impact Israel’s interests. It operates closely with the Israeli government, the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C., and the Israeli Intelligence Agency, the Mossad, whose motto is “By Way of Deception”.

Barack Obama’s talents were first recognized by Chicago’s Jewish Mafia. In fact they’ve called him “The First Jewish President”. They selected him, funded him, put him front and center to give his famous speech at the D.N.C.’s 2004 national convention, and Jewish money started pouring in to allow his campaign to be the most expensive in history. It’s almost a commandment in the Democratic Party; no one can win without Jewish money and support.

Money, not substance, makes the candidate. Here’s a brief list of the mainly Jewish banks, financial institutions, and insurers who donated money to Obama’s campaign. Their investment was well placed for when they crashed they could depend on Obama and their former executives who are the main economic officials in his government to bail them out.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who makes its Laws.”

–Anselm Meyer ROTHSCHILD (Powerful British Jewish Banker)

”Can anything be more absurd than that a nation should apply to an individual (Rothschild) to maintain its credit, and with its credit its existence as an empire, and its comfort as a people…”

–Benjamin Disraeli, Jewish Prime Minister, Great Britain

The following recipients of President Obama’s bailout billions rank among his top 20 contributors to his 2008 presidential election campaign, according to Open Secrets.

Goldman Sachs: $955,473

Citigroup: $653,468

JP Morgan Chase & Co.: $646,058

Morgan Stanley: $485,823

Bank of America: $274,493

Wachovia: $214,151

AIG: $112,170

Lehman Brothers: $276,088.

In an article in, April 17: 2009; (”Stiglitz Says Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue”), Nobel Prize Economist Joseph Stiglitz (Jewish) warned of the corruptive revolving door between Wall Street and the Government. He stated: “America has had a revolving door. People go from Wall Street to Treasury and back to Wall Street. ” He gave the example of the, “Hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co. that paid National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, a managing director of the firm, more than $5 million in salary and other compensation in the 16 months before he joined the administration. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. “ Senator Dick Durbin went even further saying that the banks “frankly own the place (Congress)”.

Barack Obama’s Economic Team: All Kosher, No Gentile Economists Available in U.S.A.

Benjamin Bernanke: Chairman, Federal Reserve System

Timothy Geithner: Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department

Neal Wolin: Deputy Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department

Lael Brainard: Under Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department for International Affairs

Stuart Levey: Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

Lawrence Summers: Chairman, National Economic Council

Paul Volcker: Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Jared Bernstein: Chief Economist and Economic Adviser, Vice President Joe Biden

Peter Orszag: Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Jason Furman: Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Jeffrey Zeints: Chief Performance Officer to streamline government and cut costs as well as Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Gary Gensler: Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Mary Schapiro: Chairwoman, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Sheila Bair: Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

Karen Mills: Administrator, Small Business Administration (SBA)

Jon Leibowitz: Chairman, Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Steve Rattner: Car Czar in Treasury Department, Billionaire

Douglas Shulman Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.)

Neil M. Barofsky: Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”)–provide oversight, monitor, and audit to the hundreds of billions of tax money is going

There are other Jewish Economic Advisors not listed here

Obama’s Foreign Policy Team:

Foreign Policy positions, as they relate to the Middle East, are primarily filled by Jewish Americans, all Pro Israel, with an open revolving door between the Israel Lobby (AIPAC) and so called “think tanks” and top national security positions in government. This Jewish American cabal had their greatest success in pushing this nation into its illegal murderous invasion of Iraq. Now their drums are beating for a war with Iran demanding more American treasure and blood in Israel’s cause.

James B. Steinberg: Deputy Secretary of State

Jacob Lew: Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources

Jeffrey D. Feltman: Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (Includes Mideast)

Lee Feinstein: Foreign Policy Advisor

Eric Lynn: Middle East Policy Advisor

Dennis Ross: Special Advisor for the Gulf (Iran) and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State

Mara Rudman: Foreign Policy Advisor

Dan Shapiro: Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council

Three Important Obama Ambassadorial Nominees:

During the Campaign Obama criticized Bush for appointing allies and fundraisers as Ambassadors. He promised to end the culture of cronyism and appointing Lobbyists in his administration. But, money makes the world go round.

England: Louis Susman, Jewish billionaire, Primary fundraiser for Obama, former Citibank Executive

Germany: Phil Murphy; former Goldman Sachs investment banker, Obama fundraiser

Ireland: Dan Rooney, football team owner, Obama fundraiser

Other Important Obama Nominees/Appointees who are Jewish:

Julius Genachowski: Chair, Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Elena Kagan: Solicitor General of the U.S., Department of Justice

Dr. Margaret Hamburg: Commissioner, of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Dr. Joshua Sharfstein: Deputy Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden: Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Alan Bersin: Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and “Mexican Border Czar” at the Department of Homeland Security (A Jew rather than a Hispanic American will monitor the U.S.-Mexican border)

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Second Coming as Israel’s Prime Minister:

“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”

– Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s (Bibi) second coming as Prime Minister of Israel follows his first premiership from 1996 to 1999 during Bill Clinton’s administration. Bibi’s approach to Obama’s peace initiatives for the Middle East is a resurrection of the same intransigence, total rejection of the formula “land for peace”, hard line tough talk, frustrating promises and lies, denial of any Palestinian rights, and dependence on Congress and a compliant media to support him against the President’s policies.

In his first stint as Prime Minister Bibi so angered and frustrated Bill Clinton that Clinton stated, “he thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.”

Why shouldn’t he? Bibi and Israel for decades have known that as long as they and their lobby, AIPAC, control the Congress, no President can pressure Israel to make any real effort to ending the sixty one year conflict and forty three years of the most brutal illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and lives in modern history.

Netanyahu’s Position toward President Clinton’s Peace initiative:

  1. No Palestinian State
  2. No Stopping of Settlement Construction
  3. No Dividing/Sharing Jerusalem
  4. No Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees
  5. No Sharing of Water Resources in Occupied Territories
  6. No to the Arab Peace Initiative of 1982 that offers Israel total recognition and diplomatic relations in exchange for total withdrawal from all occupied territories.
  7. All Peace Efforts so far have Failed
  8. Yes for peace for the sake of peace only.

At the time the Washington Post, May 7, 1998, carried this headline:

“Netanyahu: U.S. “Cannot Dictate to Us”

[Note: The late Moshe Dayan spoke of not allowing the U.S. to dictate policy to Israel: “Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.”

When Clinton was pushing Bibi to withdraw from a smaller portion of the West Bank that Israel already agreed to, a Congressional and media firestorm erupted in “our” capitol city against Clinton and in salivating support of Israel. None other than the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, shockingly encouraged Netanyahu to “defy” Clinton, his own President.

As reported by the Washington Report on the Middle East (July/August 1998): “On May 19, 1998, the top congressional leaders of both parties-Gingrich, Lott, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO)-fell all over themselves to demonstrate their support for Israel before 2,000 of the faithful at the end of AIPAC’s annual policy conference. However, Gingrich was clearly the star of the show! He brazenly called upon Israel to defy the U.S. government, saying that Israel’s “right of self-determination has to be defended at all costs, even against the best intention of some of Israel’s friends, including the United States.”

When Clinton planned a trip to Israel he was met with this outrageous comment by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the ultra orthodox Shas Party that currently holds 5 Cabinet posts in Netanyahu’s government.

According to, December 13, 1998 “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef at his weekly Saturday lecture at Tifferet Yerushalay spoke thus about welcoming President Bill Clinton to Israel; “God plans to return the past glory to the Israel and President Bill Clinton must kiss our feet when visiting”.

Incredulous how a small nation can tell its benefactor and only real ally in the world to basically “shove it”.

AIPAC/Congressional Letter to President Clinton: Don’t Pressure Israel to Compromise:

AIPAC is known to either write congressional resolutions or author legislation in support of Israel.

On April 6, 1998, 81 Senators signed a letter to President Clinton demanding that he not pressure Israel to compromise.

[Note: “The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate … somewhere around 80 percent of the senate of the United States is completely in support of Israel — of anything Israel wants….”

— Senator William Fulbright, Chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 7, 1973 on CBS’ “Face the Nation”.

After much maneuvering, Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from eleven percent of the West Bank (much less than agreed to with the Palestinians) in exchange, as usual, for $1.2 Billion. However, and as usual again, Israel took the money and ran and within a short time even broke that agreement called the Wye River Agreement.

Prior to his meeting with Netanyahu, Obama, already a committed supporter of Israel, took some good will gestures toward Israel and the American Jewish community in the hope of smoothing his meeting with Israel’s Likud hard liner.

1. He declared May, “Jewish Heritage Month”2. He held the first ever White House Passover Seder dinner, which ironically celebrates Jewish “liberation” from slavery in Egypt.

3. He cancelled America’s attendance at the U.N. Durbin Conference on Racism to support Israel’s contention that this conference is simply an Anti-Israel bashing meeting. It was incredulous to see all of Europe prostrate to Israel leave the conference during the Iranian President’s speech.

4. He decided to rejoin the U.N. Human Rights Council which according to Israel is an “Anti-Semitic” body to protect Israel. The American U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice put this decision bluntly as America’s way to battle “the Anti-Israel Crap”. This despite that every U.N. organization, every human rights organization, the International Red Cross, and even the U.S. State Department slam Israel as the biggest and most consistent violator of human rights in the world.

In addition to the same rejectionist conditions Bibi held during Clinton’s era, this time he took an even harder line with Obama. Bibi added the following poisons and non-starters to Obama’s peace initiative.

1. All previous agreements with the Palestinians are null and void including the 2007 Annapolis Agreement espoused by President Bush. Thus all the negotiations now are at a “dead end”

{Note: New York Times, April 1, 2009. “Israeli Minister Dismisses Peace Effort”]

“In a blunt and belligerent speech on his first day as Israel’s new foreign minister, the hawkish nationalist Avigdor Lieberman declared Wednesday that “those who wish for peace should prepare for war” and that Israel was not obligated by understandings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reached at an American-sponsored peace conference in late 2007”.

[Note: Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2009: “Lieberman: Peace talks with Palestinians are at a ‘dead end’]

“What we state unequivocally is that we are completely opposed to what has been and still is the guiding principle of Israel’s foreign policy: ‘land for peace’ –Avigdor Lieberman Quote

[Note: Haaretz, May 23, 2009: “Israel won’t yield to U.S. demands, won’t halt settlement construction”]

Thus with total confidence that Congress, AIPAC’s safety net, will support Israel to again defy an American President who seeks a two state solution, a halt to settlement construction, a negotiated settlement on Jerusalem, and the restarting of peace negotiations based on all previous agreements including U.N. Resolutions, the American Road Map, and the Annapolis Agreement, Avigdor Lieberman issues this confident yet shocking statement reported in Haaretz, April 22, 2009.

“The Obama Administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to, said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in his first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office….. “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions.”

Again such confidence arises from Congress’s total fealty to Israel’s interests above America’s national interest. Even during huge deficits Congress prefers to send billions to Israel rather than feed one homeless hungry American child.

Gingrich, this time out of office but considered a legitimate GOP candidate for 2012, gave this assessment on Obama’s approach to the Middle East. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, May 4, 2009 titled: “Gingrich: ‘Obama endangering Israel’, and prior to his obligatory candidate slobbering speech at AIPAC’s annual conference, Gingrich blasted Obama by saying: “They are systematically setting up the most decisive confrontation that we’ve ever seen…There’s almost an eagerness to take on the Israeli government to make a point with the Arab world.”

AIPAC/Congressional/ Letter to President Obama: Mind “risk” to Israel

In addition and as usual, an AIPAC Congressional Letter was sent to President Obama telling him not to put Israel at “risk” in his Mideast peace initiative.

“A group of 76 US senators sent a letter to President Obama urging him to mind the “risks” to Israel in any Middle East peace accord as he presses for a two-state solution to the six-decade conflict. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) supported the senators’ letter…The four senators who organized the letter are Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Arlen Specter (D-PA) and John Thune (R-SD). The House version was rallied by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA).”

–Ynet (Website for Israel’s largest paper), May 20, 2009, “U.S. Senators to Obama: Consider Risks to Israel”

To further prove that AIPAC is usually the author of Congressional Resolutions against the Muslim state du jour, or letters to the President of the U.S. supporting Israel, or more importantly legislation, a letter sent by Representatives Hoyer and Cantor should’ve elicited a huge scandal and outcry from the American people had the media given the issue its proper attention, but this is Israel, which means our kosher media saw fit to kill the story.

But according to, May 15, 2009, “Congressional Leaders Inadvertently Expose Israeli Lobbyists Behind Letter”.

“GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) circulated a letter to colleagues this week urging President Obama to support Israel when moving forward with any Israeli peace process…Trouble is, they forgot to delete the name of the lobbying group involved in the letter from the document…. Attached to the email message they circulated when seeking signatures from other members of Congress was the document, titled, “AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf.”…The email to congress members seeking their support said they hoped they’d sign onto “the attached letter to President Obama regarding the Middle East peace process,” which argued that the US “must be both a trusted mediator and a devoted friend to Israel” and added, “Israel will be taking the greatest risks in any peace agreement.” (3)

2. As a pre-condition to considering peace talks, Bibi insists that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”; thereby fulfilling the right wing’s long held policy of ethnically cleansing all Israeli Arab Christian and Muslim citizens out of Israel. This is obviously a deliberate poison pill.

3. Bibi insists that Obama first deal with Israel’s priority, i.e. attack Iran, then discuss the “secondary” issue of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, people, and their future. Contrary to Obama’s position, Ntanyahu denies that there is any “linkage” between resolving the Palestinian issue and Iran or any other Middle East conflict.

“Israel plans to present U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a series of “red lines” it wants Washington to incorporate into its planned dialogue with Tehran about Iran’s nuclear program.” Chief among them, “A time limit must be set for the talks, to prevent Iran from merely buying time to complete its nuclear development. The talks should also be defined as a “one-time opportunity” for Tehran.”

–Haaretz March 3, 2009; “Israel to Present Clinton with “RED LINES” on talks with Iran”

“In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and quickly or an imperiled Israel may be forced to “

–The Atlantic, March 31, 2009, “Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will”

Outrageous, shocking, incredulous—yes–but even more outrageous is that Dennis Ross, an observant Jew and strong supporter of Israel allies himself with Netanyahu on the lack of “linkage” between the Palestinian conflict, Iran, or any other Mideast issue, against his own President and Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who hired him to deal with Iran

Here’s what Ha’aretz reported on this issue in an article May 27, 2009. NOTICE the headline.

”Dennis Ross vs. Obama: No link between Iran, Mideast peace”

“Dennis Ross, the U.S. Secretary of State’s special adviser on Iran, says in a new book that the United States will not make progress toward peace in the Middle East with the Obama administration’s new plan…. The book entitled “Myths, illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East,” opposes the Obama administration’s concept of linkage… Contrary to the position of the president and other advisers, Ross writes that efforts to advance dialogue with Iran should not be connected to the renewal of talks between Israel and the Palestinians…. In the second chapter, entitled “Linkage: The Mother of All Myths,” Ross writes: “Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all other Middle East conflicts would melt away. This is the argument of ‘linkage.'”

What Chutzpah, what ugly arrogance, that a tiny nation founded and dependent on American largesse ‘DICTATES’ to this alleged superpower “red lines” for its policy toward a third nation, while a mere government civil servant has the audacity to oppose his boss, the President of the United States. Only in America and only a Jewish Zionist can get away with this just as Israel has gotten away with murder, even of Americans, for decades with total impunity.

Israelis know they can take advantage of the large presence of Jewish Americans in key positions in the government, of their dual loyalty, and their emotional attachment to a foreign nation that usually supersedes their allegiance to their native country of America that has made them the most powerful, successful, and wealthiest minority in American history.

A brazen example of such opportunistic manipulation to do Israel’s bidding comes from the Chairman of Israel’s National Union, Ya’acov Katz, who upon hearing that the Israeli American former Israeli soldier and now the White House’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel told a Jewish American that Obama plans to pursue a two state solution wrote him a letter reminding him of his Jewish and Israeli origins.

“National Union chairman Ya’acov “Ketzele” Katz sent a letter to White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel last week admonishing him not to forget his Jewish and Israeli origins…. In the letter…Katz wrote: “For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US, and all the more so from an Israeli Jew who has succeeded in being appointed White House chief-of-staff.”

–The Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2009, “NU’s Katz reminds Emanuel he’s Jewish”

In the end Obama surrendered to Netanyahu’s “red lines” and his demand for a deadline on his Iran policy. After their meeting and during a White House press conference Obama sheepishly caved in to Bibi and gave Iran a seven month deadline, to the end of this year, to respond on its nuclear policy, all Obama could do is beg Netanyahu not to surprise him with a preemptive attack on Iran, but at least have the courtesy to tell him before all hell breaks loose in the Mideast.

Anyone watching the body language of these two men can easily identify who leads America’s foreign policy, and it’s not the man of “hope and change”. When it comes to Israel, Obama like all his predecessors, clearly proclaims “No We Can’t”.

In the usual pattern of making nice while in Washington D.C. but resorting to insulting and defying the American President and the American people upon their return to Israel, Netanyahu’s senior aides had this to say in response to Obama’s push for a two state solution.

“(Netanyahu’s) aides are already hard at work in bid to discredit US fixation on two-state plan.’Two states for two peoples is a stupid and childish solution to a very complex problem,’ they say…. They were further adamant to emphasize that Israel would continue to build in the larger settlement blocs and Jerusalem despite US President Barack Obama’s resolute opposition.”

— AFP, May 20, 2009, “’Fixation on two-state solution is childish”

The President of the United States is offering a “stupid and childish” solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict? We, Americans, take it on the chin with silence because it’s our specially ally Israel. One can only imagine the hysterics if Iran’s President said this.

Netanyahu stated that the illegal settlements need to expand due to “natural growth”, the same lie used by every previous Israeli prime minister to continue confiscating Palestinian land. According to Ha’aretz, May 17, 2009, “New residents account for 33% of West Bank settlement growth”, figures released by the Central Bureau of Statistics show that 33% of settlement growth is due to new residents leaving Israel proper” to live in the settlements given the very generous subsidies they receive from the government (in reality from the U.S. taxpayer which violates U.S. law). Thus Netanyahu’s argument to Obama on settlement expansion is as with all things coming out of Israel—a Lie.

Of course, lest anyone forget, Israel has made it painfully clear that if her existence is ever threatened, it has the nuclear weapons to take the world down with it. This policy in Israel is known as the “Samson Option” after the biblical figure Samson, history’s first suicide bomber, who killed himself by collapsing the Philistine temple on himself and the Philistines.

“I recall an interview I did for the BBC’s Panorama programme with Mother Israel, Golda Meir. At a point I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure that I understand what you’re saying… You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?” Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American presidents according to need, Golda replied, “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.” Within an hour of that interview being transmitted, the Times of London changed its lead editorial. The new one quoted what Golda had said to me and added its own opinion – “We’d better believe her.”)

“The Book That Can’t Be Published In America By Alan Hart, author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews”

“We have the (nuclear) capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.” He quoted General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

–Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Israel’s Hebrew University, quoted in David Hirst’s “The Gun and Oliver Branch”, 2003, page 119

“Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years…. What would serve

The Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away–unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans–have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?”

–Professor David Perlmutter (Louisiana State University), “Israel: Dark Thoughts and Quiet Desperation”, Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2002

For the world to stand by paralyzed in its institutions and all its power while Israel continues to brutalize millions of Palestinians, having stolen their land by force and terrorism, having ethnically cleansed them from their homes, farms, and villages, destroying and eliminating close to 500 villages from the annals of geographic history causing the world’s largest and longest refugee problem, continuing an illegal, immoral, and evil occupation that rules the lives of millions at the slightest whim of a politician, general, or soldier, killing and murdering at will, imprisoning and torturing women and children, terrorizing the innocent humanity under their armed boots, is explicable if one accepts these facts.

The power of wealthy Jews embodied in banking, financial, and investment institutions, their control and ownership of the majority of the western world’s media, all of Hollywood, majority of public relations firms, dominance in academia, political “think tanks” that provide the thinking for cowardly politicians, and most of all the most sophisticated, organized, financed, and entrenched lobby ever known in western history.

Deviate from Jewish or Israeli interests and the sledgehammers of ‘Anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denier, Genocidal Liar, Denier of Israel’s right to exist”; all accompanied with the media sobs, cries, and tears of packaged punditry pour into the already guilty conscience of western governments.

Ironically, while the majority of the Christian and Muslim world are silent in incompetence and complicity, the most active and courageous persons who criticize Zionism and its political and moral destruction of Israel as well as threatening the very future of Jews in this world are Jews themselves, many who support Israel but are ashamed and horrified at Israel’s brutality against another people.

If only Gentiles would join such admirable Jews in their fight for Justice in the Holy Land.

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

–Thomas Jefferson



Chas Freeman’s Letter to Rep. Frank Wolf Responding to Wolf’s attacks on him in a Washington Post OpEd where he defends AIPAC/Israel Lobby

Forward, Jewish Weekly Magazine, Good Summary Article on AIPAC/Lobby Pushing Chas Freeman from Intelligence Position. Obama, in his silence, supported Freeman’s Withdrawal


(Page 11: Supreme Court Case by U.S. Diplomats Against AIPAC/FEC)


Additional Important Sources:

MUST WATCH Video of Israel’s Genocide on Gaza

Video of Jewish American Granddaughter of Holocaust Survivors on the Palestinian Suffering in the Occupied Territories

Professor Illan Pappe on Israel’s Founding and its Catastrophe upon the Palestinians

AIPAC/Congressional Letter to President Bush:

Despite being Israel’s greatest Christian Zionist supporter and genocidal ally in its attacks on Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria; even he didn’t escape the wrath of AIPACongress.

“In a letter to President Bush today, 89 senators urged him not to restrain Israel from retaliating fully against Palestinian violence and to express his solidarity publicly with Israel soon.”

–New York Times, November 17, 2001, “Senators Urge Bush Not to Hamper Israel”

Letter content from 81 Senators to President Clinton: “don’t pressure Israel”.

Letter from 76 Senators to President Obama

Revolving Door, Bailout Edition, April 9, 2009: Documenting the Revolving Door between Congress and Wall Street

William Black, the former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L’s in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist. Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname “banksters.”

“The Zionist Plan for the Middle East”, translated by Professor Israel Shahak, (see Greater Israel Map)

(AIPAC Annual 2009 Conference. Watch Our Politicians Prostitute themselves)

(Former GOP Rep. Gilchrest on how Pressure Groups, AIPAC included, prevent debate)

Great Article on the Power of AIPAC and the men and women it smeared and defeated, Great Quotes

Tagged as: , , ,

Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics
Email this author All posts by Mohamed Khodr

This last decade……

Afghans fleeing away
from the
“US and NATO Democracy…”

In this last decade ,

how many civilians were killed by Al Qua’eeda
and how many killed by the USA-armies ???

How many prisoners/hostages are held by the USA
and how many by Al Qua’eeda ???

How many ” collateral-victims” died thanks to the USA
and what was Al Qua’eeda’s share ???

How many fire-power and bombs were consumed
by each party ??? and who did more ???

There are doubts on the origins
and about the substance of Al Qua’eeda
but do we doubt what and who are the US-Armies ??

If Al Qua’eeda did New-York ,
then who did Afghanistan and Iraq ???
and why do we have today
1,5 million Pakistanis refugees ???
3 million displaced Afghans ,
and 4 million Iraqi refugees ???

Those refugees are all running away from Al Qua’eeda
from the Talibans , from Genghis Khan
or from the USA ???

I do not support Al Qua’eeda ,
nor do I believe it exists,

but are the USA any better ??
and who has harmed me, and the world, more !!! ???

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 12:14 PM

If and when……!!


If and when , Israel and/or the USA
shall bomb Tehran…… .
and supposing that ,
they will wipe-off the whole of Tehran
from the map……..

Then ,
the 25 Synagogues of Tehran

shall also be destroyed !!

Eng. Moustafa Roosenbloom

Posted by Тлакскала at 12:19 PM

"The new Refugees in Gaza still homeless"


Palestine, May 27, (Pal Telegraph) – All of Amer Aliyan’s hopes of rebuilding his life are placed in a carefully folded sheet in his wallet, a document that for the foreseeable future in Gaza is nothing but a worthless piece of paper.

“I’m waiting for the reconstruction, but I know it will take time,” the 36-year-old says.

This is a gross understatement in the besieged and impoverished Gaza Strip where an Israeli blockade is preventing the rebuilding effort after the devastation caused by a brief but deadly war at the turn of the year.

Aliyan’s house was one of several thousand destroyed during the massive 22-day onslaught unleashed by Israel on the Islamist Hamas-run Gaza in December in response to militant rocket and mortar fire from the enclave.

Since the end of the war, the unemployed dry cleaner has lived under canvas with his wife and five children in one of 93 tents set up on the outskirts of the Beit Lahiya refugee camp in northern Gaza.

The paper secreted inside his wallet is the official attestation that his home was destroyed, and it is a document that will entitle him to funds for rebuilding once the reconstruction starts.

But that is unlikely to begin any time soon, and until it does the thousands of Gazans who like Aliyan lost their homes in the war will just have to fend for themselves.

Reconstruction is a non-event not because there is a lack of demand. Some 4,100 houses was destroyed during the war, as were 48 government buildings, 31 police stations and 20 mosques, among others.

Nor is it for lack of money — in coffers worldwide sit a whopping 4.5 billion dollars that donors pledged to the Palestinians in March, most of it towards reconstruction in Gaza.

The rebuilding is not able to get under way because of the blockade Israel imposed on Gaza in June 2007 when Hamas, a group pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state, seized the enclave in a deadly takeover.

The billions of dollars in pledges remain where they are because the international community refuses to release the money directly to Hamas, branded as a terror organisation by Israel and much of the West.

The blockade, under which only essential humanitarian goods are allowed into the territory sandwiched between Israel and Egypt, means building materials stay on the outside, as Israel says they can also be used to make rockets.

In a bid to get around these restrictions, Gazans have dug dozens of tunnels under the border with Egypt that are used to bring in supplies, including construction materials such as cement, paint and wood.

The resulting trade is brisk, but limited and dangerous. The hastily dug tunnels often collapse, burying smugglers alive. The Israeli military still targets them in occasional bombing raids.

Because of the blockade the price of building materials has skyrocketed. A bag of cement now costs 220 shekels (56 dollars, 40 euros) compared with 20 shekels previously.

But the cement is of low quality, according to Hadj Salim who operates one of the tunnels, and it cannot be used to mix construction-grade concrete.

Other vital materials such as the steel rods used to reinforce concrete in buildings are too long to fit through the tunnels, Salim says.

With construction at a standstill, the newly homeless residents of the Gaza Strip where the vast majority of the 1.5 million population depends on foreign aid have had to make do.

By Djallal Malti


Posted by Sameh A. Palestine at 3:09 AM
%d bloggers like this: