Clinton: Syria’s Provocations May Plunge Middle East into War

Clinton: Syria’s Provocations May Plunge Middle East into War

30/04/2010 Syrian President Bashar Assad is pursuing dangerous policies that could unleash war on the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned on Thursday night.

In a speech to the American Jewish Committee in Washington, Clinton said that Syria’s transfer of weapons to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon risks throwing the region into instability.

“We have spoken out forcefully about the grave dangers of Syria’s transfer of weapons to Hezbollah,” Clinton said. “We condemn this in the strongest possible terms and have expressed our concerns directly to the Syrian government.”

She added: “Transferring weapons to these terrorists – especially longer-range missiles – would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel. It would have a profoundly destabilizing effect on the region. All states must stop supplying weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Every rocket smuggled into southern Lebanon or Gaza sets back the cause of peace.”

Clinton’s reference to long-range weapons follows reports that Syria supplied Hezbollah with advanced Scud missiles capable of inflicting sever damage on Israel’s major settlements – a charge Damascus denies and Hezbollah refuses to confirm it.

She said: “President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region.”

US officials have not confirmed Hezbollah’s possession of Scuds but say they are concerned about its growing arsenal of rockets and missiles.

Clinton went on to defend America’s recent decision to return an ambassador to Syria after a five-year absence. “We know [Assad is] hearing from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. It is crucial that he also hear directly from us, so that the potential consequences of his actions are clear. That’s why we are sending an ambassador back to Syria,” she said.

“There should be no mistake, either in Damascus or anywhere else: The United States is not reengaging with Syria as a reward or a concession. Engagement is a tool that can give us added leverage and insight, and a greater ability to convey strong and clear messages aimed at changing Syria’s behavior.”

In her speech, Clinton stressed America’s commitment to brokering Middle East peace, urging the Netanyahu government to stop building settlements and commit to peace talks – but also calling on the Arab world to begin normalizing relations with Israel.

“Arab states should reach out to the Israeli public, demonstrating that Israel’s isolation in the region is ending, and all sides should resume multilateral discussions on critical regional issues,” she said.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, addressing the same group later, made the same points as Clinton and said Israel was watching closely the situation with Hezbollah and Iran. He said Israel would hold the Lebanese and Syrian governments responsible for the introduction of any “balance-breaking weapons” to Hezbollah.

Barak said Israel is not interested in escalation, but is following the effort to change the balance of power in the region.

Earlier on Thursday Clinton warned Iran’s president that he will not get a warm welcome at UN nonproliferation talks next week if he seeks to sow confusion about Iran’s nuclear program.

The purpose of the meeting, which occurs every five years, is to recommit nations to the treaty’s three pillars: disarmament, nonproliferation and the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy, Clinton told a news conference.

“The mission of those of us going to New York to review, revise and reinvigorate the NPT regime is very clear. If that’s not his mission, then it won’t be a particularly useful or productive trip on his part,” she said.

Clinton said she did not know why President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to come to the conference, claiming that Iran’s record of violating the NPT was “absolutely indisputable.”

Iran is a signatory to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and denies Western claims it is developing civilian nuclear power as cover for an atomic bomb program. While Israel, which is believed to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with more than 200 nuclear heads, is not a signatory for this treaty.

“If President Ahmadinejad wants to come and announce that Iran will abide by their nonproliferation requirements under the NPT, that would be very good news indeed and we would welcome that,” she said.

“But if he believes that by coming he can somehow divert attention from this very important global effort or cause confusion that might possibly throw into doubt what Iran has been up to … then I don’t believe he will have a particularly receptive audience.”

A State Department spokesman said visa requests for the Iranian delegation were still being processed. As the host for the UN headquarters, the United States usually grants visas to foreign leaders who wish to attend UN events.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Why Mr. President? Open Letter to Mahmoud Abbas

What remains of the strategy seeking implementation of international law?

By Nidal Azza

(This open letter to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was first published in Arabic by Ma’an News, Palestine, in early March 2010.)

Since the adoption of the strategy of the “peace of the brave” which seeks to achieve Palestinian rights through negotiations, Palestinian officials have never missed an opportunity to raise the demand for the international community to intervene and ensure respect of its international law and UN resolutions. And while the Palestinian leadership had limited its own strategic options in the public relations battle around the peace negotiations, the demand for enforcement of international law preserved a certain “logic” in midst of the general deterioration, in particular the disintegration of the Palestinian political system.

However, what is puzzling in light of this strategy is the fact that Palestinian officials have recently challenged sincere international bodies and figures who have identified Israel’s regime as one that combines belligerent occupation with colonialism and apartheid. In other words, where is the logic in claiming a Palestinian strategy which demands enforcement of international law and UN resolutions, when Palestinian officials are the first to stand in opposition to strong international reports and resolutions which seriously aim to protect and promote Palestinian rights?

At the end of February 2010, Ibrahim Khreisheh, Permanent Representative of Palestine in the United Nations in Geneva, requested that the Human Rights Council postpone discussion of the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Professor Richard Falk. Prior to Khreisheh’s formal request, many Palestinian and international human rights organizations tried to persuade Palestinian representatives at various levels of the risks involved in such a decision for the interests of the Palestinian victims, Palestinian rights and human rights in general, and of its negative impact on the positions of UN member states, especially supportive members.

In response, Representative Khreisheh argued in an interview with al-Jazeera that the request for postponement was caused by the shortcomings in the Falk report, such as references to the responsibilities of Israel and Hamas and not the Palestinian Authority, and criticism of the Goldstone Report. He said that discussion of the report at this stage would be divisive and that there were other and more important reports to be debated than Falk’s.

Mirroring the Palestinian controversy preceding the vote over the Goldstone Report, the Palestinian Representatives again put forward a number of justifications which appear to be consistent with the strategy of seeking the implementation of international law and UN resolutions. Even more so, Mr. Khreisheh made sure to shape his arguments in a way that suggested that he was, more than anybody, else concerned to protect the “supreme national interest.”

Such arguments may mislead those unfamiliar with the content of the Falk report, in particular because Professor Falk has also been portrayed as “a Jew,” someone who attacks the Palestinian Authority and apparently sympathizes with Hamas, and has caused a scandal by giving credit to rumors according to which President Abbas initially withheld official Palestinian support of the Goldstone Report in exchange for Israel’s approval of the Wataniyah cell phone company’s business deal in which is son was allegedly involved. Alternatively, Khreisheh argued that from a practical point of view, Israel’s ban on Professor Falk’s entry into the country “will make it impossible for him to closely monitor the human rights situation in the occupied territory,” and that it was not convenient to cooperate with an expert who is considered an anti-Semite by Israel.

The question begging to be asked is: Where exactly is the supreme national interest in postponing the discussion of Falk’s report?

For lack of space, I first invite all concerned to actually read the report that Mr. Khreisheh requested to be removed from the U.N.’s agenda (we Palestinians know exactly that to postpone is tantamount to removal of the report and exclusion of the responsible author). The truth that must be said is that Professor Falk’s report is not less important than Goldstone’s and maybe even more so.

First, the report covers the period from July to December 2009; it cannot be considered incomplete, therefore, for not including events and Israeli violations that occurred afterwards, such as Israel’s listing of the Ibrahimi and Bilal Ibn Rabah mosques in Hebron and Bethlehem among its national, cultural and religious sites. In fact, the report points to serious Israeli violations of sacred and archaeological Palestinian sites. Doesn’t it address the issue of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus? Also, doesn’t it address the attacks committed by Jewish settlers against Palestinians, especially during the olive harvest, and the protection afforded to them by the Israeli army? Mr. Khreisheh, where exactly is the shortcoming in all of this?

The Falk Report reaffirms the recommendations of the Goldstone Report and does not criticize them. Falk rather attempts to fill gaps in the investigation of Israel’s aggressive war on Gaza as conducted by the Mission led by Judge Goldstone. Where is the shame in Professor Falk stating that the Goldstone Mission should have investigated Israel’s violations of the temporary truce that preceded the war, such as the assassination of six Palestinians on 4 November 2008? What is wrong with emphasizing that the Goldstone Mission did not give enough attention to the impact of the protracted blockade of the Gaza Strip? Where is the flaw in saying that Israel is responsible for the failure of efforts to reach a lasting truce over the past decade? Where did Falk go wrong when he states that the Goldstone Mission gave more importance to the sole captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit than to the some ten thousand Palestinian prisoners and detainees, most of whom are civilians? Does any of this detract from the supreme national interest?

The Falk report also affirms the conclusion of the Arab League fact finding mission that Israel’s targeting of Palestinian civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip was not accidental, but rather intentional. What is the shame in affirming that the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians has been a systematic policy of Israel ever since the establishment of the state? Does any of this detract from the supreme national interest?

Falk’s report is critical of legal analysis which treats both parties (Israelis and Palestinians) as equals. Calling upon the international community to examine Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip, he explains that despite Hamas’s International Humanitarian Law violations, such as the launching of rockets into civilian Israeli areas, this was a war carried out by one side. What is wrong with calling on international organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross, to formulate rules that would regulate state responsibility in situations of unequal warfare, especially if that state is an occupying power such as Israel? Is this something that would detract from the supreme national interest?

After reaffirming the Goldstone Report’s recommendations regarding universal jurisdiction over those responsible for serious human rights violations and war crimes in the Gaza Strip, the Falk report calls on states to take seriously these recommendations and implicitly criticizes states that evade their legal obligations. Where is the shame in criticizing third-party collaboration with Israel? What is wrong with criticizing the British government for seeking to change its universal jurisdiction laws for international crimes in order to help Israeli perpetrators escape accountability? Does this detract from the supreme national interest?

The Falk report boldly addresses Israel’s ongoing colonization of the occupied West Bank. It not only reports related numbers and statistics, but also refutes the allegations of Israeli leaders and emphasizes that the ultimate Israeli goal of settlement expansion is annexation of the West Bank. What is the shame in saying that settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem is not the result of “natural growth,” but of a policy intended to reduce the number of Palestinian Jerusalemites to less than 8%, in order to extinguish the possibility of Jerusalem ever becoming a Palestinian capital? What is wrong with saying that Jewish settlement expansion will lead, in practice, to the failure of efforts for Palestinian statehood? Does this detract from the supreme national interest?

The report also covers issues related to the Israel’s Wall, suppression of Palestinian resistance (even peaceful resistance), the continuing blockade of the occupied Gaza Strip, and the failure of the international community to impose its will and protect the Palestinian people. What is wrong with stating that the Human Rights Council has an obligation to exercise its authority by insisting that Israel ends its occupation and by intervening to stop its demolitions, forced evictions and settlement expansion in Jerusalem? Does this detract from the supreme national interest?

Notably, the report also tackles the issue of the Palestinian refugees and their right to return. Not limited to the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians in the OPT, the report raises the need to implement UNGA Resolution 194 in order to facilitate return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes of origin, property restitution and compensation for damages and losses, which is the basis of achieving a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace. What is the shame in saying that remaining silent on refugee rights, especially 1948 refugees, is no longer acceptable? Does this detract from the supreme national interest?

In light of the inability of the international community to bring about a just solution to the Palestinian issue for the past sixty years, does Professor Falk’s call to adopt the civil society campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions contradict the supreme national interest?

It seems that the supreme national interest known to Mr. Khreisheh is different from the one we know.
Why, Mr. President, should Prof. Falk’s report be postponed when “indirect” negotiations with Israel are approved? And this while Israel just announced that the Ibrahimi and Bilal Ibn Rabah mosques in the occupied West Bank were “national” Jewish holy sites and the expansion of Jewish settlement continues?
How can the supreme national interest of the Palestinian people be achieved when the official Palestinian position towards Falk’s report is similar to the Israeli position?

Why, Mr. President, have we not received any response from you regarding the request of human rights organizations to stop this unreasonable postponement of Falk’s report?

In fact, the Palestinian position in the United Nations is in contradiction with the publicly declared Palestinian strategy at least since January 2009 [when the UN’s General Assembly convened to decide about ways to end Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip]. UN records from the General Assembly’s emergency session show that opposition to the draft resolution proposed by the GA President was shared by the representatives of Palestine and Israel. Western and Arab media described Israel at the time as the only state that enjoys having two permanent representatives in the General Assembly, one Israeli and one Palestinian! The draft resolution was submitted by Ecuador and supported by more than two-thirds of the member states. It was rejected by the representatives of Palestine and Egypt and opposed by the European Union and the United States. If adopted, the resolution would have condemned Israel and held it responsible for the war on Gaza; it would have called upon Israel to immediately halt the war, withdraw from and lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip; it would have recommended establishment of a special international tribunal to investigate and prosecute those responsible for war crimes and serious human rights abuses, as well as adoption of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. Such a resolution, however, was found to be “very extremist” by the Palestinian representative. A letter was sent to the President’s office by a number of human rights organizations and networks, asking to investigate the occurrences in the United Nations. (It was not the first letter of its kind. A similar one was sent in October of 2008, requesting clarification of why the Palestinian representative to the United Nations was disturbed by NGO reports and “interference,” and why he insisted on excluding them from the work of the U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.)

Did you receive these letters, Mr. President? If not, why? If yes, why has there been no response?
The official Palestinian position and treatment of the Goldstone Report has been frustrating for all victims, human rights defenders and defenders of the rights of the Palestinian people. The justifications initially may have misled those unaware of the details. For NGOs present in the Human Rights Council, however, the situation was clear but they abstained from immediately going public. Instead, several human rights organizations and members of Palestinian national institutions submitted a memorandum to the President’s Office requesting scrutiny of the work of the Palestinian representatives to the U.N., as well as a firm stand against manipulation of U.N. protocol and titles, such as “Representative of the Palestinian Authority,” or “Representative of Palestine – PA,” which undermine representation of the Palestinian people in the United Nations.

Did you receive this memorandum, Mr. President? If not, why? If yes, then why has there been no follow-up?

Earlier this year, a letter was sent to the President by Palestinian human rights and civil society organizations and networks, requesting that he instruct the responsible specialized authorities to set up a mechanism for the domestic criminal investigation and prosecution required under the General Assembly Resolution endorsing the Goldstone recommendations. The letter urged for urgent action in order to prevent Israel from using a Palestinian shortcoming as a pretext for avoiding its obligations (which is indeed what happened). The responsible Palestinian authorities and officials, however, did not do what was required of them. The result was a finding by the U.N. Secretary General that both, the Israeli and Palestinian parties have fallen short equally so far in meeting their obligations.

Did you receive this letter, Mr. President? If not, why? If yes, then why has there been no reaction?
On 25 February 2010, more than twenty organizations appealed to the President to intervene as a matter of urgency and issue instructions to the Palestinian U.N. delegation in Geneva to drop the request for postponement of discussion of Prof. Falk’s report by the Human Rights Council, and to halt all personal attacks against the Special Rapporteur.

Did you receive this appeal, Mr. President? If not, why? If yes, why has there been no response?
As soon as Ibrahim Khreisheh, head of the Palestinian delegation to the U.N. in Geneva, had confirmed the request for postponement of the Falk report, numerous members of the PLO Executive Committee, leaders of Palestinian political groups and factions and the Secretary of the Legislative Council were contacted. All of them were briefed, provided with a copy of the letter to the President, and urged to take action in order to correct the mistake and avoid repetition of the frustrating experience with the Goldstone Report.
To this moment, we have not heard back from any of them!

What remains of the strategy seeking implementation of international law and U.N. resolutions? If the supreme national interest is a mystery which only the Palestinian representatives understand, then peace be upon our cause…

– Nidal Azza is the Coordinator of Badil’s Resource Unit, and Lecturer in Refugee Rights under International Law at al-Quds University. (This article was originally published in al-Majdal – www.badil.org/al-majdal – the English language quarterly magazine of the Badil Resource Center, Bethlehem, Palestine.)

No escape


No escape
 
In my heart dwells the pain of the oppressed
 
Rivers of their wounds pour down
 
Drenching the ocean of my sorrow
 
I am the voice of the voiceless
 
The howl of little ones as they fade away
 
My whispers shoot like bullets
 
In the ears of the wicked
 
My words explodes
 
Before his eyes
 
Muting his lies
 
 
He looks away
 
 
Pretending not to see
 
Not to hear
 
My murmurs pierce his bubble
 
My tortured shadow follows
 
No escape
 
 
He runs to bed
 
Covers his head
 
Sleep might rid him of me
 
My chopped limps chase his dream
 
He drowns in my tears
 
In my blood
 
Unable to breathe
 
Unable to cry
 
No escape
 
 
Time passes
…………………
 
……………………
 
……………………
 
Then he dies
 
……………………
 
…………………….
 
…………………….
 
Only to be greeted with my smile
 
He’d hoped he’d never see
 
As he was chained and dragged away
 
To meet his deeds
 
No escape
 

IOF troops fire at a peaceful demonstration

[ 30/04/2010 – 01:24 PM ]

RAFAH, (PIC)– IOF troops on Thursday fired at a peaceful demonstration, east of the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah, against the “security zone”, a 300-meter-wide area at the border with 1948-occupied Palestine which the Israeli occupation imposes on the Gaza Strip.

Dr. Muaweyah Hasaneen, the director of ambulance and emergency at the ministry of health, said that a young Palestinian man was injured by a rubber coated bullet and was treated on site.

IOF troops dispersed the demonstration by firing rubber coated bullets, stun grenades and teargas canisters at the demonstrators who numbered around 300 Palestinians and five international activists affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).

Participants raised placards rejecting the security zone and affirming the rights of Palestinians to make use of their land, which at the moment they risk getting shot if they approach.

Coordinator of the popular campaign to resist the security zone, Ziad al-Sarafandy, said: “We will continue to demonstrate as long as the Israeli army continues to confiscate Palestinian land.”

Over the past three months Palestinians and international activists organised a series of demonstrations at the border to protest the “security zone” which eats up about 20% of the area of the Gaza Strip and consists mostly of agricultural land the owners of which have been denied the right of utilizing.

On Wednesday, a Palestinian teenager was killed by an IOF bullet participating in a such a demonstration near Nahal Oz crossing east of Gaza city.

Last Sunday, five Palestinians and a Maltese activists were wounded by IOF troops fire east of al-Mgahzi refugee camp.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Jerusalem’s secret land deals: video

Via Silver Lining

Posted on April 30, 2010 by realistic bird

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

USS LIBERTY: The Fifth Fleet Sacrifice – Why did it happen?

Via Payvand Iran News

By Debbie Menon

Truth and America’s honor were ignominiously sacrificed to provide cover for Israel’s transparent lies and despicable act of perfidy

-Phillip F. Tourney, President USS LIBERTY Veterans Association, June 8, 2007, Marriott Courtyard, VA.

We have long wondered, and conjectured, the “why” of the USS Liberty incident, as it has become known and referred to; “incident” being an easier event to push onto the back burner and forget while it simmers away harmlessly, unlikely to boil over and burn the stew.


It was obvious that the Israelis knew at the time what they were doing, who they were attacking and, long ago, I found from my research, sufficient evidence myself, to prove it to my satisfaction at least.
The Commander of the Torpedo Boat Squadron who led the attack and whose boat fired the torpedo which hit Liberty, Admiral Yomi Barkai, IDF (Navy) Retired, went on to become the Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces Navy, largely because of his excellent service in Motor Torpedo Boats, his program which developed the IDF fast MTB missile weapons systems, and his combat record in attacking USS Liberty.

Phil Tourney, who was on USS Liberty, and is obviously an interested commentator, postulates a very reasonable and credible answer to “why” Liberty was attacked.

Phil Tourney’s

speech, USS Liberty survivor, at the No More wars for Israel

“Black Flag,” in furtherance of international political intrigues, in which one ship in the US Navy and its crew, were selected and set-up for sacrifice to US/Israeli International intervention objectives and political ambitions. His “black Flag” is not the only creditable one which I have heard of in subsequent years.


I know… Israel, Israel, Israel… it’s becoming tiresome, turning up Israel under every stone. But, there they are! More and more of this stuff, and stuff like this, are appearing everyday.

It is like Grace Halsell says it was, “what we did not know, and were shocked to learn….” But, finding out and telling about it, are horses of different colors, uphill battles, seldom won, which she describes as part of the problem and amongst those things we “did not know.”

It is interesting that she wrote these years ago, during the Clinton Administration. And, that she was once a speechwriter for Lyndon Johnson of USS Liberty infamy!

A review of the USS Liberty story explains a lot of how and why we have arrived at the state and conditions in which we currently find America and its governance! Vis:

The obvious incident is the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, in which out of 200 American sailors and Marines 34 were killed and rest wounded, and rescue attempts by carrier-based aircraft were halted by McNamara & Johnson personally. I’m not sure most Americans would know all the details of this incident. Listen to the chilling accounts of survivors in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55Jy6EDI_z0
You may not know of a book on it, written by an officer who was on the ship when it was attacked. The book is Assault on the Liberty by James Ennes available from Amazon.com, and well worth reading.

Several hours of reconnaissance by Israeli aircraft of a US ship flying US flags and openly displaying its markings on the very distinctive ship color with which US Navy warships are painted, was attacked that immediately knocked out all of its radios (so the Israelis knew what ship they were attacking, and where those radios were located — the one radio that was used to send out a distress call was cobbled together from spare parts & usable pieces of the ones that had been destroyed), then the torpedo attacks, the casualties, AND THEN the US Navy carrier-based aircraft launched to its rescue — which could have saved many of those casualties from happening — were called back twice by McNamara & Johnson.

It is relevant that the crew, when told to keep quiet, did so. And, they were there and experienced the outrage first hand!

They were sailors, trained to obey, and subject to Military Law, and knew that if they disobeyed those orders that they would be sent to prison and kept there. And, they would not have been imprisoned for the true reasons given.

It is the same when troops commit war crimes at the command of seniors. It is the troops who get the blame, and never the seniors. It was senior command, beginning with the President of the United States, and trickling down from the Secretary of Defense, through the chain of command all the way to the Commander of the Sixth Fleet who betrayed these men.

Others, in previous wars, have been Court Martialled and shot for less.

Look up Operation Cyanide,

and the clandestine involvement of US Air Force pilots and bombers in providing aerial photo intelligence, and launching covert air strikes against Egyptian forces during that war, and the possibility discussed in a series of recently released BBC videos on the USS Liberty “incident”, in which the question of whether the entire attack was not a joint US/Israeli black flag operation, set up to look like an Egyptian attack on Liberty, which nearly provoked a retaliatory nuclear strike against Cairo.
That might answer the “Why did it all happen in the first place?” question.
Is this yet another cockamamie conspiracy theory?
If it is, it is one of the most far out I have come across yet. And I am one who believes that the first liar doesn’t stand a chance!

The USS Liberty Association has a Homepage at: http://www.gtr5.com/. These men have worked hard and long, and at risk, to gather information on this story. It was they whom we see speaking on the video link above.

Several Israeli motivations have been discussed over the years. The British said that at least one Israeli objective was to keep the US from warning off Jordan, which in those days was the only Arab country that had reasonably good relations with the US, and the Israelis dearly wanted to sucker Jordan into the war so they could more easily take the West Bank and East Jerusalem. (The Brits thought the Israelis would have attacked Jordan anyway, but they wanted it the other way around if they could manage it.) The French said it was to impress on all Arab countries that even then, only a decade after their decision to put AIPAC & company into high gear, Israel had the US (or at least its government) so firmly under its influence that it could even attack a US Navy ship and kill Americans, and get away with it. Personally I think both are correct, but the French argument probably cuts closer to the bone

The significant point Ennes and the Liberty Association makes is that the US Congress has never conducted an official hearing or investigation of the case, the only “investigation” which was conducted so far was the one Ward Bond and the US Judge Advocates Officer referred to as a “cover-up,” conducted under an inadequate deadline and which the evidence did not support the findings, and the originator was not asked to review before its release, and who found missing parts when he eventually got to read it.

It would be extremely important, today, to have a Congressional hearing, publicly, on TV with all the fanfare that we have become so accustomed to watching on American TV.

This incident is not an isolated piece of deception where a few men were sacrificed to “other interests.” A few thousand more American servicemen have just been sacrificed in the Middle East, along with nearly two million foreign civilians and defenders of their homes… not to mention the ongoing slaughter in Palestine.

Note in Ennes’ book his “theory” of why the attack, when he describes the assassination of hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war! That was a war crime! Cut and dried, black and white, in an official war! They took prisoners out, made them dig their own graves, and shot them in the heads with an Uzi.

These are the people who are dropping bombs and launching missiles into civilian neighborhoods in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq and threatening to obliterate Iran, if.

In 1947, before the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, His Majesty, the late King Abdullah of Jordan made an honest, truthful and wonderful appeal for understanding, sympathy and support to the American public

The Hashemites – As the Arabs See the Jews

Nothing has changed!

I do not see how we can discuss Middle East issues without considering the interests and influence of Israel, nor how we can discuss American politics and US domestic and foreign policy without considering the interests and the influence of AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies and organizations.

The Biden, Emanuel, Clinton, and older Clinton staff connections with Israel and Zionism are all too close for comfort. That is why I wonder, and question, just who is running America, American politics and American policy.

A “doubter” (or an ADL “defender”) asked the question, “But how could such a small percent of the US population assert such an influence in government and politics?”

I furnish an answer via this

URL: http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html. (Google
Dual citizenship”) it is a list, and it treats the question of serving two masters (from the “proper” perspective according to Debbie) as well as how it is against US Law, but Israelis are exempted as unique cases. How about that?

It is but one of many answers. Many of the names were involved in the Clinton administration, and I suspect we shall see many of them arise again in the near future in positions strategic to Israeli interests first.
If the facts are true and accurate, then they are facts.

Factual lists of people who actually exist, and who hold important or influential positions in government at policy-making levels. This list doesn’t include US Ambassadors in countries of strategic importance to Israeli interests. Go figure!
Now, tell me again who runs America? And who frames US/Middle East Policies?
Given the ethnic, religious and economic group identities, how do they compare proportionally with their representation in the general public? I suspect they far exceed the normal distribution of ethnicity in the general public, as they do in the financial centers and Industry which has precipitated the current economic crisis which is destroying monetary and economic systems throughout the world.
I do not consider myself a racist, religious or a sexist bigot, and I certainly object to the Zionist charges that criticism of Zionism, Israeli politics or national policy is racist, anti-Semitic, or religious anti-Jewish bigotry. I recognize acute distinctions between Israel, Zionism, Jewry, and Semites which AIPAC and some of the other Zionist First and defense organizations recklessly ignore when they levy broad and general ad hominem attacks and charges of bigotry against any critics of Israeli political, national or jingoist policies, activities and meddling in US politics and national affairs.
There is no excuse or reason why any American politician who represents Americans first should campaign in Tel Aviv, and kowtow at conventions of foreign dominated and funded Political Action Committee conventions in the manner we have witnessed on the part of ALL of the recent candidates and, historically, during the Clinton administration as well as the recent campaigns.
I have serious doubts that Israeli interests are consistent with the best interests of America and the American people! They certainly do not make a solid platform for peace in the East, or anywhere else in the world.
When you look at everything which is happening in the Middle East, and most of the rest of the world, through these lenses, it all seems to make sense.
As Henry Ford said, it may all be a sham, but it sure describes accurately what has happened and is happening.
And, as Gilad Atzmon has said, “when you have all those people thinking alike, you don’t need a conspiracy.”

And Mahatma Gandhi said then, and I reiterate today:

“Journalism has become the art of “intelligent anticipation of events.”

Perhaps we may yet wake up the mainstream sheeple.

The Complete Manual for The British Jewish Voter by Gilad Atzmon

Friday, April 30, 2010 at 8:01AM Gilad Atzmon

With Britain’s three-way race for prime minister entering the final lap, many Brits are still wondering who to vote for. As if it makes any difference. However, if you are interested in my take on the subject, I would suggest you opt for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. If you want to know why, it is pretty simple – just because the Jews don’t like Clegg at all. This is at least the impression I gathered after reading the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

The JTA grasps that no single party is expected to capture a majority of the British parliament in the May 6 ballot. They realise, like the rest of us,  that the office of Prime Minister may go to whichever party leader is able to secure a coalition deal or win the support of another party. This is indeed horrible news for our relentless Zionist fundraisers. Usually they buy just one party. In fact, in this particular election, they already gambled on the Conservatives. As it happens, now they have to buy all three leading parties.

A few days ago the JTA published a manual for the British Jewish voter. As one might expect, the JTA and the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD), a rabid Zionist institute that claims to represent British Jewry, are convinced that British Jews are a top British political priority. “One thing is certain,” says Rosalind Preston of the BOD, “whoever is elected will have to deal with some very real and pressing issues, not only on the national and international level, but as they affect British Jews on the home front.”  British Jews, she said, are concerned with “boycotts of Israeli goods, the spike of anti-Israeli resolutions and speakers on university campuses.”

I myself would be far more optimistic if I knew that British Jewry were actually concerned with war crimes committed in their names by the Jewish state. This leaves us with a very clear picture, as much as a growing number of Brits try to resurrect Britain’s stand on humanism, the BOD and the JTA want this kingdom to continue to be subservient to the interest of one tribe only.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems leader is not exactly the favorite candidate as far as the BOD and the JTA are concerned. During the IDF’s 2009 genocidal attack on Gaza, Clegg penned an Op-Ed in the Guardian newspaper calling on the Labour Government to “condemn unambiguously Israel’s tactics” and demanded an “immediate arms boycott of Israel by Britain and the European Union”. As much as it is transparent that Clegg’s polite humanist stand is something the JTA disapproves of, Brits should start to identify just who promotes murderous regimes and ideologies in the midst of their politics and media.

Last December Clegg was also the lead signatory of a letter addressing the fact that Israel has 1.5 million Palestinian prisoners. In addition he wrote that the legacy of Israel’s operation in Gaza is a “living nightmare” for Gaza’s residents. Again, as much as the JTA is disgruntled about Clegg’s public stance, the Brits should be very proud to find such a voice of reason amid their overwhelmingly ‘Blue & White’ funded politics.
We also have the story of the adorable Lib Dems, Jenny Tonge who the Zionists despise. Tonge is a former member of Parliament who became a member of the House of Lords in 2005. In 2004, Tonge said she would become a suicide bomber if she had to suffer the indignities of the Palestinians. In 2006 she suggested that the pro-Israel lobby had “financial grips” on Britain and on her party. Last March she met with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria. Clearly the JTA doesn’t approve of Tonge’s sincere refreshing call for justice. Last February, Tonge requested an inquiry into the claim that the Israel Defense Forces’ earthquake relief teams in Haiti had harvested the organs of quake victims.  Obviously, this claim was reasonable, considering the Israeli share in the vast global market of organ trafficking.

Interestingly enough, Tonge’s remark prompted Clegg to fire her as the party’s spokeswoman for health in the House of Lords. In fact this act is something the Brits should take note of before giving their vote to the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg. Indeed, like the Conservatives and New Labour, the Lib Dems also have their ‘friends of Israel’. At the end of the day, it appears that all major British parties find it impossible to refuse the Zionist pound or shall I say the Shekel. To eliminate any doubt in the matter, the Lib Dems spokesman reassured the Jewish Chronicle that, ‘It was because they are friends of Israel that they will be candid and critical.’

As one might expect, Jews want to punish Labour for its failure to  comply with Jewish pressure. As the JTA reports, “Jews are upset with Labour’s failure to amend the universal jurisdiction law that permits private citizens to apply for the arrest of Israeli politicians for alleged war crimes while they are on British soil.” This shouldn’t take us by surprise. You cannot expect a ‘tribal’ operation to support ‘universal’ jurisdiction. Cameron (Conservatives) has said that he would rescind the law. Clearly with 50% of his shadow cabinet being members of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I expect the protocols of his cabinet to also be transcribed into Hebrew or at least Yiddish.

Brits may be shocked to find out that in the JTA’s review of the British election there is not a single word about British national interests. The article leaves the impression that Jews who live in Britain for generations have zero interest in their neighbours. All they are concerned with is the level of subservience of British politicians to what they regard as Jewish interests (Israel and Zionism).

But do not get the wrong impression. The JTA also has some positive news for its  readers. According to the rabid Zionist media outlet, some Jews also participate in the democratic game as equals amongst equals. “In the midst of this year’s extraordinarily tight race, candidates for Prime Minister and hopefuls in Jewish districts appear to be stepping up their pandering to Jewish voters.” Geoffrey Alderman, a historian of British Jewry, sees this as a positive development. “Appealing for a Jewish vote is a sign of a vibrant democratic state,” he said.

I hope British politicians might realise before it’s too late, that there are some other migrant communities in this country that deserve at least as much attention and care.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: