American media: Islamic State’s devoted public relations team

Robert Bridge
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist based in Moscow, Russia. His articles have been featured in many publications, including Russia in Global Affairs, The Moscow Times, Russia Insider and Infowars.com. Bridge is the author of the book on corporate power, “Midnight in the American Empire”, which was released in 2013.
© Akintunde Akinleye
With every new manifestation of global terrorism, Western media outlets are dutifully serving as the mouthpiece for Islamic State, promoting its mad message and crazed claims without ever scrutinizing the group’s dubious origins.

Ever since Russia opened its bombing campaign against Islamic State forces in Syria all hell has broken loose on the planet. On Oct. 31, a Russian Airbus was brought down by an explosive device over the Sinai Peninsula, killing 224. On Nov. 12, a bomb exploded in Beirut, Lebanon killing dozens. On Friday the 13th Paris was hit by a string of terrorist attacks against public venues that left 129 dead and 352 wounded.

In each of these savage events, the Western mainstream media – with nothing more than breadcrumbs for evidence – rushed to name Islamic State as the perpetrator. One gets the feeling that if an ice cream truck ran over a puppy in Detroit and ISIS claimed responsibility, the Western MSM would be tripping over themselves to break the story first.

Trumpeting Islamic State’s claims of responsibility following every act of violence is promulgating an atmosphere of fear that can be easily manipulated by the powers-that-be.

“We are being bombarded now with a media propaganda campaign, it’s just non-stop talk where we’re told not to go out on the street, we’re supposed to be fearful and keep quiet,” writer and journalist, Gearoid O’Colmain, told RT from Paris.

“This is essentially a propaganda campaign to make people in France fear Muslims.”

Geopolitical analyst Patrick Henningsen also expressed bewilderment with the “absolute flood of speculation” following the Paris attacks, saying “the Western media has already basically decided this is an ISIS attack.”

It’s going to be very hard to stop this juggernaut from a public relations point of view, even though we’d like to see a proper investigation to know exactly what happened here in Paris, but I dare say we might not be afforded that luxury,” he added.

The (Un)usual Suspects

The Western media fails to remind its viewers that there are many different groups in Syria –first and foremost, the Syrian people themselves – that are fiercely opposed to NATO bombing their sovereign territory. In fact, one of the gunmen in the course of the Paris attacks was reported to have yelled, “This is for Syria!” Does it sound logical that a fighter from Islamic State would utter a declaration of solidarity for the very country he is alleged to be fighting against?

It is highly reasonable to believe that the terrorists in the Paris attacks were in fact Syrian nationals seeking retribution for the US-led assault on their country (By way of example, imagine if an Arab military coalition decided to attack Canada because the country was experiencing political strife. Isn’t it safe to assume that some Canadians may be extremely tempted to seek vengeance against Arab targets?).

This possibility, however, is never mentioned by the mainstream media, nor will we be able to hear the killers defend themselves in a court of law because – as happens like precision clockwork in every such incident – the bad guys are duly,convenientlypermanently eliminated from the face of the earth.

Dead men tell no tales, nor do they have their day in court. The public is just expected to believe the ‘official’ version of events, despite the glaring lack of evidence not to mention defendants.

Another strange ‘coincidence’ involving this sudden tsunami of terrorism is how clumsy the terrorists are with their documents – documents, it should be added, that seem incredibly resistant to catastrophic conditions.

As with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Charlie Hebdo shootings, a crispy clean (Syrian) passport was found lying right next to one of the suicide bombers following the Paris attacks.

How convenient! Three terrorist attacks on three Western targets where passports are left at the scene of the crime identifying the culprits. Who needs detectives these days with such stupid criminals running around?

Moreover, what terrorist with a death wish would find it compulsory to bring along his passport on the mission? What passport could withstand the force of such a blast?

Needless to say, some people are expressing skepticism over such strange happenings.

“The ‘found passport’ worked for them for 9/11,” wrote Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. “It worked again for Charlie Hebdo. So now they have used it a third time. They know that Americans are total dumbsh*ts and can be told anything. No matter how preposterous, the dumbsh*ts will believe it.”

There are still more reasons that the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks deserve more media scrutiny. Before Russia entered the fray against ISIS, such acts of terrorism outside of the Syrian theater were relatively tame by comparison to the last three weeks of hell on earth. This begs the question: If the US-led forces were really bombing ISIS, why were things so quiet on the Western front in terms of retaliatory actions during that time? Why did ISIS only start acting like a hornet’s nest being poked once Russia opened its shock-and-awe offensive?

It’s almost as if the global puppet masters, sensing that Russia’s bold incursion into Syria was disrupting its geopolitical designs in the Middle East, experienced a childish temper tantrum and flipped the chess board rather than continue with a game that was fast approaching checkmate (For the skeptical reader ready to scream ‘conspiracy theory,’ please reflect upon the words of the late US historian Gore Vidal who observed that “conspiracy theory is now shorthand for unspeakable truth”).

Now, with these very suspicious series of attacks on soft targets, this terrorist proxy army, which many commentators had said was “on the ropes,” appears to have been magically energized – despite the massive Russian attacks. Any journalist worth his salt should be questioning this inexplicable comeback at this particular juncture.

Yet today it is up to a handful of uncompromised world leaders and a few alternative media renegades to shed some light on the ugly truth behind the rise of Islamic State.

During the recent G20 Summit, President Putin said he shared Russian intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his colleagues that showed the terrorist organization is being financed from 40 countries – including some G20 member states.

“I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” the Russian leader told a news conference.

Calling Seymour Hersh…

So why have the investigative journalists in the Western media matrix gone missing in action when it comes to investigating this global menace known as Islamic State? Why is this group being so readily accepted at face value? Just like the same-day claims that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Western media seems only interested in making the world tremble at the very name ‘Islamic State.’

This environment of fear and loathing gives NATO countries a free pass to continue with their wars of occupation and neocolonialism, while, at the same time, destroying civil liberties at home. Brace yourself, French people, because very soon you too will be the lucky recipients of your own undemocratic counterpart of the US PATRIOT ACT.

Until it can be proven otherwise, ISIS is a Western-made tool of oppression – a veritable crowbar being used to break down national boundaries and wreak havoc both at home and abroad.

“There is no war on terror,” Colmain went on to say. Instead, “there is a war being waged using terrorist proxy groups and they are being used against nation states that are resisting US and Israeli hegemony…”

“You now have terrorist attacks being committed by terrorists funded, armed and trained by Western intelligence agencies. There is no such thing as ISIS; ISIS is a creation of the United States. We know that from official sources of the US military themselves. Declassified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed that.”

The declassified report mentioned above clearly states that for “THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.

Western powers facilitating the rise of an Islamic proxy army should not surprise anybody since the exact same strategy was implemented in Afghanistan in 1980 against the Soviet Union.

American geopolitical guru Zbigniew Brzezinski, then national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, admitted to being the architect of the plan to arm the mujahedin, thus dragging the Soviet Union into a decade long struggle in the Central Asian country, which has been rightly dubbed “the graveyard of empires.”

In a 1998 interview with Counterpunch, Brzezinski scoffed at the idea that some “stirred-up Moslems” could somehow destabilize the global chessboard.

Counterpunch:  And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski:  What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

CP:  Some stirred-up Muslims? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

ZB:  Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Meanwhile, none other than Hillary Clinton, the Democrats hopeful in the upcoming presidential elections, left no doubt as to who was to blame for creating al-Qaeda, the very group that allegedly attacked the United States on 9/11.

In Clinton’s own words, “We had this brilliant Idea that we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahedeen and equip them with stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan and we were successful.”

“The people we are fighting today, we funded 20 years ago.”

It is no secret that Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State were trained in 2012 by American instructors at a secret military base in Jordan.

The German weekly Der Spiegel reported in 2013, that “some 200 men have already received such training over the past three months and there are plans in the future to provide training for a total 1,200 members of the ‘Free Syrian Army’ in two camps in the south and the east of the country.”

Jordanian intelligence services are also participating in the program, which aims to build around a dozen units totaling some 10,000 fighters to the exclusion of radical Islamists, Spiegel reported.

Meanwhile, reports continue to indicate that the United States is either being incredibly negligent in its training of “Syrian moderates,” which have a suspicious tendency for crossing over to the ISIS camp with their US field training and shiny new weapons, or willfully complicit in arming and protecting the group.

That is the main question the Western mainstream media needs to ask right now: What exactly is the relationship between Islamic State and the Western powers today?

@Robert_Bridge

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Paris Attacks: Another False Flag? Sifting through the Evidence

Global Research, November 19, 2015
false-flag-puppet-master

What do the globalists do when they want to create, reignite and keep their war on terror fought indefinitely? They simply carry out a series of false flag attacks using Muslim terrorist stooges as their hired guns to do their damage. That’s what 9/11 was all about in the US, 7/7 in UK, the3/11 train attack in Spain, the Hebdo Paris attack last January, and now this latest Paris encore reenactment part two.

In any unsolved crime the first question asked is who benefits by motive with an actual means to execute the crime?

In all of these tragic false flag events the global elite benefits in multiple ways. And it most definitely has the means by issuing marching orders to its owned and operated national governments, its favorite being the militaristic, brutal American Empire.

The elite’s agenda to polarize and destabilize the world politically and militarily manifests through the US foreign policy of regime change, nonstop war through divide and conquer methodology (i.e., Shiites vs. Sunnis, Euro-nationals vs. foreign migrants, Christians vs. Muslims, light skins vs. dark skins) and economic austerity through unpayable high interest from predatory IMF bank loans to debtor nations from both the developing and developed world.  Through global theft and destruction, the ruling elite reigns supreme in absolute power.

For decades after World War II US-NATO-Western European allies conspired and perpetrated state sponsored terrorism murdering their own citizens through a protracted series of Gladio operationsoriginally designed to falsely accuse Communist groups in Italy. Spanning over thirty years with violent incidents throughout Europe and Turkey, Gladio-like false flag operations never stopped. Gladio at home took the form of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Operation Northwoods that JFK abruptly halted, partially resulting in his own self-undoing, killing the diabolical military plot of murdering innocent US citizens in Miami and Washington DC in order to blame and start a war against Cuba. The US especially but numerous governments have regularly engaged in false flag operations killing their own to trigger wars, shape public opinion, conceal and divert attention away from citizens ever catching on to the dirty lowdown truth.

The Friday the 13th Paris massacres were highly organized, committed by heavily armed, closely monitored terrorist professionals unleashed onto an unsuspecting, culturally diverse group of young Paris victims. The coordinated attacks seem to carry all the earmarks as state of the art false flag terrorism having had lots of previous practice, most notably the Paris Charlie Hebdo edition. But the growing anomalies stacking up once again turn out to be no different from its predecessors.

All have promoted the same globalist agenda toward unlimited invasive authoritarian surveillance used to bring about increasing draconian measures in order to gain absolute tyrannical control over the populace. At the same time it exploits xenophobia and islamophobia amongst its citizenry that in turn increase hatred and tensions laying the groundwork for potential civil war. Today the elite is skillfully working its proven divide and conquer formula perfectly. In one fell swoop it creates the unstable conditions fomenting civil unrest and violent backlash that then increasingly justify oppressive, over-the-top counterterrorism and police state tactics that obliterate human rights.

Finally, false flag terrorism launches a militarized backed by a globally legislative crackdown targeting all dissidence and activism exposing the governments’ false narrative of lies and propaganda, labeling and criminalizing the dissenting truth as homegrown terrorism.

The surreptitiously obtained Syrian passport found so quickly after the fact in Paris has become a false flag trademark used in both Charlie Hebdo and 9/11. Because this pattern proved a serious liability for establishing any credibility, it was later disclosed that the passport actually came off the body of “a Syrian refugee,” as if that made MSM any more believable.

Even before the passport fiasco, the alleged terrorist’s quote from a supposed witness “this is for Syria” was obviously disclosed by mainstream media to shape and manipulate public opinion into quickly blaming Syria, ISIS and Syria’s targeted leader Assad. And then long before any of this alleged (dis)info began surfacing, barely an hour into the attacks while still actively underway, President Hollande kept repeating three times in the next several hours what appeared to be his scripted lines already declaring that France was at war against already identified terrorist attackers from Syria before any investigation had even begun. This rapid sequence of events smacked of false flag.

Furthermore, like the Hebdo attack earlier this year, reports immediately commenced disclosing that French intelligence had long been tracking the perpetrators prior to the attacks. Former antiterrorist judgeMarc Trevidic in a Sunday interview claimed that French authorities knew of an impending terrorist attack being planned by Islamic State jihadists “at a French rock concert” as early as August.

The judge had cross-examined militants three months earlier who revealed this rather critically important piece of information. This strongly suggests French intelligence had prior knowledge of the Friday night massacres. Turkey also warned the authorities in France twice about one of the three alleged suicide bombers but The Guardian reported that France only contacted Turkey for information after the Paris attacks. Again, it seems more than plausible that French security forces knew about the planned attacks but purposely failed to stop them or may have even played a sinister role in allowing them to occur.

A couple of other striking parallels with 9/11, when the BBC reporter announced that Building 7 went down 20 minutes prior to the event, the Paris attack was described on twitter dated a full two days in advance of the November 13th killings. Also Wikipedia within two hours from the very onset of the attacks already had posted a fully detailed account complete with footnotes specifying “Syria” being mentioned by a witness, “5 or 6 terrorists”, and “3 suicide bombers” all from the get-go pointing to the big bad Muslim villains yet again. The clinching evidence was Wikipedia running an early story version at 23:06 specifying:

In a televised statement at approximately 23:58 (local time), French President François Hollande declared

  a state of emergency and closing of borders for the whole of France.

For that announcement on Wikipedia to be made nearly an hour prior to Hollande’s actual statement could suggest that Wikipedia was in fact being used by the French authorities as an information disseminator of a preplanned event, right away establishing an official narrative from the outset that Arab terrorists from Syria were the guilty murderers behind the attacks far in advance of the start of even a preliminary investigation.

It’s also been recently learned like in several previous false flags that security forces in Paris were simultaneously undergoing another live action emergency drill earlier that same day (as in Charleston, Baltimore, Boston, 9/11). Patrick Pelloux, an emergency medical services specialist and one of the first responders to the attacks, confirmed in a radio interview that a live drill had been conducted that morning of the 13th. These co-occurring government events timed perfectly to overlap so called acts of terrorism cannot be considered purely co-incidental.

Adding more weight to the false flag suspicion is the fact that just two weeks prior to Friday’s attack on October 29th CIA Director John Brennan met with his French counterpart along with UK’s MI6 former chief and former Israeli national security advisor. Additionally on Monday Brennan admitted that the international intelligence community expected a terrorist attack in Europe. Just as the Islamic terrorist mercenaries always “accidentally on purpose” leave their calling cards behind, so are the dirty CIA-Mossad fingerprints left indelibly written all over virtually every state sponsored terrorism on this planet. For years it’s been repeatedly demonstrated that US and Israeli intelligence forces have been covertly working directly with the Islamic State jihadists. NSA documents show that ISIS leader El Baghdadi was trained by Mossad. A recently captured IDF colonel was caught leading Islamic State forces. Overwhelming evidence has proven the US-Israeli-Saudi-Turkish-Gulf State connection to ISIS terrorists, documenting this intimate partnership in the manufactured war on terror.

In late September after Putin outed Obama’s fake war against ISIS at the UN, then throughout October actually destroying ISIS where Obama only pretended, the lost face of a humiliated Emperor’s new clothes turned US war policy in the Middle East completely topsy-turvy. Obama’s dubious leadership sank to an international all-time low when Putin exposed America’s deliberately failed MENA policy. Allied nations were cutting their losses and announcing plans to pull out of Syria. US Empire of Chaos and Destruction was fast losing its global control, its coercive power to subjugate its Euro-puppets into blind submission seriously and overtly eroding.  On top of that, while Europe is still reeling from the refugee mass migration crisis directly caused by the US imperial aggression, they were marveling over grandmaster Putin’s bold stroke of finally kicking some Islamic State ass. Stalwart US Euro-ally Germany was already shifting gears warming its relations with Russia, unwilling to follow Washington’s disastrous lead down doomsday road.

So what do the neocon goons in full damage control mode come up with?

While US-Israel are holding joint military exercises in the Sinai desert, did they coordinate with ISIS to make sure it shoots down the Russian airliner as immediate Putin payback?  Then came Defense Secretary Carter’s Russia bashing threats from the Ronald Reagan Library followed just hours later a few miles away with the Trident missile’s Saturday night LA bright light show seen around the world as an exclamation threat to Russia and China to back off from challenging US Empire’s global hegemony.

The DC warmongers are growing increasingly desperate, afraid of losing both their full spectrum dominance in the world as well as their precious proxy terrorist ally while Putin’s aid to Assad is putting the final kibosh on their fanatical OCD regime change operation.

So Brennan meets up with French and Israeli intelligence to conjure up the next Paris false flag. And since Hollande’s been Washington’s loyal go-to lackey with Hebdo already under his belt, heading up France’s active role in the imperialistic assault on both Libya and Syria, with Paris terrorism #2 France now becomes US Empire’s key catalyst to pull off another massive 9/11-like attack, in fact the biggest in France since WWII and be the justified driving force behind this newest “coalition of the willing” stepping up its next phase of war in Syria against both Assad and Putin. US bombs being dropped over Syria are now being joined by bombs from French jets as well as Israeli and Saudi warplanes. Timed purposely on the heels of the Paris tragedy, the ongoing G-20 meeting with the world’s most powerful nations in Turkey has turned into a war council to drum up intensified world war effort against nemesis Assad and Putin.

But the Western bombs are making sure that they do not destroy ISIS nor ISIS-controlled oil refineries selling black market oil to NATO member Turkey. Nor are they attacking the critical ISIS supply line in northern Syria that extends back into Turkey. It’s all too obvious that a renewed, heavily fortified allied offensive aggressively going head-to-head with Syrian and Russian forces clearly risks igniting a broader War.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.”  It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site athttp://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian 

  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Israel’s international fifth column exposed


Ben Zygier, RIP
Israel’s international fifth column exposed
 
by Justin Raimondo, February 15, 2013
The shocking story of Ben Zygier, a 34-year-old Australian recruited by the Mossad and quite possibly murdered in an Israeli jail cell in 2010, has exposed Israel’s international fifth column to the light of day. This whale surfaces every once in a while. Remember the “passport farm” run by the Israelis in New Zealand back in 2004? Similar operations were uncovered in Australia and in Israel itself: regarding the latter, travelers to the Jewish state had their identities stolen, their passports duplicated and handed out like candy to Mossad agents. Then there were those two FBI raids on the Washington headquarters of AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobby, during the course of which agents surrounded the building and carted out boxes of documents and computer hard drives as part of the Steve Rosen-Keith Weissman affair, in which two top AIPAC officials were indicted and tried for stealing US secrets from the Pentagon, and only had their case dropped because a trial would have revealed those secrets to the world. And who could forget that 2001 Fox News four-part series reported by Carl Cameron, which concluded there was evidence the Israelis were watching the 9/11 hijackers on American soil and failed to report their movements to US authorities?

This time, however, the story has an unusual twist. It appears that Zygier, a fervent Zionist, discovered something that caused him to turn against his Mossad bosses – something so sensitive, of such importance to the Jewish state, that his incarceration in a Israel’s high security Ayalon prison – in a “suicide-proof” cell originally designed for Yitzhad Rabin’s assassin – was a closely-guarded secret. Prison personnel were not told his identity, and a media blackout was imposed shortly after the story of “Prisoner X” came out in the Israeli media. All mentions of the arrest were scrubbed from Israeli web sites.

That was two years ago. Now we learn Zygier “committed suicide” in his suicide-proof cell.
The Australians had been on his trail for a while. He and two other Australians who had emigrated to Israel and then returned after changing their names – and applying for Australian passports – were under investigation for engaging in espionage. An Australian journalist had questioned Zygier about his activities, and he furiously denied being involved in any covert activities on Israel’s behalf. There are reports of his interrogation by ASIO, Australia’s intelligence agency.

There seems little doubt Zygier was recruited by Mossad ten to twelve years ago: his friends are now recalling it. The New York Times says he used at least four names: Ben Zygier, Ben Alon, Ben Allen and Benjamin Burrows, traveling to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon on behalf of his Israeli paymasters. The nature of his transgression has yet to be definitively revealed, yet the story is coming out in spite of the Israeli government’s frantic efforts to stop it. The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

“Australian security officials suspect that Ben Zygier, the spy who died in a secret Israeli prison cell in 2010, may have been about to disclose information about Israeli intelligence operations, including the use of fraudulent Australian passports, either to the Australian government or to the media before he was arrested.

“‘[Zygier] may well have been about to blow the whistle, but he never got the chance,’ an Australian security official with knowledge of the case told Fairfax Media yesterday.

“Sources in Canberra are insistent that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was not informed by its Israeli counterparts of the precise nature of the espionage allegations against Mr Zygier. However, it is understood that the former Melbourne law graduate had been in contact with Australian intelligence.”

 
There is much speculation surrounding the reasons for Zygier’s arrest: the most popular appears to be that he was about to reveal details of the 2010 Mossad hit job in Dubai, during which an entire team of some 20 Mossad agents succeeded in murdering an Arab arms dealer with links to Hamas.
The problem with this theory is that the facts about that case are pretty much known: the Israelis collected data from travelers to Israel and then used it to create bogus passports, which were then issued to Mossad agents. Photos of these agents appeared in the Kuwaiti media, and were published on the internet. A Kuwaiti paper is now claiming it was Zygier who turned over this information, including the photos, to the Kuwaitis, and that the Israelis kidnapped him in Kuwait. The paper quotes “a former Mossad commander” who contends Zygier was part of the Dubai assassination team until he “switched to the other side.” Yet this tall tale hardly explains why the Israelis would keep the identity of “Prisoner X” such a closely-guarded secret, quashing press reports of his incarceration, and denying his very existence until now. It wouldn’t explain why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called an “emergency” meeting with Israeli editors over their handling of the story. And it wouldn’t account for the fact that Zygier was apparently in contact with the Australian intelligence service prior to his arrest – or have they, too, “switched to the other side”?

I guess it all depends on what one means by “other side.” Because, from the perspective of the increasingly isolated Israeli government – which cultivates a narrative of the Jewish state as besieged on every side – “the other side” means everybody else, including the West.

We don’t know the nature of Zygier’s “crime,” but we know with reasonable certainty what it was not. In all likelihood it had nothing to do with the Dubai assassination, the forging of passports, or any of the other depredations against international law and morality that we already know about. It’s something new – and worse.

There is some speculation it had something to do with the impersonation of CIA officers by Mossad agents who were trying to recruit Jundullah terrorists in their campaign to destabilize Iran, and this may be more credible: after all, according to the report by Mark Perry in Foreign Policy, “The Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives – what is commonly referred to as a ‘false flag’ operation.” (Emphasis added.)
So it isn’t just Australian, New Zealand, and European passports the Israelis are stealing – there’s an Israeli “passport farm” churning out American passports, too. But then again, why would Zygier – reportedly a committed Zionist, who had been recruited by Mossad and emigrated to Israel where he started a family – threaten to expose this type of operation? It doesn’t add up – unless the Israelis were mounting an operation against his native Australia, or other Western countries such as the US.
Israel’s Mossad is notorious for its ruthlessness, and its unwillingness to play by the rules: for example, when it comes to industrial espionage, Israel’s Western “allies” are considered fair game. A GAO report on Israeli espionage in the US concluded the Jewish state “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.” Australia presumably merits the same treatment. But Zygier didn’t “switch sides” because of a few stolen gadgets. It had to have been something that aroused his conscience, and perhaps reawakened long dormant loyalty to his Australian homeland – or to the concept of morality itself.

This is not the Israel we once knew, or thought we knew. We are dealing here with Bibi Netanyahu’s Israel, a country veering to the very edge of fundamentalist extremism, increasingly aggressive and impatient to assert itself as the dominant power in the Middle East. Their above-ground lobby is not only hyperactive, it is hyper-potent, strong enough to rule the US Congress with an iron hand – as Chuck Hagel pointed out, to his sorrow – and do much to push the US into a disastrous war in Iraq (as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt showed in their book on The Israel Lobby). Yet what about the clandestine aspect of this phenomenon – the covert complement to Israel’s overt fifth column? The Zygier affair gives us a brief, incomplete glimpse at this sinister subterranean creature, and a scary one it is.

No, we don’t know why the Israelis kept “Prisoner X” locked up in absolute secrecy, and then panicked when word leaked out about his “suicide.” No, we don’t know for sure that he was murdered by his jailers – although his lawyer, who saw him days before his death, has said he seemed rational and not at all suicidal. We can’t know for certain what horror he uncovered, and caused him to rebel. Yet that horror, whatever it was, was no ordinary one: it motivated him to reject the views and actions of a lifetime, and reverse course with stunning abruptness.

Zygier was reportedly offered a plea bargain by the Israeli authorities, and turned it down because he was determined to clear his name. Was he an Israeli Bradley Manning, intent on exposing the crimes of the Jewish state – crimes we can only imagine?

NOTES IN THE MARGIN
 
The Republican filibuster of Chuck Hagel reared its head too late for me to comment, and I’ll save my remarks for Monday, when the dust has cleared. Suffice to say here that I was far too optimistic to shout “How Sweet It Is!” — the title of my last column on the Hagel nomination. That’ll teach me to jump the gun when it comes to declaring victory over the Lazarus-like neocons. I have to take some grim satisfaction, however, in pointing out that the Senate vote underscores my political acuity when it comes to another topic I’ve been dealing with this week – the politics of Sen. Rand Paul, a.k.a. Paul the Lesser.

Sen. Paul voted “no,” giving the Hagel-haters the one-vote margin they needed to delay the confirmation for another ten days. Phil Klein, neoconnish political reporter over at the Washington Examiner, tweeted “Rand Paul, neocon hero!” To which I can only say – with absolutely no relish – didn’t I tell you so? Heck, I nailed the Lesser Paul back in 2010, before he even made it to the Senate.
Yes, but my prescience – however much I brag and carry on about it – is really no fun at all: remember Cassandra, of Greek mythology, who offended the gods and was punished in a unique manner? The poor thing was granted the gift of prophecy, but cursed with the proviso that no one would ever believe her. These days I often recall the poet Robinson Jeffers’s conjuration of this ancient tale:

“The mad girl with the staring eyes and long white fingers
Hooked in the stones of the wall,
The storm-wrack hair and screeching mouth: does it matter, Cassandra,
Whether the people believe
Your bitter fountain? Truly men hate the truth, they’d liefer
Meet a tiger on the road.
Therefore the poets honey their truth with lying; but religion –
Vendors and political men
Pour from the barrel, new lies on the old, and are praised for kind
Wisdom. Poor bitch be wise.
No: you’ll still mumble in a corner a crust of truth, to men
And gods disgusting – you and I, Cassandra.”
 
A final note: In case you haven’t seen the front page, our fundraising drive is still in full swing – but we haven’t allowed it to take over practically the entire page, as per usual – we’re waiting to see if subtlety works. If it doesn’t we’ll go back to hitting our readers and supporters over the head with the works. I just hope it doesn’t come to that and for a very good reason: there’s too much going on. These are unusually active times in the world of foreign policy, and the question of war and peace is at the top of the national agenda. The debate has never been fiercer. And it has never been more important for us to carry out our primary mission: to keep our readers fully educated and up-to-date on matters dealing with America’s relationship with the rest of the world.

In short: please don’t make us devote 2/3rds of the front page to a freaking fundraising appeal. Please make your fully tax-deductible donation today – nay, right now. Before I go crazy.
I’m on Twitter quite a bit these days: you can follow me here.

Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Forward by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
Buy my biography of the great libertarian thinker, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books,2000), here.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

MasterCard Hosted Mossad Assassins, Blocked WikiLeaks

>

The Israeli assassins using false Australian passports, used the U.S. MasterCard credit card company to pay bills

The U.S. credit card company MasterCard, has hosted murderous Israeli intelligence agents from the terrorist state’s MOSSAD secret service. The wanted criminals had used passports from other countries including Australia whilst carrying out the murder of an Arab leader in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in the Arabian Gulf.

Australia has not retaliated against Israel for the regime’s crime of using Australian passports to carry out murder.

U.S. diplomatic cables leaked by Australian editor Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks web site, reveal that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had asked for U.S. government assistance in finding out more about the owners of the MasterCard credit cards used by the assassins.

Prior to this cable release, MasterCard had cut off the handling of any donations toward the legal defense of Julian Assange, who was languishing in a London jail at the time, in violation of international norms since no crime had been committed and he was being held by British police for his own protection, pending bail and in solitary confinement at the request of his lawyers.

WikiLeaks has faced mounting criticism over the past year for its failure to reveal any documents of files damaging to the zionist (jewish extremist) state of Israel whilst many Arab regimes have faced embarrassing revelations through the U.S. diplomatic cable leaks.

This week WikiLeaks for the first time addressed the issue by giving a link to the zionist defamation front’s “Anti-Defamation League” web page on “conspiracy theories” linking WikiLeaks to Israel.

At the same time it released the following cable, marked “NOFORN” (not for viewing by non-U.S. authorities) from the U.S. embassy in Dubai, UAE to Washington, relaying an official request for assistance in tracing the Israeli assassins.

*****************************

VZCZCXYZ0007
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAD #0103 0551051
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 241051Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0361
INFO RUEHDE/AMCONSUL DUBAI IMMEDIATE
RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI

S E C R E T ABU DHABI 000103

NOFORN
SIPDIS
FOR NEA/ARP

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/24
TAGS:
PREL PINS CJAN AE
SUBJECT: UAE REQUEST FOR USG ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATION OF KILLING
OF MAHMOUD AL-MABHOUH

CLASSIFIED BY: Doug Greene, DCM; REASON: 1.4(D)
1. (C/NF) On the margins of a meeting with visiting
Secretary Chu, on Feb 24 MFA Minister of State Gargash made a
formal request to the Ambassador for assistance in providing
cardholder details and related information for credit cards
reportedly issued by a U.S. bank to several suspects in last
month's killing of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai.
According to a letter Gargash gave the Ambassador (which
transmitted details of the request from Dubai Security authorities
to the UAE Central Bank), the credit cards were issued by
MetaBank, in Iowa. Embassy LEGATT is transmitting the request and
associated details to FBI HQ. Gargash asked that Embassy pass any
reply to the director of the General Directorate of State Security
(GDSS) in Dubai.

2. (S/NF) Comment: Ambassador requests expeditious handling
of and reply to the UAEG request, which was also raised by UAE
Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed in a February 23 meeting with
Secretary Clinton in Washington.

3. (C/NF) Text of letter from GDSS to the Governor of the UAE
Central Bank:


Excellency Sultan Al-Suwiadi

UAE Central Bank Governor


Subject: Credit Cards

MC 5115-2600-1600-6190

MC 5115-2600-1600-5317

MC 5301-3800-3201-7106

General Management of The State Security offers greetings, and asks
your Excellency to direct the money laundry and suspicious
transactions unit at the Central Bank to urgently obtain details of
the above credit cards, in addition to details for purchases,
accounts, and payments on those cards, as the users of those cards
were involved in the murder of Mahmoud Mabhouh. Those cards were
issued by META BANK in the state of Iowa, USA.

Thank you for your kind cooperation.

END TEXT

(Letter is accompanied by a chart with identifying data for alleged
credit card users - scanned and emailed to NEA/ARP.)

OLSON

Controlling the narrative in Israel and Palestine

>“Take a helicopter-view of history and the bludgeon of reality emerges. It is this – it does not matter which party or coalition of parties is in power in Israel; whether the Israeli military, settlers or peace movement is ascendant; whether Democrats or Republicans are in the White House; whether Fatah rules in the Occupied Territories or has been routed by Hamas; it makes no difference whether there is a cold peace or a hot war; an intifada or a Oslo-induced new spring; it does not matter whether Areas A is the square root of Areas B and C; or whether the Arab world is spoiling for war or suing for peace. The outcome always is the same – while it goes through the motions of talking about returning the Occupied Territories, Israel takes more and more Palestinian land and the rest of the world pretty well looks the other way.”

Controlling the narrative in Israel and Palestine

Posted by bandannie in israel, narrative.

Paul McGeough

October 5, 2010

Paul McGeough... being held by Israelis.Israel’s recent actions have changed the tone of the Middle East narrative.
Tooling around suburban Washington earlier this week, the car radio shrieked – on just a single word, it seemed. National Public Radio was reporting the uncertain fate of this latest round of Middle East peace talks, in light of last Sunday’s expiration of what has been billed as a moratorium on Israeli settlement expansion on Palestinian land.
But in quoting the president of France, the reporter did not use the word ‘settlement.’ Instead, she attributed to Nicolas Sarkozy the dreaded C-word – ‘colonies.’ Not quite as jaunty as ‘settlements’, is it?
If ‘settlement’ connotes opening up an unclaimed frontier – think fabled Jaffa orange, the taming of the wilds and something found; then ‘colony’ is about dispossession, the planting of foreigners. More something lost than found.
Playing on many levels, the Middle East is the constant, treadmill-struggle of our time. Right now, we see it at its most theatrical – with both sides warily and wearily hauled to a conference table under Washington’s chairmanship. At the end of May we saw it as its most violent – when Israeli commandos attacked a civilian, humanitarian convoy in international waters …killing nine and wounding more than 50, before dragging 700 activists into Israeli waters and then to Israel itself, where, absurdly, they were charged with entering Israel illegally. And there was more blood-letting last month – Hamas gunmen killed four Israeli settlers near Hebron, on the West Bank.

Within the dynamic of this conflict, the leadership on all sides – and in this I include Washington – has an enduring capacity to fail to surprise us. But here I want to look at a genuine element of surprise – the seeming surrender, or loss of the strategic high ground by a key player in a critical dimension of the conflict.
Arguably, engagement takes place at three levels. There are two – weapons and diplomacy – in which Israel has been ascendant since, oh, I would say about 1948. But there is a third dimension, one that sways the diplomacy; and which is influenced by resort to weapons. This is the contest for control of the narrative of the conflict.

Across the decades, Israelis have told the story of their enterprise brilliantly. Palestinians, by contrast, have told the story of dispossession terribly.

In story-telling, words can be bullets. Sure, events happen and as Israelis are wont to say, facts are created on the ground. But the words chosen by participants and observers shape the narrative as it resonates in the region and around the world. In this context, Sarkozy’s use of the word ‘colony’ was a small but significant victory for Palestinians and their supporters who only recently decided to inject the more hard-edged word ‘colonies’ into debate, instead of the less-specific term, ‘settlements.’

I have long believed that with its supremacy in weapons and diplomacy, Israel has this conflict stitched up. It has become an exercise in crisis management, not conflict resolution – in which the US and frequently enough, the Palestinian leadership, also are complicit.

The wrong of the occupation has become the status quo. How else do we interpret Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s take on the renewed peace talks, which he shared a few days ago with the UN General Assembly, telling that gathering in New York that rather than a final settlement, the talks should focus on some sort of long-term, interim arrangement. “Something that could take a few decades,” he said.

How else do we interpret the snouts-in-the-trough corruption of the Fatah cronies, their squandering of the meagre resources of their people at the same time as they enjoy their Israeli-sanctioned special privileges?

 How else are we to see the callous indifference of the leadership of the world in its abandonment of the civilian population of Palestine? The rights of East Timorese and Bosnians mattered – but those of longer-suffering Palestinians don’t?

Early this year it seemed that Israel’s grip on the story was loosening. Had events caused the narrative pendulum, the impact of the story as it was heard beyond the Middle East, to swing towards the Palestinian side of the ledger? Even before the debacle of the flotilla, Israeli bungling, as measured by rising diplomatic criticism in the West, had dulled the luster of a PR machine that historically had shaped the exploits of Mossad and other agencies, as nerve-tingling embroidery in a national narrative that left little room for failure. In a hostile corner of the world, that legend was the deterrent.

This is where my mind was at, when I wondered about the Free Gaza Flotilla as a challenge for Israel’s PR machine.

As an effort to upend the mythology of the Exodus, the flotilla might be a good framework in which to explore the extent to which Israeli mistakes were creating an opening for the Palestinian story to resonate more effectively.

I proposed to my editors at The Sydney Morning Herald that I join the flotilla as a professional observer – in much the same way as I have embedded in the past with US and Australian troops in Afghanistan and Iraq or spent time with insurgents in those conflicts – to better understand the dynamic of the crises. The editors agreed – and they assigned my photographer colleague Kate Geraghty to join me.

We’ll come back to the flotilla in a bit. Suffice to say, I thought I was going for a quiet sail … a meditation in the Med, if you will, on the mythology of conflict. Not in my wildest speculation could I have anticipated Israel’s response to the flotilla, either premeditated or as a knee-jerk response upon concluding they had been lured into a trap. We hopped between the boats and in a piece I filed from the Mavi Marmara in the hours before the commando assault, I found myself stumped. Yes, I could detect the outline of a head-on-collision between the governments of Turkey and Israel, but not for a second did I envisage the decks of the old ferry awash with Turkish – and in the case of a dual citizen – American blood.

Israel’s mythology is built on the likes of the stunning success of the Six Day War. And on daring, edge-of-the-seat ventures like the 1976 raid on Entebbe Airport in Uganda. Remember their abduction, halfway around the world of Adolf Eichmann? And the surgical strike on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility?

More recently Israel has achieved some of its tactical objectives. But these days, each outing seemingly incurs greater strategic or diplomatic cost. Whether it was its 2006 assault on Lebanon or its 2008 invasion of Gaza, its assassination in January of a Hamas operative in  Dubai or its May attack on the Gaza flotilla, usually stout allies and, in the case of Lebanon, domestic boards of inquiry, have felt obliged to criticize.

In Gaza, Israel was accused of war crimes in the controversial Goldstone Report. In Dubai, it incurred the wrath of governments around the world, including Australia, over the abuse of those country’s passports as cover for almost 30 members of the Mossad hit team – who were held to international ridicule in the release by the Dubai authorities of CCTV footage of their Inspector Clouseau antics.

And amidst waves of international criticism for its attack on the Gaza flotilla, the first of a series of investigations – released last week by the UN Human Rights Council – found the interception of the flotilla to be unlawful; that some of the deaths likely were “extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions”; that some of the treatment of the hundreds of prisoners probably amounted to torture; and that Israel’s treatment of the civilian population of Gaza is a blight on humanity.

In the weeks after the attack on the flotilla, the chief of Mossad, Meir Dagan, told the Knesset: “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.”

This was an analyst’s call that coupled naturally with a disquieting moment of another kind for Israel early this year – the impact of which has yet to reveal itself. The setting was an appearance in March before a Senate committee by General David Petraeus, at which he revealed a new line of Washington thought on this conflict. As the then chief of the US Central Command, Petraeus brought along a considered 12,000-word document, in which he framed the Israel-Palestine conflict as a “root cause of instability” and an “obstacle to peace” that played into the hands of Iran and al-Qaeda.

Ditching a cornerstone of neoconservative dogma, Petraeus charged that perceived US favouritism for Israel fomented anti-American sentiment across the region. “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbours present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” he said. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US participation with governments and peoples.”

The general was articulating a Washington view that would have been impossible under George W. Bush: that is, the security of Israel and an urgent need to resolve the Israel-Palestine crisis are distinctly separate, core-issues of US national interests. It follows that Washington can be rock-solid on the former at the same time as it could demand action on the latter – thereby robbing Israel of its default argument that its security must always comes first.

Behind these headline events, other developments reveal elements of the historic Israeli story playing out abroad for Palestinians; and the plight of occupation garnering sympathy – or perhaps just less hostility. In the 1960s and 70s, it was a rite of passage from many non-Jewish students from around the world to spend time on a kibbutz. Today, the young ‘internationals,’ as they are called still come to the Holy Land, but a good number of them are to be found in the West Bank, helping Palestinians to replant damaged orchards and olive groves or offering themselves as human shields against harassment by Jewish settlers, as Palestinian villagers harvest their crops.

This is part of a growing campaign of Palestinian civil disobedience. First in five and then 12 and now 16 villages, locals have taken to weekly protests against aspects of the Israeli occupation – often with back-up from young internationals and young Israelis who oppose the occupation. I urge you all to see the recently released film, Budrus – a remarkable account of members of Fatah and Hamas and Israeli sympathisers coming together, non-violently, in a West Bank village to force the rerouting of the wall.

And near Bethlehem, Daoud Nassar draws thousands of international visitors each year to a 40ha farm which he runs as a centre of non-violence – despite being choked on all sides by Israeli settlements, the inhabitants of which harass him at the same time as Israeli authorities mire him in a years-long legal campaign to strip his family of their land. Visitors to the farm are greeted by a great boulder bearing Nasser’s message to Israelis – “we refuse to be enemies.”

After five years, an international BDS campaign – boycott, divestment and sanctions – is becoming more than an irritant for Israel. Financial institutions in Scandinavia, Germany and elsewhere have succumbed to lobbying to divest from companies with ties to Israel. And there has been a spate of big-name tour cancellations – Meg Ryan, Elvis Costello, Gil Scott-Heron and the Pixies.

The EU now insists that the precise origin of produce and products from Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories be identified on their labels and most recently, the Dutch association of municipalities cancelled a visit to the Netherlands by a group of Israeli community leaders – because several of the Israeli delegates were from West Bank settlements.

The flotilla story is a contemporary echo of the Exodus, when underdog Jewish immigrants faced heavy-handed British opposition to their deliberately illegal landings in Palestine in the 1940s. Told as a potted history on the on-line Jewish Virtual Library, the role reversal is all too apparent: “On July 18, near the coast of Palestine but outside territorial waters, the British rammed the ship and boarded it, while the [Jewish] immigrants put up a desperate defense,” goes this account. “Two immigrants and a crewman were killed in the battle, and 30 were wounded.” Sounds like?

But the Exodus was a pre-satellite, pre-digital, pre-internet and pre-24/7 news event. Fixed cameras on the Mavi Marmara streamed live footage to websites run by groups behind the flotilla and to Turkish TV channels. Just about everyone on board the boats had a digital device – stills and/or video cameras; phones and the like. The urgency with which the Israeli commandos set about confiscating what became a mountain of everything that might capture images or transmit data was revealing of Israel’s determination to control the narrative of their assault on the flotilla. The closest the UN Human Rights Council’s account of the attack comes to as laugh-line, is the circumstances of a witness who “isolated and beaten, described the surreal experience of sitting handcuffed on a large heap of laptops and electronic devices and being ‘serenaded’ by mobile phones reconnecting to the network as the [captured] ship approached Ashdod.”

As masked commandos came over the side of the boat to which Geraghty and I had transferred in the hours before the attack, she was zapped with a Taser gun. The satellite phone on which I was reporting the attack to the Herald in Sydney was snatched from my hand. Geraghty’s cameras also were seized – along with two satellite terminals and the laptops which we had mounted on the boat’s fly-bridge.

Of all the captured data, only a tiny portion of selectively edited material that might be construed to support the Israeli account of the attack was released – branded as ‘captured footage.’

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak defended the conduct of his commandos, claiming that in the Middle East you cannot afford to show weakness. It needs to be stated here that precisely what happened on the Mavi Marmara is highly contested. There is footage of metal bars being cut and seemingly wielded as weapons, of chairs and other objects being hurled over the sides at Israeli Zodiacs and of fire-hoses being used as crude water-cannons. But there is no visual evidence to support Israeli claims that the activists on the Mavi Marmara had their own guns; or that they captured Israeli weapons and used them against the boarding parties. All such Israeli charges are flatly denied by flotilla organizers and by activists who were close to the action. In the same vein, there is footage of what appears to be Israeli commandos shooting an activist at near point-blank range and sickening autopsy accounts of head and other high-on-the-body wounding – the result of a resort to live ammunition which Israel justifies after-the-fact, claiming there was a genuine threat to the lives of its commandos.

But … what is conceded by a senior Israeli figure is that there was no evaluation of the wisdom of attempting to board the ship after the first show of activist resistance – a pause that might have saved Israel from the criticism still being heaped upon it. Acknowledging that Israeli commanders should have rethought tactics, the retired military man who first investigated the Israeli forces’ handling of the flotilla – Major General Giora Eiland – told the BBC’s Panorama program: “Certain mistakes were made by the Israeli armed forces – both by the intelligence and by the commanders of the navy. There was an underestimation of the potential resistance on the ship.”

And that’s the thing – had the Israeli’s pulled off a clean capture of the Mavi Marmara, the world would be thinking ‘Entebbe.’ Instead there are nine new graves in Turkish cemeteries and John J. Mearsheimer is writing of the IDF in The American Conservative as ‘the gang that cannot shoot straight.’

One of the earliest stated objectives of the sending boats to Gaza came from Michael Shaik, the Australian activist who came up with the idea. As he explains it, he wanted to reveal the inherent violence of an Israeli occupation that all too often leaches from the conflict narrative because of foreign revulsion at the Palestinian resort to suicide and rocket attacks. The issue came up in an email exchange in the weeks after the flotilla, between myself and Huwaida Arraf, the remarkable young Palestinian-American lawyer who heads the Free Gaza Movement, a woman who might well be representative of an emerging new generation of Palestinian leadership . Here’s what she told me as I quizzed her on the tactics of non-violence – and excuse me if I quote her at length.

“Israel uses so much violence against Palestinians. But when Palestinians use any kind of violent tactics to defend or to fight back, we are vilified. We are always told that we should be non-violent, but the violence of the occupier is not acknowledged or condemned.

“[But there’s a] mistaken notion that ‘non-violent’ resistance means passive resistance. I don’t believe in being passive. I believe in fighting – strategically.  Israel is stronger than we are militarily, and so I don’t want to engage them in armed conflict. I want to use the strengths that we have, and weaken their sources of power.  This means, using demonstrations, direct action, civil disobedience, boycotts and encouraging divestment and sanctions to hit at Israel’s legitimacy and its ability to rule.

“I strongly believe that unarmed resistance is more threatening to Israel’s colonial project than our armed resistance. Unfortunately, Israel has been controlling the narrative and has turned us into terrorists that want to destroy the Jews. Israel uses armed resistance by Palestinians to promote that notion. Each time we fire a rocket, we are feeding the story that Israel wants to tell, and allowing Israel the ‘excuse’ to further oppress us. In other words, using violent means of resistance plays into the hands of Israeli leaders. When we use various unarmed tactics, we can more effectively attack Israel’s control of the narrative, undermining the legitimacy that Israel tries so hard to maintain in the international community, and thereby we can weaken Israel’s sources of power.”

Despite a shocked, appalled reaction around the world, there was a surge of support by Israelis for their government – in a poll taken a week after the attack, support reached 78 per cent. But if the Israelis could not see the good sense in leaving the flotilla alone, then Hamas could. After a six year period in which there had been just a single suicide-bomb attack, but in which thousands of erratic rockets were fired into Israel, Hamas acknowledged that there was more to be gained in setting up Israel as a target of international criticism for its own actions, than as a target of rockets launched by Hamas and the other factions. “When we use violence, we help Israel win international support,” Aziz Dweik, a Hamas MP in the West Bank was quoted in The Wall Street Journal. “The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets.”

And this takes us to another element of the Israeli bungle – its writing of the narrative headline to tell against itself; the proverbial self-inflicted wound. The world had virtually ignored the siege of Gaza which, as David Shulman put it in The New York Review of Books in June, “is meant to isolate and punish – and in the most optimistic Israeli scenario, to bring down – the Hamas government.” But Western capitals could not remain silent about the blockade after the flotilla –The status quo we have is inherently unstable,” Barack Obama said. Britain’s new Prime Minister David Cameron was more pointed, touching another strand of Israel’s historic narrative by referring to Gaza as a ‘prison camp.’ The groans in Jerusalem could be heard, as he tut-tutted: “Friends of Israel … should be saying to the Israelis that the blockade actually strengthens Hamas’ grip on the economy and on Gaza and it’s in [the Israelis’] own interests to lift it, and to allow these vital supplies to get through.”

Cornered by its own actions, Israel was forced to concede the screamingly obvious – the siege was not working. In this, the Israeli investigator Giora Eiland conceded that the flotilla organizers had won. “Unfortunately they managed to achieve exactly what they wanted,” he told the BBC. “Unfortunately it was quite successful.”

But for Gazans, things changed only at the margins. While some additional goods were allowed in, the rate at which trucks were allowed to enter Gaza was still significantly less that the estimated 500 a day that entered the strip before the onset of the siege; and Israel rejected an offer by the European Union to monitor the arrival of goods in Gaza – as a response to Israeli claims that the intent of the blockade was to guard against the smuggling of weapons to Hamas.

All of this, then, takes us to the wider architecture of the narrative in this conflict – how things are not quite as they seem.

Backed by Washington, Israel still believes it is entitled to select the Palestinian leadership, to choose its partners in peace, as it calls them in narrative-speak. So we need to back in 2006, when Palestinians voted to sweep the remnants of Yasser Arafat’s secular Fatah movement from office and to install an Islamist Hamas administration. Utterly wrong-footed and forgetting the years during which they had left Fatah to the mercy of Hamas, Israel and the West said “NO – we want Fatah.” And then, it seemed, only up to a point. They still cut the ground from under the current Fatah leader and PA president Mahmoud Abbas, obstinately refusing to put on the table the kind of deal that might swing popular Palestinian support away from Hamas to Fatah.

But please do not confuse the current Palestinian leadership – groomed and shaped as it is by Israel and Washington – as even a distant relation to the democracy cure-all they claim is so vital for the region.
The 2006 Palestinian election ought to have been celebrated by all sides. A cathartic moment for Palestinians, the poll was a more consistent expression of the will of the people than most other elections in the region – and deemed to be free and fair by an army of international observers. But because they voted for Hamas, the entire Palestinian population was sin-binned – denied international funding. Half of their elected MPs were rounded up and jailed by Israel, which then embarked on the lock-down of Gaza which over time has been tightened to make the strip one of the world’s biggest and, as the locals see it, the world’s meanest prisons.

Four years after an election outcome that might have been embraced by Washington as the Middle East democracy of its dreams, we now have a once-elected Palestinian president whose term has expired but who remains in office by self-appointment. He in turn, has appointed as an unelected prime minister, a man whose Third Way party won just 2.4 per cent of the vote in 2006. The Palestinian parliament – a rarity in the region – has been neutered. In less than a year three tiers of Palestinian elections have been cancelled – presidential, parliamentary and local councils.

Like the tin-pot dictators of the region, the Palestinian president and his prime minister rule by decree. And they have at their disposal a foreign-funded and trained security force which, like its counterparts in the region, resorts to torture as is roots out political opposition, rounding up suspects by the hundreds and busting gatherings it worries might dare to criticize. Hamas – designated as a terrorist orgainsation by Israel, the US and Europe – has been driven underground in the West Bank, under the weight of an unrelenting assault by Israeli forces and Abbas’ security apparatus – units of which are required to humiliate themselves before their own people, by disappearing from the streets when Israeli forces choose to mount an operation on their Palestinian turf.

It is hardly surprising that for many Palestinians, this amounts to collaboration with the occupiers –further undermining Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayad, at the same time as Israel and the West go through the motions of propping up the Palestinian leadership. This is especially so when Palestinians read in the most recent annual report of the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency,  that combined Palestinian-Israeli operations have reduced attacks on Israelis to their lowest since 2000. A reporter from the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth was present at a joint Israeli-Palestinian security meeting in 2008, when the head of the Palestinian delegation told his Israeli counterparts: “We have a common enemy – we are taking care of every Hamas institution in accordance with your instructions.”

Not quite, says Hamas. In claiming responsibility for the death of the settlers near Hebron late in August, the movement explained that the attack was not so much a bid to undermine the peace talks, as much as it was to demonstrate that the Israeli and PA security machines had not bottled-up Hamas as well as they liked to believe.

Prime Minister Fayed continues to have difficulty garnering popular support, but he is sticking to a plan to knock Palestinian institutions into shape by next year, when he says he will simply declare an independent Palestinian state. What will Washington and the world do when he does? Fayed is opening new schools, planting trees and collecting issuing parking tickets. He cracks down on some of the Fatah freebies – the cars and the cell phones. To some Palestinians, all this might be just another half-way house – perhaps like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘economic peace.’

But to the World Bank it sounds like a plan – in a statement last week, it enthused: “If the Palestinian Authority maintains its current performance in institution-building and delivery of public services, it is well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”

That the Palestinian Authority has morphed to become another Western-friendly autocracy which has been known to dictate the sermons to be read by imams at Friday prayers, was confirmed by a European official who in August told The Economist: “We prefer division [among Palestinians] and no elections, to reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] and elections.”

To shoehorn it into the narrative, the security agencies on which the PA leadership depends is dressed up a local law-and-order exercise – beat cops and that kind of thing. But it is an American construct the No 1 priority for which is the elimination of Hamas – in the last three years the US State Department has allocated $US392 million to the service and it has its hand out for another $US150 next year.

The Obama White House these days substitutes a kind of fawning for statecraft in its dealing with difficult leaders. Remember its treatment of the Afghan president earlier this year? After wiping the floor with Hamid Karzai’s coat of many colours,  accusing him of ineptness and corruption, they brought Karzai to Washington for a week of feting – seemingly in the belief that the Afghan president would forget that Washington had loudly told the world that he is an imposter and a crook.

It was the same with Netanyahu when he was called to DC for a kiss-and-make-up after the flotilla debacle, and after Washington’s public fury over the embarrassment caused by Israel’s announcement of settlement expansion during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden. A big-time fawner, Biden declared on arriving in Jerusalem in April: “It’s great to be home.”

But fast-forward to Netanyahu’s visit to DC in July and The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank is having a field day, arguing that the White House might as well have hung out the white flag of surrender.
“Four months ago,” he wrote, “the Obama administration made a politically perilous decision to condemn Israel over a controversial new settlement. The Israel lobby reared up, Netanyahu denounced the administration’s actions, Republican leaders sided with Netanyahu, and Democrats ran for cover.

“So on Tuesday, Obama, routed and humiliated by his Israeli counterpart, invited Netanyahu back to the White House for what might be called the Oil of Olay Summit: It was all about saving face.
“The president, beaming in the Oval Office with a dour Netanyahu at his side, gushed about the “extraordinary friendship between our two countries.” He performed the Full Monty of pro-Israel pandering: “The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable” . . . “I commended Prime Minister Netanyahu” . . . “Our two countries are working cooperatively” . . . “unwavering in our commitment” . . . “our relationship has broadened” . . . “continuing to improve” . . . “We are committed to that special bond, and we are going to do what’s required to back that up,” Milbank wrote.

But just as we should not expect Karzai to change his ways any time soon, why should we believe that Netanyahu has abandoned his “economic peace” sop to Palestinians, simply because he has agreed to take part in the current talks? Remember all the bluster by Ariel Sharon on ‘disengaging’ from Gaza in 2005 – only for his long-time advisor and confidante Dov Weisglass to put us straight just six months later, when he explained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that the so-called disengagement was a policy feint – a “bottle of formaldehyde,” he said, to take George W. Bush’s Road Map peace-proposal off the table.

And this week, Osamah Khalil, of the California-based Palestine Policy Network, pulled out this gem, on then Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir’s thinking when he agreed to the talks that created the Oslo Accords – “I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years and meanwhile we would have reached a half-million people in Judea and Samaria.”

Bear in mind that notionally at least, the Oslo years were the most hopeful in recent decades, before considering this assessment by Jessica Montell, executive director of B’Tselem, the Israeli watch group, and ask yourself why should Palestinians take heart from another round of talks.

Montell writes: “Since the first negotiations began in Madrid in 1991, the West Bank settlement population has tripled. The settlers are dispersed among over 121 settlements and about 100 outposts …their regional councils encompass vast swathes of land – fully 42 per cent of the West Bank is under settlement control.”
Much is made too, of the coalition Netanyahu heads, as though his reliance on settler and other hard-core, right-wing elements of the Israeli establishment somehow imposed new limits on any chance of a peaceable settlement of the conflict. Why?

Since 1948, a constant in Israeli-Palestinian relations has been Israel’s coveting of Palestinian land – remember David Ben Gurion’s admonition to comrades that they not draw boundaries to their new state lest they deny themselves an opportunity to push eastward towards the Jordan River.

Take a helicopter-view of history and the bludgeon of reality emerges. It is this – it does not matter which party or coalition of parties is in power in Israel; whether the Israeli military, settlers or peace movement is ascendant; whether Democrats or Republicans are in the White House; whether Fatah rules in the Occupied Territories or has been routed by Hamas; it makes no difference whether there is a cold peace or a hot war; an intifada or a Oslo-induced new spring; it does not matter whether Areas A is the square root of Areas B and C; or whether the Arab world is spoiling for war or suing for peace. The outcome always is the same – while it goes through the motions of talking about returning the Occupied Territories, Israel takes more and more Palestinian land and the rest of the world pretty well looks the other way.

How can any Palestinian believe in a two-state solution when one of those potential states is shrunk, square metre by square metre? As Josh Ruebner, a Jew who heads the US Campaign to End the Occupation wrote in USA Today of the renewed talks: “Palestinians paradoxically will be expected to negotiate statehood with Israel while Israel – with the full support of the United States in the form of $US3 billion per year in military aid – continues to gobble up the territory designated for a Palestinian state.”

If Hamas is such a fundamentalist threat to Israel, the region and the world, then an imperative at any point in the last decade would have been an honorable deal with Fatah, a settlement that would allow Palestinians to see the successors of Yasser Arafat as leaders worthy of their respect and loyalty. As it is, these latest talks are set to fail, further diminishing Abbas and Fatah in the eyes or Palestinians and thereby creating new political and emotional space in which Hamas will say, “We told you so.”

Outsiders can see it all – Israelis have difficulty.

I was struck by a piece in The Jerusalem Post at the end of July, in which the prominent Israeli journalist David Horovitz interviewed the departing British ambassador to Tel Aviv, Sir Tom Phillips. The ambassador tells it straight – Israel has made a hash of Gaza; on his visits home to Britain he is conscious of a drift in popular opinion away from Israel; Israel cannot keep several million people under occupation – without giving them full civil, human and other rights. Then the ambassador poses an awkward question: “What does Israel want? Is Israel so drawn…to the biblical homeland – East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria – that it cannot renounce them, even if renouncing them is the only way to achieve sustainable long-term life for the Jewish people?”

Horovitz is affronted – the ambassador, for whom he appears to have great affection, just doesn’t get it. Phillips, he writes, does not appreciate the devastating impact on the Israeli psyche of the Second Intifada; the need for the wall or barrier; the so-called Gaza disengagement and Netanyahu’s half-baked settlement freeze. He writes: “[Phillips] evidently believes we risk making a frightful mess of things … he is far from convinced that we are ready to relinquish ‘Fortress Israel’.”

When Horovitz pleads the Jewish fear of terrorism and the ‘deligitmisation’ of Israel in the Palestinian media, the Ambassador gives the reporter a verbal whack as he acknowledges the cause of Palestinian unhappiness – “hey, they’re an occupied people.”

A few weeks later, there were more signs of Israeli frustration in a Jerusalem Post commentary which began: “Israel has lost the plot. To be precise, we have lost our plot. We are like tragic characters trying to find the story line in an absurd existentialist play. We have forgotten our narrative. Whether from self-imposed amnesia or a wistful yearning for ‘normality,’ we are no longer able to articulate our remarkable story to ourselves or to the world.”

The call to arms was taken up by Dr Dvir Abramovich, director of the Centre for Jewish History and Culture at the University of Melbourne. For Abramovich the trigger was a piece published last month by Time magazine, in which reporter Karl Vick wrote that Israelis were getting on with their lives, seemingly not rating the existential crisis as highly as they might.  “They are otherwise engaged,” Vick writes. “They are making money; they are enjoying the last rays of summer.”

It was the line about making money that infuriated Abramovich – “shameful and offensive… Israel bashing… old-age anti-Semitic stereotypes…. Shakespeare’s Shylock…a pound of flesh … anti-Jewish libels.”

That Abramovich failed to mention the words ‘occupation’ or ‘settlements’ was no surprise. But what did surprise was the reader response to smh.com.au’s publication of the piece. When I checked-in, 60 readers had responded – just five of them supported Abramovich.

There is no peace process. As Chas Freeman, formerly US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, puts it, the process is a hand-maiden of Israeli expansion, rather than a driver for peace. What we have is much twisting of the narrative as all sides attempt to bend it around their take on events. Freeman sought to cut through all that twisting in an address to the staff of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September.
Outlining the Israeli dependence on Washington, he told his audience: “Ironically, Palestinians too have developed a dependency relationship with America. This has locked them into a political framework over which Israel exercises decisive influence – they have been powerless to end occupation, pogroms, ethnic cleansing and other humiliations by Jewish soldiers and settlers. Nor have they been able to prevent their progressive confinement in checkpoint-encircled ghettos on the West Bank and the great open-air prison of Gaza.”

Of the process itself, Freeman was withering – “The perpetual processing of peace without the requirement to produce it has been especially appreciated by Israeli leaders. It has enabled them to behave like magicians, riveting foreign attention on meaningless distractions as they systematically removed Palestinians from their homes, settled half-a-million or more Jews in newly vacated areas of the Occupied Territories and annexed a widening swathe of land to a Jerusalem they insist belongs only to Israel.”

All of that requires deft spinning. A master in the field is Israel’s Ambassador to Washington – Michael Oren. A fixture on the air in the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla, Oren’s late night appearance on the satirical Steve Colbert Show coincided with the career-suicide of the 80-something journalist Helen Thomas, who was driven from the White House press room and her job as a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, when she was quoted saying that the Jews in Palestine should “go home” to Poland and Germany.

Oren was on the Colbert set to talk about the flotilla. But he preened as his host segued to the Thomas issue which, at the time prompted many senior media types in the US to disown a colleague who for decades had held a front-row seat in the White House press room.  Clearly Oren believed he was about to be offered a free-kick as Colbert launched into his ‘I repudiate Helen Thomas’ shtick: “… she’s a friend, but go back to Poland, go back to Germany? That’s ridiculous – Israel is for Israelis,” … and here a pregnant pause which was followed by a fading of the ambassador’s smile, as Colbert continued: “If anything, the Palestinians should go back to where they came from. Do you agree, sir?”

Paul McGeough is the chief correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald. This speech was given on October 3, 2010, as part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Sydney Opera House.

source

Robert Fisk: Israel has crept into the EU without anyone noticing


Israeli troops clash with Palestinians protesting against last year’s Gaza offensive Abbas Momani
Saturday, 31 July 2010
The death of five Israeli servicemen in a helicopter crash in Romania this week raised scarcely a headline.
There was a Nato-Israeli exercise in progress. Well, that’s OK then. Now imagine the death of five Hamas fighters in a helicopter crash in Romania this week. We’d still be investigating this extraordinary phenomenon. Now mark you, I’m not comparing Israel and Hamas. Israel is the country that justifiably slaughtered more than 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza 19 months ago – more than 300 of them children – while the vicious, blood-sucking and terrorist Hamas killed 13 Israelis (three of them soldiers who actually shot each other by mistake).
But there is one parallel. Judge Richard Goldstone, the eminent Jewish South African judge, decided in his 575-page UN inquiry into the Gaza bloodbath that both sides had committed war crimes – he was, of course, quite rightly called “evil” by all kinds of justifiably outraged supporters of Israel in the US, his excellent report rejected by seven EU governments – and so a question presents itself. What is Nato doing when it plays war games with an army accused of war crimes?
Or, more to the point, what on earth is the EU doing when it cosies up to the Israelis? In a remarkable, detailed – if slightly over-infuriated – book to be published in November, the indefatigable David Cronin is going to present a microscopic analysis of “our” relations with Israel. I have just finished reading the manuscript. It leaves me breathless. As he says in his preface, “Israel has developed such strong political and economic ties to the EU over the past decade that it has become a member state of the union in all but name.” Indeed, it was Javier Solana, the grubby top dog of the EU’s foreign policy (formerly Nato secretary general), who actually said last year that “Israel, allow me to say, is a member of the European Union without being a member of the institution”.
Pardon me? Did we know this? Did we vote for this? Who allowed this to happen? Does David Cameron – now so forcefully marketing Turkish entry to the EU – agree with this? Probably yes, since he goes on calling himself a “friend of Israel” after that country produced an excellent set of forged British passports for its murderers in Dubai. As Cronin says, “the EU’s cowardice towards Israel is in stark contrast to the robust position it has taken when major atrocities have occurred in other conflicts”. After the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, for example, the EU tasked an independent mission to find out if international law had been flouted, and demanded an international inquiry into human rights abuses after Sri Lanka’s war against the Tamil Tigers. Cronin does not duck Europe’s responsibility for the Jewish Holocaust and agrees that there will always be a “moral duty” on our governments to ensure it never happens again – though I did notice that Cameron forgot to mention the 1915 Armenian Holocaust when he was sucking up to the Turks this week.
But that’s not quite the point. In 1999, Britain’s arms sales to Israel – a country occupying the West Bank (and Gaza, too) and building illegal colonies for Jews and Jews only on Arab land – were worth £11.5m; within two years, this had almost doubled to £22.5m. This included small arms, grenade-making kits and equipment for fighter jets and tanks. There were a few refusals after Israel used modified Centurion tanks against the Palestinians in 2002, but in 2006, the year in which Israel slaughtered another 1,300 Lebanese, almost all of them civilians, in another crusade against Hizbollah’s “world terror”, Britain granted over 200 weapons licences.
Some British equipment, of course, heads for Israel via the US. In 2002, Britain gave “head-up displays” manufactured by BAE Systems for Lockheed Martin which promptly installed them in F-16 fighter-bombers destined for Israel. The EU did not object. In the same year, it should be added, the British admitted to training 13 members of the Israeli military. US planes transporting weapons to Israel at the time of the 2006 Lebanon war were refuelled at British airports (and, alas, it appears at Irish airports too). In the first three months of 2008, we gave licenses for another £20m of weapons for Israel – just in time for Israel’s onslaught on Gaza. Apache helicopters used against Palestinians, says Cronin, contain parts made by SPS Aerostructures in Nottinghamshire, Smiths Industries in Cheltenham, Page Aerospace in Middlesex and Meggit Avionics in Hampshire.
Need I go on? Israel, by the way, has been praised for its “logistics” help to Nato in Afghanistan – where we are annually killing even more Afghans than the Israelis usually kill Palestinians – which is not surprising since Israel military boss Gabi Ashkenazi has visited Nato headquarters in Brussels to argue for closer ties with Nato. And Cronin convincingly argues an extraordinary – almost obscenely beautiful – financial arrangement in “Palestine”. The EU funds millions of pounds’ worth of projects in Gaza. These are regularly destroyed by Israel’s American-made weaponry. So it goes like this. European taxpayers fork out for the projects. US taxpayers fork out for the weapons which Israel uses to destroy them. Then EU taxpayers fork out for the whole lot to be rebuilt. And then US taxpayers… Well, you’ve got the point. Israel, by the way, already has an “individual co-operation programme” with Nato, locking Israel into Nato’s computer networks.
All in all, it’s good to have such a stout ally as Israel on our side, even if its army is a rabble and some of its men war criminals. Come to that, why don’t we ask Hizbollah to join Nato as well – just imagine how its guerrilla tactics would benefit our chaps in Helmand. And since Israel’s Apache helicopters often kill Lebanese civilians – a whole ambulance of women and children in 1996, for example, blown to pieces by a Boeing Hellfire AGM 114C air-to-ground missile – let’s hope the Lebanese can still send a friendly greeting to the people of Nottinghamshire, Middlesex, Hampshire and, of course, Cheltenham.

pan style=”font-family: arial;”>River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Are the defenders of ‘Antisemitism’ losing their edge ?

– 09. Jun, 2010

Mis-use of anti semitism – Carlos Latuff

A year ago, Americans were reluctant to discuss Zionism or anti-Zionism or read the stuff, even “moderate  Arabs and Muslims” (whatever that means) , shied away from the communities around these two camps and lacked the strength to support the few that might have had, the guts to stand up and confront real controversy.

There are hundreds of journalists who would not want to go within twenty miles of an anti-Zionist for fear of being castigated as questionable and “controversial characters” because this was how most of the rest of the Industry responds to them (the Messenger) against what had become a very successful adhominem attack intended to destroy their effectiveness by attacking their credibility.  He is an… (fill in the blanks with any epithet you wish to choose from the (Anti Defamation League ) ADL’s List Of Epithets Recommended For Use In Order To Destroy The Credibility of Critics.

Therefore, one could rarely ever quote or identify an anti-Zionist, eg: Israel Shamir, but simply crib from his message, the truth and logic of his arguments, and present them as a weapon in defense of the truth.

On the other hand, American-Israeli academicians and historians have spent a lifetime knowingly or unknowingly academically helping the Zionists. Now in the past one year there seems to be a growing awareness in the U.S. and the world and ADL (Anti Defamation League) have started crying Wolf  LOUD… “anti-semitism” as they call it has been on the rise.  It is obviously NOT anti-Semitism, even though they have always called it that and, for decades it has successfully stilled a lot of legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies.  I think the world is becoming aware that this is not Anti-Semitism, anti-racism, or any of the bigotry terms which ADL, The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and the other “defenders,” including their legal staffs who bring suit, and political arm-twisters who force legislation throughout the world have been calling it, and we are just hearing more reasonable and legitimate criticism of a system which ought to be criticised and discussed more openly in public, in the public interest.

And, I believe we are seeing and hearing more of it because more of the public are realizing this daily.

And, I also believe that the “defenders.” are screaming like stuck pigs and those “defenders”  are using the only tools they know how, which have worked so well for so many years, but which are rapidly losing their edge from overuse, mis-use and abuse, the misapplied and false charges of slanderous bigotry and anti-semitism.

The Zionists are so powerful, they will use all means at their disposal to stem this groundswell .  But, they are now, standing on a slippery slope and it is hurting them to feel that they are losing their footing. We can expect to hear a lot more screaming, smoke, loud noises and even some blood, bombs and gunfire from them before they allow themselves to be swept from the pinnacle of Mount Zion.  I agree with some of the Jewish doomsayers that when it happens it is going to be a very bad day for Jews, and many of the innocent few, are going to suffer in the backlash against the criminal many who have perpetrated this outrage against the rest of the world for so long. But, they tolerated it and permitted it, in their name for so long, the same as have Americans tolerated and permitted America’s criminal history for the past decades in the name of their ideals of Freedom and Democracy.

As for all those little deceptive news websites and channels mushrooming out of London pedaling anti-Muslim propaganda, like the Financial Crisis tsunami, it is merely a matter of time before the chickens are all headed home to roost, and before they are all back in the henhouse, and scrambling for what little room there is on the roosts for so many of them.
Foxman, the ‘national’(?) director, who has led the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) since 1987, told an audience at the City Club of Cleveland in April 2009,  he sees lack of outrage over anti-Semitism – “Violence in the Middle East along with worldwide economic distress have combined to produce the biggest explosion of anti-Semitism globally that we have witnessed since World War II,” he said. He wants to know where the outrage is over this bigotry against Jews.

“I don’t hear it,” he said.

Abraham Foxman is right.  There is indeed a rise in anti-Semitism.

The problem is world-wide, and it’s becoming more problematic every day.

He doesn’t hear it?

Perhaps ‘the World’ does not agree with him that we are seeing “the biggest explosion of anti=semitism globally that we have witnessed since WWII.”

Or, perhaps they do not agree with what he calls anti-Semitism.

Or, perhaps they are all anti-Semitic!

Or, could it be, heaven forbid, that they consider whatever he sees as an “anti-Semitic” reaction justified by Israeli behaviour? Most Israelis are not Semites, anyway and that includes Foxman.

Foxman, a Holocaust survivor recognized for his leadership combating bigotry, said the absence of outrage echoes a question he has about the Holocaust.

“Why was the world silent? The world knew what was happening. To know that they [world leaders] knew, is a very haunting fact. Wherever people stood up to say ‘no,’ people lived,” he said.

Ironically the same applies to the fate of the Palestinians today. Mr. Foxman?

“Hamas wants to exterminate Israel, Foxman said, and no country in the world but Israel is challenged over its legitimacy and right to exist.”

I doubt that, which State in the Middle East has nuclear weapons ? and I just offhand cannot think of any other country whose existence is illegal and unjustified, and against all International law.

Foxman said: Any violence in the Middle East is normally accompanied by a rise in anti-Semitism, “this time it was an outburst of anti-Semitism that none of us thought was out there.”

Perhaps the darling, self-hating jew, Norman Finkelstein, should send him his recent book titled: “This Time we went too far” And perhaps Foxman could tell the world how far is too far and when will it end?

“Fuelling the emotions was the economic crisis that stirred a separate strain of hatred, he said. A scapegoat was needed, and “very quickly it was the Jews,” Foxman observed.  “You wonder about the anti-Semitic snickers and comments about Jews and money…”

Just look at the titans of Wall Street (all Jews) AIG (Mr. Alan Greenberg), Bernie Madoff, The junk Bond King Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky.  Israel Shamir correctly advocates:  Hang ‘Em High! “They were proud that the financial charts of the US and of the world were drawn up in a small room by Henry Paulson of the Treasury, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve, by Maurice Greenberg of AIG.  They built their world surrounded by Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman sachs, Marc Rich, Michael Milken, Andrew Fastow, George Soros, et al.  Their exciting new world of Lexus and Nexus was glorified by Tom Friedman of the New York Times.  They gave the Nobel prize in Economics to Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, proud borad of directors of the now infamous Long Term Capital Management hedge fund that was bailed out by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to the tune of $ 3.6 billion. President Bush rewarded them for their unaccountability by releasing them from the burden of taxation. let them pay now for all the fun they had.”

And, what about Israel spying on U.S. (Jonathan Pollard), Or a Jewish Congresswoman Jane Harman trying to interfere with the prosecution of two individuals caught by the U.S. spying. Or the Israeli law that permits any Jew a safe haven in Israel for any crime and cannot be deported. 

With every passing day, the revelation of the true nature of Israel’s Zionist expansionist ambitions, their barbaric and treacherous foreign policy toward not only Palestine and Lebanon, but the rest of the world, which includes identity theft of foreigners and counterfeiting of foreign passports, violations of and outrages against, other friendly and allied nations’ sovereignty and murder by the hand of their clandestine agents  in other sovereign countries, in broad daylight, have begun to shake up and weaken the foundations of the monolithic monument to  “Jewish Suffering and Sacrifice”, which they have erected to rally popular world support for and sympathy with their insidious depredations against all gentiles.

And what was done when Israel assaulted the unarmed US Navy ship,  USS Liberty killing 34  American sailors, and injuring 172 out of the 277 onboard ?  Israel said it was a mistake and Israel apologized,  just like Israel bombs the UN outpost in Lebanon and Israel said it was a mistake.

The U.S. (taxpayer) pours billions into Israel every year as the result of a very well organized effort by Israeli-Americans to control their foreign policy. Israeli interests control their media, such as, their film industry, their print industry, retail outlets, scrap, munitions. Even an Israeli company owns TAS the security operation at American airports.

These pre-emptive Wars for Israel, that are being fought in the Middle East with American money, American military and American men and women are not in the best interest of America. They have if anything, weakened America’s standing and ruined America’s image in the world, which now President Obama is supposedly trying to ‘Change’ if he can!

Foxman further states it’s vital that the International Community make the distinction between Judaism and Zionism in public.

Since the Zionist do not, it is difficult to do so in the same room as them. They assure you that all of the peoples in the barrel are the same, and then criticize you for calling all of the apples in the barrel bad if you point out that there is one bad one amongst them in the bushel.

Foxman says it’s more important than ever that the underlying causes of anti-Semitism be addressed?

It is even more important that the powers of this minority group in the U.S. be addressed, and restrained, in currying special favor and legislation to further “Israel First” interests.
Here’s an ADL study that found 35 million Americans to be ‘blatantly anti-Semitic’ and diatribes decrying the activities of The Palestine Solidarity Movement and others on campuses as “hate crimes” and anti-Semitic, also a “hate crime,” yet they make no mention of the ADL involvement in the campus assaults that have destroyed the career of Prof. Norman Finkelstein, and Prof. William Robinson and many other professors, and shutting down free and open discourse in American University lecture rooms, and reading lists.

Read  Americans Divided By Hate Crimes Bill by  Karin Friedemann

“The meat of the hate crimes bill is a $10 million grant for the establishment of  a federally funded surveillance center” says Karin.
Guess who will receive all of this money, and be placed in charge…
You got it!  Who is in charge of everything else in America?

Selective Law, for selective enforcement, against or for selective groups is not a solution.  It becomes the problem.  Such a Law is, on the surface, unconstitutional.  Will the Supreme court ever find this in some ruling?   We should live so long!

In the name of Freedom of Speech, they are shutting down all freedom of speech, except speech of which they approve. And, they are using U.S. Taxpayer money with which to do it!

It is incredible that the one thing that Democrats and Republicans can unite on in Congress is, blind allegiance to the Israel Lobby AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee).

Or, actually not that incredible, because they demonstrate exactly what anyone who speaks out against Israeli policy toward Palestinians has faced for years.  Jews who support the peace camp are described as “self-hating”anti-Semites. Jews, and non-Jews are told that they are “anti semites.”
It is not really “anti-Semitism anyway,” of which they speak when they use the term as an epithet to counter criticism of all things Jewish, Israeli, Zionist or Judaic.  It is “anti-Semitism” when they themselves criticize Palestinians and Arab Muslims of the Middle East who are more Semitic than most of the “Jews” living in the world, and particularly those who have migrated to Israel from the Diaspora, who are not Semites at all but primarily Ashkenazi from Eastern Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus Region and many people of many other ethnic origins.

In fact, if we wished to identify the greatest “anti-Semites” in the world we would have to recognize those so-called “Jews” who use such derogatory and demeaning racist epithets against people who criticize almost anything having to do with Israel, Zionism and Judaism but who condemn almost everything about Palestinians, and Middle Eastern Arabs and Muslims, who are about the only remaining people of Semitic origins in the world.

The use of the term “Anti-Semitism” is just another example of how language has been twisted and distorted to wring the most effective and psychological and emotionally damaging impact from it, as in the case of their misuse of the word “Holocaust.”

Dr. Yakov M. Rabkinis Professor of History at the University of Montreal said—“To fight antisemitism, it is crucial to dissociate Jews and Judaism from the State of Israel and its behaviour. Our parliamentarians should affirm the right of all Canadians to criticize Israel like any other country in the world, without the fear of being labelled antisemitic. This would be a sure way to rid Canada of the scourge of antisemitism, new and old”
His recent book, A Threat from within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (Fernwood), has been translated to eight languages and nominated for the Governor General Award.

It is all a juggling act with words.  Most of it illusion!  Literary, or vocal sleight of hand!
Yes, World gullibility has strangled Palestine, as well as the rest of the world, also. But, as I have been saying, this is NOT just about Palestine.

Palestine is simply a preamble. But, it is a preamble in which we can clearly see the pattern and tactic which are being deployed for and in pursuit of a program of World domination of a World Empirical force through infiltration of governments and ownership of Media..

Territory is prime Israeli objective in the Middle East. They have never drawn, claimed or defined an actual “boundary” or border for Israel.  In fact, they deny even the “between the two great rivers.” scheme proposed in their scriptures as their “plan.”
But, as I have said before, that when Israel exceeded even the bloodihandedness of the Nazi regime in their treatment of the Palestinians, they lost the moral high-ground forever, and all chances of making a peaceful settlement of any nature with the Palestinian people.
They are no longer negotiating, or dealing with a “Palestine Government” or government body of any sort.  They have successfully destroyed that as an entity by reducing Fatah to a quisling puppet token, and failure to acknowledge Hamas, which they have denied for so long that it would be impossible to do so now.  There is no one else left with whom to “negotiate” or deal anymore except the Palestinian people, and every Palestinian, whether he was before Gaza or not, is now a “Resistance warrior” and “Freedom Fighter.”
There can be no peace talks anymore!  They have gone past the point where it is even a viable point for discussion.
Yes, Israel has self-destructed, and all we have to do now is wait until it buries itself in time, as the world will insist.
I like the metaphor about building houses of cards on sand, which is exactly what Elie Wiezel and his rolly “Holocausters” have done in complete disregard of the basic principles of propaganda set forth by their master propagandist, Herr Goebbles, from whom they learned their trade, that all lies postulated in propaganda must be based on at least one grain of undeniable and unequivocal truth.
Houses of lies built of such insubstantial material not only lack the framework to hold them up for long, but are completely transparent for everyone to see the lack of structure, and witness all the conniving, canoodling, and such which goes on within, and might best be cadivelled and kept behind closed doors.  Once Dorothy drew aside the veil of the Wizard, his magical powers ceased to exist.
Thus it is with those who, like Elie Wiezel, build their houses of cards on sand, their dress of wholecloth.  All the pretence and bluster they may profess will not hold the structure very long.
The most gentle eastern breeze out of Palestine will eventually come and blow it all away, scattering the cards, and lifting the skirts of the Emperor’s transparent dress, disclosing the absurdities he has thought secret all these years.
Fortunately, they are bungling, and it is obvious to even the most dense at the table that they were dealing from a crooked deck.
How many times must world leaders watch them fumble the cards before they learn that they cheat and cannot be trusted?

Debbie Menon:  A long time advocate for peace and justice in Palestine’s occupied territories is a freelance writer based in Dubai. Her articles have been featured in several print and online publications. She can be reached at:  debbiemenon@gmail.com.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: