Category Archives: Zionist entity

Zionist extremist Chamish admits Bollyn is right, Zionists did 9/11!!


Barry Chamish admits the Zionist mob did 9/11:
“But not MY right-wing Zionist mob!
It was those other guys, those Labor Zionists!
Really! Trust me!”

 

Barry Chamish is one of the most radical, out-of-control Zionists you’ll ever meet. Chamish is so extreme right-wing pro-settler, pro-Greater-Israel, pro-Jabotinsky, pro-Zio-terrorist, he makes Netanyahu look like a peace-loving statesman.



But one thing you can say about Chamish: He’s not stupid, he has guts, and he pretty much calls it the way he sees it. At the personal level, I actually like the guy.
So when Chamish recently wrote what he intended as a hostile review of Christopher Bollyn’s Solving 9/11, but couldn’t help admitting that Bollyn was basically right, that the big-money Zionist mob did 9/11 with the help of Mossad and its American assets…well, that’s about the highest praise Bollyn could ever get.
Chamish claims it was the “Labor Zionists” that did 9/11, and faults Bollyn for failing to exonerate the likes of Netanyahu. But the evidence shows that Bollyn is right, and Chamish is wrong: Netanyahu was obviously a key player in the 9/11 conspiracy.
Bollyn cites Netanyahu’s 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism(JCIT) where the whole game-plan for the upcoming “war on terror,” i.e. the war on Israel’s enemies, was developed. Chamish fatuously writes:
“In 1980, Netanyahu was selling furniture at the RIM company and not formulating plans for 9-11.” The seminal importance of Netanyahu’s JCIT in creating the “war on terror” out of whole cloth, and setting the stage for 9/11, is obvious to anyone who reads Netanyahu’s book that came out of JCIT.
In that compilation, arch-Zionist Orientalist Bernard Lewis reveals his plan, supported by the pro-Israel wing of Western intelligence agencies, to create a modern version of the medieval assassins – namely, al-CIA-duh – and use it to smash the Middle East to pieces on behalf of Israel (the Oded Yinon plan). If that isn’t the game plan for 9/11, what is? (Bernard Lewis was the first person from outside the government to meet with George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11; obviously he was there to quarterback 9/11 and its intended aftermath.)
If there are any doubts that Netanyahu is at the top of the list of 9/11 criminals, they should be dispelled by the reports informing us that Netanyahu and confessed insurance fraudster and 9/11 demolition criminal Larry Silverstein is such a close friend of Netanyahu’s that they speak on the phone every single week.
Chamish claims that Bollyn fails to see that Likud and Netanyahu are the good guys, and the Labor Zionists the bad guys, due to Bollyn’s supposedly anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish ideology. But it is actually Chamish who is letting his raving-extremist Likudnik ideology blind him to some of the simple, obvious facts of 9/11, including the involvement of his heroes Sharon and Netanyahu.

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!

Colonizing Nations 101

by Stephen Lendman

My PhotoLast December, Truth 11.com offered a model for destroying and colonizing nations. In Orwellian newspeak, it said:
(1) Global “Mafia” scoundrels target nations “ripe for ‘Regime Change.’ ” Calling them rogue states enlists support.
(2) CIA/Mossad/MI6 and collaborators “arm, train, (and) finance local and foreign mercenaries/terrorists.” Freedom fighters they’re called for the same reason.
(3) With or without Security Council authorization, mass killing and destruction follow. At the same time, sanctions suffocate nations economically. Political isolation harms them further. Civilians always suffer most.
(4) Media propaganda glorifies war in the name of peace. Managed news enlists public support. Mind manipulation convinces people to back what they should condemn.
(5) Invasions and occupations are called liberation. Plunder is called economic development.

Exploitation and imperial control are called democracy.

Might justifies right. Nations are destroyed to free them. Code language conceals real motives. Policy involves ravaging the world one country at a time or in multiples. Nations are destroyed for their own good. Monied interests alone benefit.

Truth 11.com quoted a 19th century proverb saying:

“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.”

Political speech masks policies. News is carefully filtered. Fiction substitutes for fact. Free and open societies aren’t tolerated. Dissent is marginalized and suppressed. Imperial wars are called liberating ones. Human rights are violated for our own good. Patriotism means going along with what harms us.
Terrorism is what they do, not us. Reasons why imperial wars are waged are suppressed. Wealth and power alone matter. Sacrificing human lives and freedoms are small prices to pay. Humanity is at risk but who cares.

Media scoundrels aid and abet state crimes. Where it ends, who knows. Money power won’t sustain a ravaged planet. Militarism and perpetual wars assure it. Peace is spurned to wage them. Big Lies conceal it. Truth is the most dangerous disinfectant. Suppressing it is policy.

Syria was largely peaceful before US proxies invaded. So was Libya last year. Iran’s moment of truth awaits. It’s on America’s hit list. Propaganda wars precede hot ones. Washington vilified the Islamic Republic for decades. Saber rattling threatens war.

On August 12, The New York Times headlined “Israeli Minister Asks Nations to Say Iran Talks Have Failed,” saying:

Netanyahu threatens war. Minister Danny Ayalon called for “an international declaration that the diplomatic effort to halt Tehran’s enrichment of uranium is dead.”

Unmentioned was doing it complies with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provisions. Dozens of nations with peaceful programs do it. Iran alone is challenged. Ayalon wants “all options” on the table to confront Tehran.

Asked how much time remains before Israel acts, he said “weeks, and not more than that.” Netanyahu repeats the canard of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. “Iran cannot be allowed to have” one, he says.

Times articles never say they have no nuclear weapons or intention to develop and produce them. Doing so would contradict imperial Washington.

On August 13, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) headlined “Iran can build an N-bomb by Oct. 1. Cairo coup hampers Israeli action,” saying:

In about six weeks, Iran will have enough 20% enriched uranium “to build its first nuclear bomb….and two-to-four bombs by early 2013, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report.”

According to the Federation of American Scientists, highly enriched uranium is considered weapons grade after enrichment to around 90% U-235. Iranian enrichment doesn’t exceed 20%. Most important is no evidence suggests an Iranian program or intention to have one.

DF’s source is “an unnamed Israeli security” official. He calls 20% enrichment “a short jump to weapons grade fuel.” DF quoted Netanyahu saying:

“All threats against the home front are dwarfed by one – Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear arms!”

DF claimed the urgency of addressing an alleged Iranian threat is “many times more necessary” than bombing what’s now known not to have been a Syrian nuclear site in 2007. It added that Netanyahu and Barak “put themselves in a straightjacket” by:

(1) Delaying two years. It let Iran’s nuclear program progress. It also bought time to “enlist ex-politicians and retired generals at home” to publicly oppose military action.
(2) Both men “behaved as though” Iranian policy is “their exclusive province.”

DF said Netanyahu must decide whether or not to confront Iran given fast moving events in Egypt and an alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat.

In fact, relations with Egypt remain stable. Syria poses no threat unless Western generated violence spills over cross-border. Israel partnered with Washington’s war. It may end up reaping what it helped sow.

In June, RAND Corporation analyst Gregory Jones said Iran can build a nuclear bomb in eight weeks. His analysis relied on dubious IAEA information. Director Yukiya Amano serves Western interests.
He alleged new “information related to possible past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities that seem to point to the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”
Nothing Amano reports is credible. Evidence supporting his claims is lacking.

The window on effective air strikes closed, Jones said. Ground forces alone can work. Western Iranian policy failed, he added. Iran can develop a nuclear warhead “whenever it wants,” he claimed. Saying it doesn’t make it so.

It doesn’t address Iranian intentions. If Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, it could have developed them long ago. Instead it denounces them and urges a nuclear free Middle East.

On August 12, Haaretz contributor Amir Oren headlined “Obama must speak out against war with Iran,” saying:

Netanyahu and Barak are on a messianic mission. They “embarked last week on a feverish and wide-ranging propaganda campaign to market the attack to the press by means of public opinion – to satisfy the doubters and pursuade the persuaded.”

“These are distress signals.” Most Israelis oppose war. So do past and present military and political officials. Opponents “must organize a protest that is loud and clear, sober and not defeatist, whose reasons are rooted in concern over damage to Israel’s security.”

Moderates and centrists should lead it. It’s now or perhaps never, he added, to act “instead of regretting their silence afterward.”

On August 12, Haaretz contributor Yoram Kaniuk echoed a similar sentiment. He headlined “The Israeli Right must stop Netanyahu’s messianism.”

“No one is getting up and shouting: That’s enough. I’m resigning, a dybbuk (a malevolent spirit) possessed the man leading us. He is a messianist and is taking us to Masada.”

“The man is suffering from megalomania. Iran for him is like a demon that has to be attacked so he can die and conquer the mountain.”

Thankfully, Haaretz published articles opposing its resident hawk. Ari Shavit endorses war. Existential threats he claims don’t exist. Yet he’s featured and has editorial policy influence. Perhaps he should read Bradley Burston‘s August 13 “Special Place in Hell” column.

He headlined “Mr. Netanyahu, before you bomb Iran, say goodbye to everyone you know.” Once war begins, it won’t matter why he attacked. He, Israelis and others regionally will reap the whirlwind.

It’s time others explained the folly and destructiveness of war. Attacking Syria and Iran assures losers, not winners. Embroiling the region in what can be prevented is key.

Potential consequences are too dire to tolerate. Global headlines should read better safe than sorry. Now’s the time to act, not later.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
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!

Israel Stands Alone as Zion Faces Destruction

Posted on August 13, 2012 by Rick Bronson

A recent report coming out of Israel via The Times of Israel shows the dilemma the wannabe conquerors find themselves in, considering the international awakening to the reality of Zionism. For the past 64 years, the Zionists have enjoyed the status as the victims of the German holocaust.

However now, thanks to our Creator and the internet, the peoples of the world, and most importantly, the peoples of the United States have become aware of the reality of Zionism and the fact that there are different sects of Jews, most notably those of Jesus Christ and then the Khazars, the evil corrupt Jews of money and power.
The Khazars have always been quite willing to sacrifice the Jewish people as surely as Jesus Christ himself was condemned by the Priests of the Sanhedrin. The fact is the Zionists believe themselves elite to every other life form upon this planet, including the American Christian.

The Zionists are infiltrated deep within our government and represent the heart of the insurgency bent on our destruction. But as they are being discovered, their power is diminishing, thus their present dilemma.

Part of the article from The Times of Israel states:

Obama does not want to intervene militarily before the presidential elections in November, and it is doubtful that he would act afterwards, runs the Israeli assessment, the TV report said. Obama may believe that the US can live with a nuclear Iran, but Israel cannot, the report quoted those in “Netanyahu’s circle” as saying.

The assertion here that the US would not be pulled into a conflict if Israel attacks Iran is erroneous to the extreme as Obama has already taken a knee and kissed the ring of Zion or he would not be President of the United States. Not to mention the fact that thanks to the traitors within our government, the US is bound by treaty contract to intervene.
The article’s next assertion claims:

As for presidential challenger Mitt Romney, he takes a more forceful position, but would probably not have the domestic support necessary to act in the first year of his presidency, if elected, and after that it would be too late.

Again erroneous, as Romney has not only taken a knee and kissed the ring of Zion, but has declared his intent to invade Iran for the Zionists. As for public support, if Romney is elected, it will be a consequence of the most blatant voter fraud since the days of Stalin and of course the consent of we the people will have been dismissed utterly.

No, the reason the Israelis find themselves in their current position is because the people of the United States are already in a revolution. And when we take back the wealth and power of our nation from the Zionists they will be right where they deserve to be and that is standing toe to toe on an even playing field with the peoples they have invaded and committed genocide upon for the last 64 years.

They do have over 200 nuclear warheads, but if they dare begin unleashing them all over the Middle East, they will be destroyed by Russia and China as their countries border the region. It is time that Zion be confronted and brought to justice.

God help we Americans and the peoples of the world to make sure they fight their own battle this time

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!

Israel will not launch "stupid" attack: Iran

Israelis hold placards during a protest against war with Iran, outside the home of Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Tel Aviv 12 August 2012. The placards read in Hebrew, “Bibi, Ehud – Leave the blasts and the effects to real super heros! Go home!” (L), and “No to war in Iran” (R). (Photo: Reuters – Nir Elias)
Published Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Iran on Tuesday said it is dismissing Israeli threats of an imminent attack against it, explaining that even some Israeli officials realized such a “stupid” act would provoke “very severe consequences.”

“In our calculations, we aren’t taking these claims very seriously because we see them as hollow and baseless,” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters in a weekly briefing.
“Even if some officials in the illegitimate regime (Israel) want to carry out such a stupid action, there are those inside (the Israeli government) who won’t allow it because they know they would suffer very severe consequences from such an act,” he said.

Iran’s defense minister, General Ahmad Vahidi, was quoted by the ISNA news agency saying that Israel “definitely doesn’t have what it takes to endure Iran’s might and will.”

He called the Israeli threats “a sign of weakness” by “brainless leaders.”

The comments were a response to bellicose rhetoric from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak in recent days suggesting they were thinking more seriously of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“We are determined to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear (armed), and all the options are on the table. When we say it, we mean it,” Barak told Israeli radio last Thursday.

Israeli media have underlined the threat, reporting that a decision could be made within weeks. They have also highlighted opposition to the idea by current and former Israeli military officials.
The United States has recently multiplied visits by top officials to Israel in what appears to be an attempt to dissuade the Jewish state from targeting the Islamic republic.
“We continue to believe there is time and space for diplomacy,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday.

Israel – the only nuclear power in the Middle East – insists that Iran is on the point of developing nuclear weapons, and says it reserves the right to act to prevent that.

Iran says its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful, civilian uses.

The Jewish state has in the past launched air strikes to destroy nuclear facilities in Iraq and, reportedly, in Syria to protect its own regional nuclear weapons monopoly.

In the past couple of years Iran has ramped up uranium enrichment to a level just a few steps short of military-grade fissile material, saying those stocks are needed to create medical isotopes. It has also refused UN nuclear inspectors access to suspect military installations.

Renewed negotiations between Iran and the five top UN Security Council powers, plus Germany, have taken place this year. They have been downgraded after it became clear they were in an impasse, but not ended.

In the meantime, Iran is suffering from increasingly tough US and EU economic sanctions that have crippled its all-important oil exports.

Israel chooses new home defense minister

As speculation over an Israeli strike on Iran mounts, Israel moved to name former internal security minister Avi Dichter as home front defence minister, media reported on Tuesday.

Dichter, also a former head of the country’s internal intelligence agency Shin Bet, will leave his post in the opposition Kadima party to join the government, media reports said.

The government declined to offer official confirmation that Dichter had been selected for the post, which has reportedly been turned down by a slew of other top officials.

Dichter, whose nomination according to Israeli media will be voted on by the parliament on Thursday, will replace Matan Vilnai, a confidant of Barak, who left the post to become ambassador to China.
He will take on the task of ensuring Israel’s home front defence at a time of growing speculation about the possibility of an Israeli attack against Iran.

Such an attack could spark multi-front retaliation against the Jewish state, including from Hamas in Gaza and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Observers in the Jewish state have raised questions in recent weeks about Israel’s home front preparedness, and earlier this year an Israeli lawmaker told AFP that the country was “completely unprepared” for the consequences of a war, citing a lack of bomb shelters and gas masks.

Asked about his position on an Israeli strike against Iran, Dichter has said that the Jewish state “must have attack capabilities.”

Reports suggest that the majority of Israel’s defense and intelligence establishment do not favour an attack on Iran.

The tension in Israel rose another notch on Sunday when the government began testing an SMS system to warn the public of any missile attack.

(AFP, Al-Akhbar)

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!

Attack Israel, Not Iran! by Mahmoud El-Yousseph

by Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Last time Iran invaded a country was 216 years ago when the Persian shah, Agha Mohammad Khan, invaded the nation of Georgia. That’s still a great track record, especially compared to other nations.

Israel has repeatedly attacked and invaded numeous counties, and continues to this day to illegally occupy land from three neigboring nations.

Iran has not illegally developed nuclear weapons, whereas Israel has developed an illegal secret nuclear weapons program that has produced hundreds of nuclear warheads.

Iran has signed the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has refused to sign it.

Iran’s spies have not been caught stealing nuclear secrets from the US. Israel’s spies have been repeatedly caught doing this, and Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been implicated in smuggling US nuclear triggers into Israel.

Israel is reported to possess up to 300 nuclear missiles aimed at Arab and European capitals. Some can even hit US cities.Iran has no such weapons and has repeatedly said it does not wish to have them, this being in contravention of basic Islamic principles.

Iran has not sold US weapons and secret weapons technology to a US adversary. Israel has been selling US weapons and secret weapons technology to China for decades. Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard sold vitally important American secrets to the Soviet Union, as did the Rosenbergs.

Iran hasn’t been guilty of getting hundreds of thousands of US troops killed or maimed in expensive wars for Iran. Israel has repeatedly pushed the US into costly wars for Israel, expecting American citizens to fight and die for cowardly Israelis.

Israel has repeatedly been engaged in kidnapping of foreign nationals from other countries and smuggling them into Israel.No record of Iran ever having engaged in such a crime.

Israeli air and sea forces attacked the USS Liberty in international waters off the coast of Egypt for two hours on August 8, 1967. This took place on midsummer day with raised American flags and large English letters painted on the ship. 34 sailors were killed and 174 injured.

Last May, the Iranian Navy foiled an attempted pirate attack on a US cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman. The Iranian warship arrived following a distress call from the ship. The pirates fled upon the arrival of the Iranian Naval ship.

Israel has for the last five years imposed an illegal and inhumane siege over 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, causing unnecessary death, pain, and suffering. In contrast, Iran has sent aid and provided comfort to the besieged Palestinians — the very same thing America did to the Germans during the Berlin Airlift.

One could go on and on forever.

However, as a USMC veteran and activist, Dave Evans, succinctly pointed out:

“Anyone who had not sworn an oath for peace could reasonably conclude that the US should be threatening to attack Israel, not Iran!”

It’s about time Americans did something to prove they were the Masters, not the Slaves.
The capital of America is Washington, not Tel Aviv.

Mahmoud El-Yousseph
Retired USAF Veteran

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!

Israel’s Next War: If "Israel" Knew?

Israel’s Next War: Beyond the Lebanon Front

Hezbollah Posters by hazy jenius.
Photo Credit: Flickr user hazy jenius

By: Ali Haydar

Published Tuesday, August 14, 2012

An Israeli reserve soldier rests his head on his
rifle following a training session at the Elyakim military base,
03 August 2006. (Photo: AFP – David Furst)

Today marks six years since the cessation of military operations in the July War. The Israeli military establishment is hoping that the outcome of the current revolts sweeping the region will be in their favor, reversing the strategic setback suffered at the hands of Hezbollah in 2006.

Since the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, every war it launched had its own peculiar global and regional strategic environment which set the circumstances and impetus for the decision to go to war. The war launched by Israel on Hezbollah and Lebanon in 2006 was also a product of a strategic environment that made it possible and imperative.

It was necessary to eliminate Hezbollah, its fighting capacity, and military threat to Israel. Additionally, it aimed to pave the way for Washington to carry out its plans for the Middle East by way of Lebanon.
On the eve of the 2006 war, Israel enjoyed two strategic assets.

The first was the Hosni Mubarak regime on its southern border, which had guaranteed the neutrality of Egypt for the past thirty years, thus allowing Israel to launch its wars on Lebanon, Palestine, and the region without worrying about the Egypt front.

The second was the US occupation of Iraq, a strategic development that promised – according to Israeli projections at the time – the neutralization of its eastern and northern fronts.

Iraq is considered the strategic depth of these two fronts, in addition to its ability to contain Iran.

At the time, Israel seemed bolstered by an international and regional strategic fortification which would be completed by the subjugation of Hezbollah and Syria, through a war which had all its elements of success in place. This was in the wake of the failure of its bet on an internal process to disarm Hezbollah following the departure of the Syrian army from Lebanon in 2005.
Israel’s assessment at the time saw the Syrian withdrawal as an opportunity to crush Hezbollah and smash its capabilities, making it impossible for the party to rebuild its fighting capacity. But as the bet on an internal Lebanese process failed, the war became more necessary and urgent.

The repercussions of Israel’s subsequent failure was not limited to Lebanon; it led to a transformation deep inside Israel’s strategic thinking.
جنود الاحتلال الاسرائيليThe most prominent manifestation of such a shift was expressed by the current Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak in Yedioth Ahronoth on 10 August 2012. “The shock of the 2006 war is the reason the army high command is opposed to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities,” he said.

In any case, Tel Aviv and Washington’s greatest problem did not stop at the failure of the 2006 war. The war allowed Hezbollah to draw the needed lessons and begin accumulating its ballistic and fighting capabilities. The Damascus-Tehran front was reinforced and Hezbollah was viewed differently in the eyes of the Israelis.
يرفع صورة السيد
It was no longer just a resistance movement preventing the re-occupation of Lebanon and thwarting Israel’s plots in the region. Rather, it became a growing strategic threat and a basic foundation for current regional equations.

Arab Spring or Israeli Winter?

The story of the term recommended by Israeli intelligence to be used by politicians to denote the current developments in the Arab region summarizes how the Israeli establishment perceives it surrounding strategic environment.

After the use of the term “Arab Spring” by Israeli politicians and commentators, the intelligence community fell into disarray about what term truly expresses the reality. They finally picked a “neutral” term, “the earthquake.”

Behind the choice of the term, lies the possibility that the events in the Arab world may culminate in a “spring,” which could provide Israel with a regional umbrella protecting its security and existence. It could also end in a “winter” that would transform the existing wave of change to a threat to its existence and national security.

In other words, the postulate currently adopted by the Israeli establishment is that the events in the Arab world could lead to exacerbating the imminent threats.

What distinguishes the current strategic environment, compared to the eve of the 2006 war, was the loss of Israel’s southern strategic asset, despite its gamble that the new establishment would not be as bad as it feared. Bets and hopes aside, there is a reality that Israel cannot ignore. A new process was initiated on its southern borders.

The Israelis do see the possibility of such threats dissipating due to political and economic constraints inside Egypt. After all, there is a strong possibility that the new Egyptian regime will have priorities other than Israel.

However, it seems certain that a state of anxiety is taking hold of Israel’s military establishment, leading it to demand an increase in its budget to enable it to be ready to contain any sudden developments in the Egyptian arena. To demonstrate the impact of these developments, it is useful to look at the comparison made by Major General Giora Eiland, who had held important positions such as heading the Planning Directorate of the Israeli military and later as a national security advisor.

Since the signing of the Camp David agreement – more precisely since 1985 – the size of the armed forces was reduced, especially on the ground, while improving their fighting capabilities. “Moreover, in real terms the Israeli military budget has remained more or less constant since 1974. Yet because the GDP has grown significantly in the 37 years since then, security allocations have dropped from 30 percent of the GDP in 1974 to less than 7 percent in 2010,” he said.

Israel has also lost its eastern front stability following the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, whose regime is currently allied with Iran. “The two new events are expected to impact us: the results of the elections in Egypt [which led to a Muslim Brotherhood victory] and the new reality emerging in Iraq which puts Israel in the face of challenges from the east in a manner that we have not seen or dealt with for almost ten years,” the Israeli Prime Minister told the Knesset on 28 December 2011.

Israel’s Strategic Situation

In a lecture at Bar-Ilan University on 6 June 2007, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then in the opposition, said that

“the 1967 war meant [for Israel] the transition from a state whose reason for existence was being questioned to a state that cannot be overcome.”

He added that

“Israeli victory and deterrence were a critical factor for Arab countries to understand the importance of recognizing Israel’s existence and making peace with it. This had led to peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan and indicators for reconciliation with Palestinians.”

“Starting with the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, through to the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and following the second Lebanon war (2006), this tendency was reversed and it no longer seems now that Israel is invincible. The question about its existence is back on the horizon, not just for Israel’s enemies, but also its friends.”

This description of Israel’s strategic reality, as told by Netanyahu, came 10 months after the war stopped on 14 August 2006. Hezbollah had not yet completed assembling the ballistic capabilities which made it into a vital component of the regional equation, as admitted by the Israelis themselves.

Furthermore, the Mubarak regime was still in power in Egypt and neither Israel nor anyone else had any indicators that it would fall in the next few years. Iraq was also still under occupation by the US and the future was not clear.

Netanyahu touched on that in his Bar-Ilan address. He said that “the fact that currently there is no threat [against Israel] from the east, does not mean that the threat will not occur in the future, if the situation in Iraq does not develop in the directions we would like to see.”
This is how Netanyahu saw Israel’s strategic environment in 2007.

In the regional and strategic situation in 2012, another strategic opportunity looms, from the Israeli perspective, whose prerequisites were absent in the past years.

It is betting on the possibility of toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which had embraced and supported the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine, and provided them with strategic depth. Their victories transformed the regional and strategic equations in the region.

Today, however, many Israeli officials show some optimism about the outcome of Syrian developments in the foreseeable future and its strategic impact on Israel.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
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!

Zionists in Disguise

Over my years of activism on Palestine, I’ve heard many protestations about how ‘anti-zionist’ various individuals who are members of zionists fronts ‘really are.’

The zionists in the US include in their leadership many ‘red diaper babies’–children and grandchildren of Jewish people active in the Stalinist movement–globally or in the US–people who for decades justified Stalin’s crimes and purges with pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.

These people were for the most part NOT zionists, as their children and grandchildren ARE, for the most part, due to the creation of Israel in the interim.

Thus, we have a lot of ‘leaders’ of formations like MECA, ANSWER, JVP, IJAN, etc. etc. who try to cover their zionist tracks with ‘left’ rhetoric.

Recently I had a conversation wiht a USQ member who explained to me that a leader of a JVP chapter, an unnamed person, was totally in support of the right of return, was in no way a zionist, and so forth. JVP of course is an openly admitted zionist organization, for Jews only.

This is somewhat difficult to understand since the JVP makes NO attempt, as IJAN for example does, to DISGUISE the fact that it is a zionist organization. Their charter states quite clearly they are a zionist organization, albeit critical of certain aspects of the settlement policies, echoing the ‘official’ position of the US government.

The liberal zionist activists ALWAYS talk with forked tongues. For example, when talking to Palestinian, they will say they support the right of return, BUT..and there is always a but…they won’t question Israel as a Jewish state..

This line is of course a contradiction, since the occupation is REQUIRED in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state!

We all know how this contradiction is always resolved in practice..

The liberal zionist activists know they have to present a ‘progressive’ face to Palestinians in order to continue to monitor and interfere in every initiative that might threaten their beloved Jewish supremacist state, of course.

Isn’t it clear that the organizations above exist PRIMARILY to serve two purposes: first, to collect as much information as possible about any initiatives touching on Palestine; and second, to use their media presence, which is dominant among ‘pro-Palestiian’ media in most of the English-speaking ‘progressive’ milieu, to isolate and discredit people who don’t have a ‘liberal’ zionist agenda?

For example, Noam Chomsky and Gilad Atzmon, most recently. who have been targeted by ‘disavowal’ campaigns spread by these organizations?

And that the occasional verbal affirmations of opposition to zionism are often designed simply to give them legitimacy? So that they can secure permission to set up literature tables at every conference or event, where they can effectively continue their monitoring and plan these ‘disavowal’ campaigns?
Mark Richie, USQuagmire@yahoogroups.com

Verdict in Corrie Case Expected Aug. 28—Family Issues Call to Action


A verdict is expected August 28 in the seven-year-old civil suit brought against Israel for the killing of Rachel Corrie. In connection with that, the Corrie family has issued a call to action that includes, among other things, printing out the above image, photographing yourself holding it, and posting it to a new blog that has been set up. The following comes from the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice website:


Dear Friends,

The Corrie’s are on their way to Haifa for the verdict in their civil lawsuit later this month. We call on you to act in support. For ten years, you have remembered Rachel Corrie and followed the work of her family and many others to pursue accountability and justice in her case. You stood with the Corries when the Israeli Government failed to take responsibility for Rachel’s killing by the Israeli military in 2003. You stood with the Corries when the U.S. Government was largely ineffective despite their finding that the Israeli military police investigation of Rachel’s killing did not meet standards of being “thorough, credible, and transparent.” Seeking every possible avenue to push for transparency and accountability, and on advice of the U.S. Government, the Corrie family brought a civil lawsuit against the Israel Ministry of Defense and State.

Now, nearly 7 1/2 years since the case was filed and nearly 2 1/2 years since the trial in Haifa District Court began, we ask you to continue to stand with the Corries as a verdict is announced the morning of August 28th in the courtroom of Judge Oded Gershon.All of us at the Rachel Corrie Foundation hope the outcome will provide some measure of justice for Rachel’s killing; but regardless, the larger struggle for justice and equal rights continues. Inspired by Rachel’s work and her belief that all Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace with dignity and equality, we continue our efforts:

  • To seek a just peace in the Middle East and an end to the 45-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
  • To bring visibility to the oppression but also to the spirit and endurance of the people of Gaza and of all Palestinians.
  • To bring attention to the responsibility we all have for the continuing injustices and human rights abuses in Palestine, and for the particular culpability of corporate America and U.S. taxpayers.
  • To end Israel’s impunity regarding human rights violations, including home demolitions.
The Israeli policy of home demolitions, sometimes extending to entire villages, remains as urgent an issue now as it did when Rachel defended homes in Rafah, Gaza. Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and Hebron Hills live daily with the threat (or reality) of their homes being confiscated or turned into rubble. More than 1,000 houses were demolished in the Naqab alone in 2011, and the Prawer Plan, approved by the Israeli Government in September 2011, will lead to further displacement of 70,000 people. We call on you individually and as organizations to mark the week of the trial verdict with actions to end the housing demolitions that deny Palestinians the basic human right of being secure in their homes.Read more

It was back in May of this year that Israel announced Aug. 28 as the date the verdict in the case would be delivered. Here is what I wrote at the time:

A verdict in the Corrie civil trial is long overdue, and if the Israeli judicial authorities were smart they would resolve this case in the family’s favor. Rachel has become a worldwide symbol of everything that’s wrong with the state of Israel, and failure to render a wrongful-death verdict here will serve no purpose other than to further “delegitimize” the Zionist state and its occupation of Palestinian lands. One might assume the nation’s leaders would be smart enough to figure this out. However, I’m not confident they are. Something about the timing here strikes me as curious. If a verdict has been reached, why wait three months to announce it? We should also remember that the identity of the soldier who drove the bulldozer has never been released. While he gave testimony at the trial, he was allowed to do so from behind a curtain. Members of the Corrie family who were present at the time were never allowed to see his face.

For more on the Corrie case see my essay, Rachel Corrie and Daniel Pearl—A Curious Comparison.

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!

Justice for All: Alexander Cockburn, Palestine, and U.S. media

by Alison Weir
Saturday, August 11th, 2012

Alexander_cockburnLongtime journalist Alexander Cockburn passed away on July 21st, an enormous loss. Cockburn was a brilliant, witty, and courageous opponent of falsehoods and injustice. He stood on the side of the oppressed, the weak, and the victimized – even those victims that many writers and human rights defenders chose to ignore.

With his scathing intellect, engaging talent, far ranging knowledge, and quick humor, the Oxford-educated Cockburn could have become a celebrated, wealthy journalist – the kind whose lucrative articles are consistently published in top journals, whose best-selling books are reviewed widely throughout the media, and whose commentary is in demand by the top television and radio news programs.
Instead, he used his extraordinary abilities to skewer dishonesty, expose cruelty and hypocrisy, and spread facts that many wished to remain hidden.

Others have written remembrances that discuss the diverse topics he addressed; I will limit myself to just one.

Although he was not known as an activist on Israel-Palestine, I believe that history will show Alexander Cockburn to have been one of the most important figures in the quest for justice in Palestine.

While most others on the left were largely ignoring, obscuring, or misrepresenting the facts on this issue, Cockburn was exposing them.

In fact, he lost his first major position in the U.S., as a writer for the Village Voice, because of his articles discussing Israel-Palestine and Israel’s ruthless invasion of Lebanon. His pieces earned the enmity of both Zionists and those who claimed they weren’t, but who had what former Voice writer James Wolcott describes as a “gravitational pull to Israel.”

When Cockburn received a $10,000 research grant from the Massachusetts-based Institute for Arab Studies to investigate Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Israel partisans saw this as a way to get rid of him. (He had been recommended for the grant by Columbia professor Edward Said.)

An article published by the Boston Phoenix after Cockburn’s death, “How the Boston Phoenix Got Alexander Cockburn Fired from the Village Voice,” gives some of the details.

The Phoenix, which was then published by Israel partisan Stephen Mindich (and now by his son), reported on the grant in an article written by Alan Lupo, a writer with a record of consistent pro-Israel bias in his articles. The piece was headlined “Alexander Cockburn’s $10,000 Arab connection” and subtitled “A question of propriety.” For his story Lupo phoned Village Voice Editor David Schneiderman, who eventually suspended Cockburn because of an alleged “conflict of interest.”

Other pro-Israel journalists gleefully took up the refrain, suggesting that Cockburn had acted improperly in accepting money from “the Arabs.” Recent obituaries mentioned the incident and continued this spin.

The validity of this charge, however, is significantly diminished by the fact that receiving a grant from an American foundation is normal, acceptable, and standard practice, as evidenced by the multitude of books in which author acknowledgements thank the various foundations that have funded their research.

As James Wolcott recently pointed out in his Vanity Fair blog: “Much handwringing to-do was made at the time of the incident about the need for journalistic transparency and accountability and such but let’s be honest — if it had been a Jewish-American organization or Israel front forking off the relative piddling sum of $10 thou, there hardly would have been this gummy uproar.”
Wolcott went on to note,

Imagine how many Beltway pundits, commentators, consultants and the like are on the take today via speaking fees, serving on panels, free fact-finding trips to the Mideast, etc. Alex’s sin was in aligning with the wrong team.”

The articles in 1984 and since that focused on Cockburn’s alleged “impropriety” failed to mention the fact that, according to prominent pro-Israel journalist Michael Kinsley, numerous journalists have gone to Israel on trips financed by the Israeli government – a far sketchier proposition. *
Governmental funding of journalism, in fact, is considered so problematic that a number of Israel Lobby organizations such as Act for Israel and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy have now stepped in to finance such journalistic junkets to Israel, removing the need for the Israeli government to be directly involved.

The fact that many journalists go on these Lobby-financed junkets also went unmentioned in the articles that brought up Cockburn’s allegedly improper grant and supposed conflict of interest. Also unmentioned was the fact that many journalists reporting on Israel-Palestine have close family – and sometimes personal – ties to the Israel military.
And there is still more to the story – which also is not referenced in recent obituaries. According to a 1992 article by former AIPAC insider Gregory Slabodkin, “AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] was the source of the original Phoenix story.” AIPAC is a leading institution in the Israel Lobby.

In his article, “The Secret Section in Israel’s U.S. Lobby That Stifles American Debate” published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Slabodkin described how AIPAC secretly monitors individuals critical of Israel and feeds negative information about them to the media.

Slabodkin, who used to work for the section within AIPAC responsible for this surreptitious activity, reported that Lupo “said AIPAC had told him the Institute for Arab Studies was ‘linked to a $100 million campaign to sway U.S. policy against Israel.’” In reality, Slabodkin reported, “the Institute had U.S. tax-exempt status and listed individual contributors within the United States until it closed down in 1983 due to a lack of funds.”
Slabodkin discussed AIPAC’S promulgation of anti-Arab bigotry as a tactic to protect Israel: “AIPAC attempted to discredit critics of Israel not by refuting their arguments, but by trying to tie them to Arab money. Making an Arab connection can damage the victim’s reputation, the pro-Israel lobby believes, so long as it can encourage a mindset in the United States that anything Arab-related is tainted.”
While Voice Editor Schneiderman at first defended Cockburn, he eventually went along with the charges, suspending him for what he claimed was a conflict of interest, and Cockburn left.

Schneiderman, who had originally been hired to edit the Voice by Rupert Murdoch, went into increasingly lucrative directions, eventually making tens of millions of dollars by turning the Village Voice and its offspring into advertising money machines, largely through classified ads, some of which eventually got the paper sued for the grotesque sex trafficking they enabled. He is currently employed at a PR firm advising global corporations on corporate communications, crises, antitrust and other regulatory matters, labor relations, and environmental issues.

Cockburn, on the other hand, continued to skewer the powerful, mendacious, hypocritical, and cruel. His biting and occasionally very funny essays were published in periodicals from the Nation to the Wall Street Journal, both of which employed him as a columnist, and collected in his book Corruptions of Empire and others.

A scan of these reveals that in the 1980s he was already exposing the neocons and their appaling agenda. In “The Gospel According to Ali Agca,” originally published in the Nation in 1985, he described the CBS documentary “Terrorism: War in the Shadows,” and reported the implied challenge by alleged “terrorism expert” Robert Kupperman** not to let TV images of “charred babies” and our guilt over Vietnam interfere with our commitment to fighting “terrorists.”

CounterPunch

Most important, in 1996 Cockburn and co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair took over CounterPunch, a small newsletter that had been started two years earlier. In subsequent years they created an extraordinarily non-doctrinaire muckraking publication where independent writers could cover a wide variety of topics fully, accurately, and without being constrained by positions decreed by political orthodoxy.

CounterPunch has covered Israel-Palestine with a thoroughness and honesty that few if any other non-specialty publications have approached. Moreover, it has been uniquely open to pieces by writers from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives.

I am personally indebted to CounterPunch, which was the first general interest publication to publish my pieces on the topic. Without CounterPunch, I think it is quite likely that my articles on Israel-Palestine would never have made it into the small, fairly closed world of highly regarded progressive general interest publications.

While most other media were covering Israel-Palestine very little, if at all – and were frequently obscuring such central issues as the Palestinian right of return, the systemic discrimination within Israel itself, the power of the Israel Lobby in the U.S., and Israel partisans’ direct connections to the invasion of Iraq – CounterPunch contributors were exposing all in meticulous, principled detail.

When former Zionists worked on a campaign to blackball some writers, including two Israeli anti-Zionist authors, for allegedly going too far in their subject matter, CounterPunch refused to bow to the attempted party line and continued to publish their thought provoking, often highly informative pieces.
The importance of what Cockburn and co-editor St. Clair have achieved in CounterPunch cannot be overstated. Without CounterPunch, it is quite likely that essential information on Israel-Palestine would have remained largely hidden from progressive American readers. CounterPunch not only published critical facts itself; by carrying thoroughly cited articles on information that had previously been buried, it also pushed other American publications and individuals into discussing Palestine with greater depth, frequency, and honesty.

The censorship on Israel-Palestine has been far more serious and profound than most people realize. It has pervaded both the left and the right and has long worked to minimize informed discussion on the subject and prevent effective work for justice and peace.

CounterPunch ripped open the curtain.

* Kinsley’s revelation about this came in his essay “Cockburn the Barbarian: Lessons in journalistic ethics from a veteran of an infamous Israeli junket,” Washington Monthly, April 1984. Online at http://www.unz.org/Pub/WashingtonMonthly-1984apr-00035

** Robert Kupperman was in on the ground floor of building the war against certain types of terror. He created the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism under President Richard Nixon. This was in response to Palestinian fighters who had taken eleven Israeli athletes hostage to use in an exchange to free Palestinian men and women held (and tortured) in Israeli prisons. When Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to consider such an exchange, a bungled rescue attempt resulted in the hostages being killed. The next day Israel launched air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, killing between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians.”

When the UN Security Council tried to pass a resolution condemning these raids, the U.S. vetoed it, only the second time that the U.S. had vetoed a Security Council resolution in its history. This was the beginning of a long string of vetoes perpetrated to shield Israel from international condemnation of various massacres and other human rights abuses, creating extreme hostility toward the U.S. and escalating Americans’ risk from retaliatory “terror.” For more information see “The U.S. Cast the First of 29 Security Council Vetoes to Shield Israel” by Donald Neff, Washington Report on Middlel East Affairs Sept-Oct, 1993, p. 82. Also in Fifty Years of Israel, by Donald Neff, published by the American Educational Trust. Online at http://www.wrmea.org/archives/150-washington-report-archives-1988-1993/september-october-1993/7306-the-us-cast-the-first-of-29-security-council-vetoes-to-shield-israel.html
********
Alison Weir is president of the Council for the National Interest and executive director of If Americans Knew. While CounterPunch published many of her articles, she did not know Cockburn personally. For information on American journalists’ ties to the Israeli military see her article “US Media and Israeli Military: All in the Family” at http://ifamericansknew.org/media/bronner2.html

Alison Weir
President, Council for the National Interest
Executive Director, If Americans Knew
 If Americans Knew: 9208 NE Highway 99, Suite 107-207, Vancouver, WA 98665
Phone: (202) 631-4060

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!

Israel’s covert wars in Egypt

With the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Zionist regime has begun its covert terrorist operations in the region to invade and reoccupy Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Israel created similar situation ahead of the 1967 war with its Arab neighbors – as result of which Israel captured Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On August 5 a group of 35 armed men attacked an Egyptian border guard unit south of Rafah (the crossing point with Gaza), killing 16 soldiers and injuring 7. The group then took over an army Armed Personnel Carrier and used it to storm the Egypt-Israel border where Israeli forces destroyed it. The armed men have not been identified by either Israeli forces or pro-USrael Egyptian military junta SCAF. End of the story.

Now who benefits from this so-called ‘terrorist attack’? Both SCAF and Israel has blamed “jihadist millitants” from Gaza strip to be behind the attack. You know the same “jihadists” who have been running West’s proxy wars in Libya, Yemen and now in Syria – the kind of Islamist militants the US and Israel love to refer to as Al-Qaeda. SCAF chief Gen. Tantawi immediately closed down both Rafah crossing and underground tunnels ‘indefinitely’.

On Friday, Netanyahu telephoned UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urging him not to attend 120-member nations strong Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) meeting in Tehran at the end of the month, saying his presence there would be a “huge mistake”. Why, because NAM supports Iran’s nuclear program and Palestinian struggle against Jewish occupation of Palestine. Some western sorces have claimed that under Washington pressure, Egyptian President, who is the current head of NAM, may boycott NAM’s summit in Tehran.

Akiva Eldar, the chief political correspondent for the Israeli daily Haaretz, told pro-Israel Qatar-based Al-Jazeera when asked on his thoughts on the recent deadly attack on the Egyptian guard station: “The Israelis are in a way quite happy that the Egyptians have learnt their lesson, that they have to listen to us, and have had to pay the price“.

The US-Israel claim that Egypt is responsible for keeping peace along Sinai-Israel border under outdated Israel-Egypt peace treaty (1979 which only allowed Egypt stationing of some units of police forces and lately border guard units with light arms. However, after the closer of Rafah border and underground tunnels – Tel Aviv okayed the deployment of a few battalions from Egypt’s second army and air forces units into Sinai closer-to-Israeli border.

Some Israeli watchers have predicted that the recent attack in Sinai – has provided Israel an excuse to expand its drone, helicopter and F-16 assaults beyond Gaza and Lebanon. Jewish blogger Richard Silverstein wrote on August 10: “Israel will care very little for the niceties of sovereign borders. It never did in Lebanon, nor has it ever in the Palestinian territories. The only time Israel honors borders is when a country is powerful enough to stand in its way. Currently, Israel doesn’t find Egypt such a nation“.

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!