Say this tongue twister quickly:

How much wood
could a wood chuck chuck
if a woodchuck
could chuck
wood?
As much wood
as a woodchuck could chuck
if a woodchuck
could chuck
wood!

That tongue twister doesn't do any damage, not even to the tongue.

"Another type of twister, a tornado," says Wikipedia "is a violent, dangerous, rotating column of air that is in contact with both the surface of the earth and a cumulonimbus cloud."

If you follow news from America, you'll see frequent reports of swirling cones of air turned violent across the country, especially in the mid-west.

Sometimes twisters or tornados are called cyclones, but none of the people who have witnessed their houses picked up into the cones much care what they're called.

In the first stanza of THE SECOND COMING, Irish poet W. B. Yeats described another type of twister:

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

The "widening gyre" offers another vision of the twister. Thus, not only is nature at times violent and destructive, but people falling into the conical pattern through anarchy.

Finally, those who twist the truth or distort facts--politicians, propagandists, snake-oil salesmen and major media outlets—are expert twisters.

Distorters have a cause to serve. Media has their owners and readers or viewers to satisfy. Rupert Murdoch outlets, like Fox News and News Corp pander to Murdoch's interests.

MSNBC yields to its liberal supporters, often critical of Fox and almost always opposed to Fox's political positions. If Fox News twists news and commentary to right wing politics, liberal media twist reporting to the left.

Politicians who gridlock parliamentary or congressional bodies serve special interests that support them financially. In short, they're bought by twisters who pay politicians to be twisters for a cause.

Outright propagandists like Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League; David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee; and Norman Podhoretz, Editor-at-Large , Commentary magazine consistently use the print media to attack anyone critical of Israel.

The technique used involves twisted argument aimed at anyone who fails to tow the line of their organization, including writers who attack those who fail to accept any political medicine they prescribe.

This ploy works mainly because readers don't take the time to dig into both sides of arguments and can't distinguish fact from twisted fiction.

In a rant against the New York Times for an editorial slightly critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, David Harris complained that Netanyahu had been the newspaper's "favourite whipping boy for the editorial writers..."

Master twister Harris tried to defend Netanyahu while demeaning the Times editor for his criticism of the prime minister.

The editorial actually expressed concern for Israel, but Harris completely ignored that while refusing to accept any criticism for anything Israeli. To Harris's (and other's) twisted thinking, Israel can do nothing wrong.

Then there are the underhanded tactics used by AIPAC, whose current president is Lee Rosenberg. AIPAC functions as an organization dedicated to influencing media, students and elected officials in America.

Nureddin Sabir, Editor of Redress, Information and Analysis, upon his return from Libya, commented on the challenge now facing Libyans as they embark on a path of freedom from a single Gaddafi prescribed opinion:

Libyans "will have to get used to the art of persuasion. They will have to learn that theirs is not the only opinion worth listening to and that nobody, whether Islamist or liberal, holds a monopoly over the truth."

That's something people everywhere should learn. The only way out of the morass of opinionated special interests is to become exposed to opposing interests. Learn to see how twisters work to deceive.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By Alan Hart * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Dear Abe Foxman,

In your lengthy article Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later, you label a number of named writers and commentators including me who say that Israel's Mossad was or even might have been involved in the 9/11 terror attack as anti-Semitic, and you assert that they are demonizing "the Jews". You also say: "Anticipating criticism, a number of these anti-Semitic conspiracists now try to immunize themselves against charges of anti-Semitism by making disclaimers up front about not being anti-Semitic. Their own works and record, however, blatantly contradict their innocuous self-characterizations."

I have to assume that I am one of the "number" in the above quotation because when you introduce at the end of your piece a few sentences of what I have said on the subject of 9/11, you do so with these words: "After pre-emptively trying to dismiss charges of anti-Semitism, Hart asserts..."

I also have to assume that you have not read (surprise! surprise!) my epic book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, three volumes in its American edition (www.claritypress.com). Except those who are brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and deluded to the point of clinical madness, nobody could read this book and conclude that I was anti-Semitic. The first picture in it is of Golda Meir when she was prime minister, inscribed it in her own hand "To a good friend, Alan Hart." Do you believe, Mr. Foxman, that old lady was so stupid that she couldn't have seen through me if I was anti-Jew?

As I say in the book and on every public platform on which I speak, THE key to understanding is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Here is how I am going to summarise this difference in a speech in Germany on this September 11.

JUDAISM is the religion of Jews, not "the" Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.

ZIONISM is a sectarian, colonial-like nationalism which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and by doing so demonstrated contempt for, and made a mockery of, Judaism's moral values and ethical principles. In reality mainstream Judaism and Zionism are total opposites.

I'm also going to wonder aloud how many in my German audience are aware of two particular background facts. One is of that the return of Jews to the land of biblical Israel by the efforts of man – one possible but wholly inadequate definition of Zionism – was proscribed by Judaism. The other is that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, the vast majority of Jews everywhere, and especially many eminent American Jews including the then owner of The New York Times, were totally opposed to Zionism's Palestine project. Why? They believed it to be morally wrong. They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arabs and the wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the big powers to have its way, it would one day provoke violent anti-Semitism on a grand scale.

I am then going to give the two main reasons why knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism is the key to understanding.

The first is that when you know the difference, you can understand why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (anti Zionism's colonial enterprise) without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic in the sense of loathing and even hating all Jews everywhere just because they are Jews.

The second is that when you know the difference between Judaism and Zionism, you can understand why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hard core Zionists in Israel.

Defenders of Israel right or wrong assert that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same in order to make the charge, as you do Mr. Foxman, that criticism of Israel is by definition a manifestation of anti-Semitism. That, I will tell my German audience, is Zionist propaganda nonsense for a blackmail purpose, the purpose being to silence criticism and prevent informed and honest debate about Israel's policies and actions. And I will add this: "When you know the difference between Judaism and Zionism, you don't have to be frightened about being falsely accused of anti-Semitism for speaking and writing the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. You can say to your Zionist accuser, 'Go to hell!'".

Mr. Foxman, I'm not going to tell you to go to hell. I have a constructive suggestion to make. If you truly believe that I am anti-Semitic, why don't you say so explicitly in writing (on ADL's web site will be fine) and then I can sue you. And that will give us the Mother and Father of a test case to determine what anti-Semitism is and is not. (For some of my in-depth thinking on this matter you may care to visit Anti-Semitism: Zionist myth v truth and reality. There you'll find an article of mine with the headline Anti-Semitism – Zionist myth vs truth and reality.

While you are thinking about how to respond to my suggestion, you might like to consider two particular statements I make in my book and on most public platforms.

The first is this. I do not blame the Zionist lobby for acting in the way it does. It is only playing the game according to the rules. I blame a corrupt, pork-barrel system of American politics which puts what passes for democracy sale up to the highest bidders.

The second is this. The Jews, generally speaking are the intellectual elite of the Western civilization and the Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world. What these two peoples could do together in peace and partnership is the stuff that dreams are made of. They could change the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world.

And I'll add this. I have two driving motivations.

One is to contribute to the understanding needed if there is ever to be an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians. Without it the future is predictable – catastrophe for all, possibly in the shape of a Clash of Civilizations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic.

The other is to contribute to the understanding needed to stop Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against the Jews. My Gentile views on this aspect of the matter are in tune with the warning words of Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel's longest serving Director of Military Intelligence. In his book Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1986, he wrote this:

Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

In the world today we are witnessing a rising tide of anti-Israelism provoked by Israel's arrogance of power, its contempt for international law and its appalling self-righteousness. (In Harkabi's view self-righteousness is the biggest threat to Israel's existence). If Israel stays on its present course, the danger is, as Harkabi warned, that anti-Israelism will be transformed into anti-Semitism, leading to another great turning against Jews everywhere and quite possibly starting in America. In my view the real danger of that happening will be greatly reduced if those (mainly Westerners) among whom most of the Jews of the world live are made aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism.

Also to be said is that the Jews of the world (those in North America and Europe especially) could and should act to best protect their own interests by distancing themselves from the Zionist state and its crimes. In the Prologue to Volume One of my book which is titled Waiting for the Apocalypse, I quote Dr. David Goldberg, a prominent liberal London rabbi, as saying the following in 2001: "It may be time for Judaism and Zionism to go their separate ways."

Today I would say to him, it's not "may be" time, it is time.

Awaiting your response.

Sincerely,

Alan Hart

Extended Footnote for the record: Text of my overview of 9/11.

The starting point for any serious and honest discussion of 9/11 has to be this question: Did the impact of the planes and the heat of their burning fuel bring the Twin Towers down? If the answer is "Yes", there's no need for conspiracy theories. If the answer is "No", the speculative question has to be – Who did it and how and why?

My own answer is "No". In my analysis there's enough evidence – visual, technical and scientific, and from eye-witnesses including fire fighters – to invite the conclusion that the Twin Towers, like Building Seven, were pre-wired for controlled demolition.

For context, the first observation I'd like to offer is that the mainstream media's complicity in suppressing even questions and debate about what really happened on 9/11 is consistent. What I mean is that for the past 63 years – from the creation of the Zionist (not Jewish!) state of Israel mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing to the present – the mainstream media has been complicit in Zionism's suppression the truth about the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. Put another way, the mainstream media has been content to peddle Zionism's propaganda lies. The two biggest lies can be summed up in a very few words:

The first is that poor little Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, the "driving into the sea" of its Jews. The truth, as I document in detail through the three volumes of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is that Israel's existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Zionism's assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most – in the Western world and America especially – with presenting its aggression as self defense and itself as the victim when it was and is the oppressor.

The second is that Israel "never had Arab partners for peace" That is complete nonsense. Just two of many examples to make the point... From almost the moment he came to power in 1951, Eygpt's President Nasser wanted an accommodation with Israel. He had secret exchanges with Israel's foreign minister, Moshe Sharret, who was in my view the only completely rational Israeli leader of his time. For wanting to make peace with Nasser and the Arabs, Sharett was destroyed by Israel's founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion... Example number two: By the end of 1979, the pragmatic Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, had prepared the ground on his side for peace with Israel on the basis of a genuine and viable two-state solution – peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief. But then, as is still the case today, Israel's leaders and most of its Jewish citizens were not rational.

Prior to 9/11, the best single example of the mainstream media's complicity in the suppression of the truth as it relates to conflict in the Middle East is Israel's attack on the American spy ship, the USS Liberty, on 8th June 1967, the 4^th day of the 6-Day war. (I was the first Western correspondent to the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis, so I was in the Sinai desert at the time). That attack killed 37 Americans and seriously wounded more than 90 others. If things had gone according to the plan of the man who ordered that attack, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, the Liberty would have been sunk with all hands on board, leaving nobody to tell the story of what really happened... If it had been an Arab/Muslim attack on an American vessel, it's reasonable to speculate that America would have resorted to a military strike, if not war, on the country or countries it held responsible. What did President Johnson do? Out of fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress, he ordered a cover-up which remains in force to this day. And the mainstream media went along with it. As it still does.

The following are my summary thoughts on the possible/probable involvement of Israel's Mossad in 9/11. Two scenarios – A or B.

In Scenario A it's not impossible that 9/11 started out as an Arab/Muslim idea. But even if this was the case, Mossad would have had an inside track very quickly. From almost the moment of the Zionist state's birth, Mossad put great effort into placing agents inside every Arab regime, every Arab military and security establishment and every Arab/Muslim liberation movement and terrorist group. Many of Mossad's best and most effective agents were Moroccan and other North African Jews because they could pose most perfectly as Arabs. (In a moment I'll tell you the short story of Mossad's penetration of the Abu Nidal terrorist group).

In Scenario A the question is: Did Mossad tell anybody? My speculation is that it told some in the CIA and a few of Zionism's neo-con associates, Jews and non-Jews, including Vice President Cheney (I call him the real Doctor Strangelove) and the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In this scenario Mossad could have asked, "What do we do about this?" And the answer could have been something like, "We'll use it for the Pearl Harbour-like pretext we need."

In this scenario, 9/11, even if it started out as an Arab/Muslim idea, was a joint Israeli/Mossad and American/neo-con conspiracy.

For background a very short story about Mossad's penetration of the Abu Nidal terrorist group. Abu Nidal was a member of Arafat's Fatah but he broke with it when Arafat had come to terms with the reality of Israel's existence and was preparing the ground on his side for compromise with Israel. The Abu Nidal group, based mainly in Iraq, was responsible for the assassinations, mainly in Europe, of more than 20 of Arafat's emissaries who were telling Western governments behind closed doors that the Fatah-dominated PLO was serious about compromise with Israel. An investigation by Arafat and Abu Iyad, Fatah's counter intelligence chief, subsequently revealed that Abu Nidal was an alcoholic

- he consumed between one and two bottles of whisky a day, and for much of most days he was drunk, not sober. His number two was running the show and targeting those to be assassinated and directing the killing. Abu Nidal's number two was a Mossad agent.

It was, in fact, two Palestinian students in London who were activated by the Abu Nidal group to assassinate Israeli ambassador Argov. It was that assassination attempt in 1982 that gave Israeli Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon the pretext they needed to launch their invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut, for the purpose of exterminating the entire leadership of the PLO and destroying its infrastructure... Ambassador Argov survived and quite some time after the event, he indicated that he suspected Israel's involvement (he could only have meant targeting) in the attempt to kill him.

Scenario B has to be considered because it's a fact that some of the Arab/Muslim plotters, actual or alleged, were under surveillance by various Western intelligence agencies for years before 9/11. The agencies who were tracking them as possible/probable terrorists included the those of America, Germany and Israel.

In this scenario it's not impossible that the idea for 9/11 was put into the heads of possible/probable Arab/Muslim terrorists by Mossad agents.

In this scenario, Mossad was actually running the show with key American neo-cons fixing things in America to make sure the attack was successful. From all that happened on the day, I'm not convinced that President Bush was in the pre-9/11 fixing loop. I think Cheney was most probably in control of the American executive oversight of what was essentially a Mossad false flag operation.

Question: How did 9/11 serve the interests of the lunatic right in Israel and its neo-con associates in America?

In their view Saddam Hussein represented the only foreseeable potential Arab challenge to Greater Israel's continued military domination of the whole Arab world. He had to be removed. By falsely claiming that Iraq was implicated in the 9/11 attack, Zionism and its neo-con associates in America set the stage for President Bush to be conned into going to war.

As we know, Zionism's intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein was not a secret. In 1996, under the chairmanship of Richard Perle, widely known in informed circles as the "Prince of Darkness", American Zionism presented a policy document with the title A CLEAN BREAK: A NEW STRATEGY FOR SECURING THE REALM.

It urged incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to have no second thoughts about making a clean break with the Rabin policy of negotiating with the PLO and trading land for peace. Israel's claim to all the land it occupied was "legitimate and noble", the policy paper said. "Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights is a solid basis for the future." After the clean break Israel would be free to shape its "strategic environment". What would that involve? Among other things, "re-establishing the principle of pre-emption (pre-emptive strikes)... focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria, Hizbollah and Iran."

In fact the commitment of Zionism's in-America fixers and their neo-con associates to getting rid of Saddam Hussein goes back further than 1996. They were angry when President Bush the First refused to complete the job when he assembled a coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait. After that Zionism's in-America fixers and their neo-con associates needed two things – a president who was dumb enough to buy their ideas – they got that with George "Dubya" Bush; and a "Pearl Harbour" like event to trigger the action. They got that with 9/11.

But there was much more to it. 9/11 was a win-win for Zionism in a number of ways.

Predictably it provoked a rising tide of Islamophobia throughout the Western world and across America especially. In the minds of uninformed and ignorant Americans (i.e. most Americans), that in turn gave added credibility to the Zionist state's claim to be America's only true and reliable ally in the whole of the Arab and wider Muslim world.

As I say in the Dear America introduction to the American edition of Volume 1 of my book, when Americans asked "Why do they hate us?", they were more or less all Arabs and Muslims everywhere. And I ask this question: What would Americans have learned if, instead of rushing to declare his war on global terrorism, President Bush had caused the Why-do-they-hate-us question to be addressed seriously?

The short answer I give in my Dear America Introduction – the long answer is in the three volumes of my book – begins with the statement that the overwhelming majority of all Arabs and Muslims everywhere do NOT hate America or Americans. What almost all Arabs and Muslims everywhere DO hate is American foreign policy – its double standards in general and, in particular, its unconditional support for an Israel which ignores UN resolutions, demonstrates its contempt for international law and human rights conventions and resorts to state terrorism... A truth is that for decades very many Arabs and other Muslims would, if they could, have migrated to America to enjoy a better life there. Today, however, the number of Arabs and other Muslims who would opt for American residence and citizenship if they could is greatly reduced because of the fact, sad but true, that the monster of Islamophobia is on the prowl across the Land of the Free and licking its lips.

Unlike most Americans, most Arabs and other Muslims know that America's unconditional support for Israel is not in America's own best interests. In fact it's not in anybody's best interests including those of the Jews of the world and Israel itself.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Graffiti like this is often found on Palestinian houses near the Israeli settlements in Hebron. Dec. 28, 2002 – Hebron, West Bank, Palestine

By Franklin Lamb * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Ever so slowly over the past two decades, and gaining momentum since the April 2002 Israeli destruction of the West Bank town of Jenin, American attitudes toward Israel are changing. The American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy polling unit, that works on behalf of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations has argued that the American opinion shift accelerates with each Israeli outrage such as the saturation bombing of much of south Lebanon and south Beirut during the July 2006 war, the civilian slaughter, more than one-third women and children, in Gaza during the winter of 2008/9, the May 2010 murders and carnage committed against the Mavi Marmara, including the assassination of 19-year old American Furkan Dogan, and the cumulative effect of a half century of Geneva Convention and international law violations by Israel against occupied Palestine and Lebanon. Some opinion analysts, like the 2009 Zogby International poll of American attitudes toward Israelis and Palestinians, express surprise by what they are learning from the American public and detect significant changes in American public attitudes favoring US disengagement from Israel.

The NYT's Tom Friedman seemed to concur during meetings in Israel recently: "US support for Israel could shatter like Humpty Dumpty-- and it could get ugly...You are losing the American people who believe me, are fed up with the Mideast in general. But they're also fed up with Israel. When they see their president working hard to try to tee up an opportunity.... And you say 'No, first pay me – let Jonathon Pollard out of jail, have Abu Mazen sing Hatikva in perfect Yiddish, and then we'll think about testing.' It rubs a lot of Americans the wrong way."

Changes of US citizens attitudes toward Israel are evident in Lebanon also. Hundreds of Americans and other foreigners have visited Shatila and other Palestinian refugee Camps in Beirut in the past few years according to the Sabra Shatila Foundation that conducts tours of the camp. Many visiting Americans have been surveyed.

Zeinab Hajj (cousin of Hiba from Ein el Helwe camp) is a 30 something Palestinian born, raised and still living in Shatila Camp. A favorite of many visiting Americans, Zeinab holds a Masters degree in Accounting. She earned it the hard way, given the multiple hurdles to Palestinian refugees pursuing higher education in Lebanon, and has managed to find and hold an "illegal" job the past ten years, but at half the salary of each of the Lebanese office staff who work under her. She receives no social security benefits, although 20 per cent of her $ 500 per month salary is automatically deducted and paid into the Lebanese National Security Fund. Zeinab and her family have hosted many Americans in their small crowded rooms near where approximately 1000 victims of the 1982 Sabra-Shatila Massacre were dumped into the large Martyr's Cemetery pit on 9/19/82. Zeinab's parents trekked into Lebanon during the May 1948 Nakba.

"Americans don't leave the same person they were when they entered Palestinian camps. We Arabs know that most Americans are not elitists, religion-crazed, or racists. When they come and see and learn for themselves, most Americans do understand what exactly was done to us and Israel's almost unimaginable crimes and they support our goal to return to our country. We know the American people are fair minded but their government has been hijacked by Zionists as surely as our land has been stolen by Zionists. In one sense the American people and the Palestinian people share the same dilemma and we have the same need to liberate ourselves."

One is the growing perception that Israel, despite its consistent claims of self defense and accidents, when it attacks and kills civilian populations, is in fact the aggressor and has no respect for non Jewish lives.

Growing American revulsion at the increasing incidents of verbal assaults on Arabs and Muslims, and racist hate speech graffiti by the Israeli public , internet defamation by elements of the US Israel lobby, and seeming encouragement by Israeli officials and some Rabbis ensconced among the more than 100 illegal colonies in occupied Palestine. Two recent examples often mentioned are:

The followers of the late Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu who broadcast his calls that: "All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." And Rabbi Yizhak Shapiro, who lately published the book The King's Torah in which he detailed the "jurisprudence" sanctioning the killing of Palestinian infants and children.

Americans are becoming weary of Israel constantly moving the goal post in the "peace negotiations " and Israeli officials undercutting the American President and flaunting their power in Congress and using the US-Israel lobby and media juggernaut to ridicule him. When Obama condemns Israeli settlement building and calls for suspension, within days, Israel often announces more settlement construction, often claiming mere coincidence.

A growing belief among the American public that Israel takes them for granted and in only interested in its own, economic and military benefits at American expense. Just this week, President Obama criticized Israel for announcing another stage in the approval process of 1,300 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze'ev and Har Homa. He warned: "This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations. I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side making the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough."

Israel's reaction was immediate, condemnatory and harsh. Knesset Members as well as AIPAC staff attacked President Obama, saying that he is ignoring the reality of Israel's needs in Jerusalem. MK Avi Dichter, told the Jerusalem Post that the American people are smart enough to "understand that there is no chance that Jerusalem will return to the 1967 borders. But they are either not smart enough or still don't understand that the most sensitive part of the negotiations is Jerusalem. For their President to deal with Jerusalem at the beginning of negotiations is a recipe for failure." Bar Ilan University professor Ehud Gilboa added that he does not think Obama will "lay off" Israel in the near future. "I believe he has an obsession with Israel. He will want to get the talks between Israel and the Palestinians going only because he wants to be remembered in history as the one who is signed on the peace agreement. We expect him to be a one term President and I don't think he warrants being taken seriously."

More Americans appear to be tiring of Israeli officials telling them they don't understand how to view Israeli land confiscations, ethnic cleansing and use of American cash and weapons.

One poll conducted during October 2010 of Americans living in Beirut asked about Israeli PM Netanyahu calling the United Nations' Goldstone Report "a modern day blood libel." Only 4 per cent of the Americans believed this. But 85 per cent believed that Israel manipulates this term and also the Nazi crimes against Jews during WW II to justify its occupation and treatment of Palestinians.

Opinion analysts at Rasmussen Polls Delaware believe changes in US public attitudes are also due to the collapsing American economy. The US public is getting angry, loud and distressed. Perhaps always a little paranoid, it now more despondent and pessimistic. Americans have generally believed in the country's capacity for regeneration, that a new awakening is possible at any time. Now, according to 63 per cent of Americans don't believe that they will be able to maintain their current standard of living. American companies like Apple and Coca-Cola, Google and Microsoft are putting their money in Asia, where labor is cheap and markets are growing, and very little in the United States. The US government's debt exceeds 90 percent of the gross domestic product and more than half of all Americans don't believe that the America Dream is still realistic and that their country is dysfunctional and its Congress corrupt.

It is not sure how the Tea Party will ultimately view Israel being given annually a total of approximately $ 5 billion and then investing 60 per cent of it in interest bearing accounts while every penny of the US taxpayer money it gets must be borrowed with US taxpayers paying the interest on cash gift to Israel in not yet clear. But isolationism and xenophobia are on the rise with growing numbers of American unhappy with what they see as Israeli shenanigans at US taxpayer expense. Likely Republican Majority leader Eric Canton, one of the three key leaders of the Israel lobby in Congress is reportedly terrified that the Tea Party will insist, as rumored, on enacting Legislation that terminates foreign aid of all kinds if the U.S. unemployment level rises above 4 per cent. Consideration would be given to restarting foreign aid when the unemployment level drops below 4 per cent and remains below 4 per cent for 12 months.

Whatever is happening with the American public distancing themselves from Israel, it is unlikely Congress will, in the short term follow. This conclusion is supported by the just passed congressional amendments that authorized the increase of U.S. weaponry, ammunition and war supplies stored in Israel to a record $1.2 billion, Defense News reported this week.. The value of U.S. weapons to be prepositioned in Israel will reach $1 billion in 2011, with another $200 million added in 2012. Once the weaponry arrives, the amount of U.S.-owned materiel available for Israel's emergency use will have jumped threefold since 2007. Over the past two years, logisticians and war planners from U.S. European Command and the Israel Defense Forces elevated war stocks to the then congressionally authorized threshold of $ 800 million of equipment. Ready for Israel's next war against Lebanon or Syria or Iran-or all three countries.

One pro-Israel group dismayed by the shift in American public opinion is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which sounded Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism (ICCA) held at Parliament in Ottowa "to inspire parliamentary action against anti-Semitism around the world." Fifty countries from six continents sent delegations to help combat what ADL's Abe Foxman claims is a dangerous softening of US public opinion for Israel. The conference adopted an Ottawa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism -- building on the 2009 London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism of 2009, which has built on more than 50 similar initiatives over the past 98 years since ADL was launched in 1913. ADL's current focus, according to Christopher Wolf, who chairs ADL's Internet Task Force on "cyber hate", is" to take the lead and show the American public why they must stick with Israel during these days of Islamist terror against Americans and their only reliable ally, Israel."

One of Abe Foxman's problems is that many Americans are distancing themselves from ADL's nonstop "fear and smear" campaigns.

* Franklin Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel's Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon and is doing research in Lebanon for his next book. He can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

"I keep reading between the lies"
(Goodman Ace)

By William A. Cook* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Murdoch and Peres

What he omitted from that statement is the ADL's treatment of the Palestinian people under Abraham Foxman, its national director, who "...uses high-mindedness and unfounded anti-Semitism hysteria as cover for backing Jewish supremacy and the right of Israelis over Arabs, including by occupation and belligerently enforced apartheid" (Steven Lendman, Socio-Economic History Blog). Murdoch omits a needed clause at the end of that statement: "except for the Palestinian people and their beliefs and their rights under international law." Indeed, Lendman's article refutes virtually every one of Murdoch's claims, laying bare the truth behind Murdoch's talk: see nothing, hear nothing, speak nothing against Israel or suffer the condemnation that comes with the label "Anti-Semite."

"We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews," intones Murdoch as he castigates all peoples as inherently discriminating against Jews everywhere. "Ongoing war against Jews" not "a rising tide of valid criticism against the Zionist controlled state of Israel with its current government's defiance of the United Nations' reports on crimes against humanity as published by the Goldstone Report, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the HRC report on the attack on the Mavi Marmara in May, and most recently the UNHRC by Dr. Richard Falk, the UN Representative for the Palestinian people." No, Murdoch euphemistically conjures up a "war" against Jews, a suffering, weak, victimized people at the mercy of the world's hate.

But there is no war; there is criticism, valid, righteous criticism that decries the wanton havoc inflicted on the Lebanese with Israel's invasion of that nation in the fall of 2006; valid, righteous criticism that watched in horror the devastation of the defenseless people of Gaza at Christmastime in 2008/9 as their homes, schools, mosques, food, water, and gas supplies lay devastated under the bombs and missiles dropped upon them from the skies; valid, righteous, humane criticism that lamented the deaths of children and mothers and the old and infirm who had no place to run or hide encircled as they were by the Israeli war machine; valid, righteous, and incredulous criticism of the brutal attack against the humanitarian aid workers on board the Marmara as it made its way to help these very people yet found themselves guilty of interfering somehow with Israeli security as they brought a modicum of relief to a blasted people. None of these people hated the Jews; indeed, Jews joined those criticizing the government's overbearing slaughter of the innocent including those who joined with me in the aborted 'Boat Brigade" that was to follow the Mavi Marmara to Gaza in June. How convenient to stamp "hate" on all, that by that condemnation they must be silenced.

Not content with such slander against innocent people indignant at the unconscionable brutality of the Israeli war machine, Murdoch chooses to slide silently by the horrific massacres inflicted on the people of Palestine during the Nakba, insisting that Israel suffered decades of "straightforward" military force by those attempting to "overrun Israel." He should read the reality of those days as described by Dr. Ilan Pappe in his work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. This was the beginning of the genocide against the Palestinians as recorded in The Plight of the Palestinians recently published by Palgrave Macmillan that continues to this day.

"Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad-from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada," continues Murdoch, forgetting to mention Israel's terrorism against its neighbor Jordan that elicited this response by the UN: "The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 228 unanimously deploring "the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966?, censuring "Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan" and emphasizing "to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts"(Six Day War, Wikipedia); nor did he mention the terrorism Israel perpetrated against the Palestinians in Beirut in 1982 where they watched the unfolding massacre of 3000 as their personally equipped allies, the Phalanges, mauled and raped and killed the abandoned Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, enjoying the slaughter so much they kept the skies alight throughout the night so their savage friends might not interrupt their savage servility. Instead of providing actions taken by Israel against its neighbors that gave rise to retaliatory actions, Murdoch decries how the world has risen to attack innocent Israel as though none suffer at the hands of Israel's ruthless war machine.

Listen to Murdoch's rant against the world: "the war has entered a new phase...a soft war to delegitimize Israel...the battleground is everywhere...to make Israel a pariah." All media, all multinational organizations, all NGOs have joined forces as armies of terrorists to inflict WW III on Israel that stands alone against the forces of evil. Why? To rid the middle east of Israel. How? By spreading anti-Semitism throughout the world. Who? Polite society in the form of "progressive intellectual communities." Indeed, Murdoch bemoans "...anti-Semitism today enjoys support at both the highest and lowest reaches of European society-from its most elite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes." Where is this obvious? In Norway where the government forbids a German shipbuilder from using its waters to test a submarine being built for Israel; In Britain and Spain who boycott an OECD tourism meeting in Jerusalem; In the Netherlands where there is a reported increase in anti-Semitic incidents; and in the European poll that listed Israel ahead of Iran and North Korea as the greatest threats to world peace.

Given the veto power of the United States in the UN, a veto that has prevented any action on any resolution that has condemned Israel's illegal and/or inhumane policies and military actions against Palestinians and its neighbors over a period of 63 years, the actions listed by Murdoch by European nations are but modest reflections of the frustration that exists throughout the world about the impunity this rogue state enjoys precisely because America "stands united in full support of Israel" regardless of its merciless behavior toward its neighbors in the mid-east. Yet Murdoch is afraid that the United States might be weakening in that support, one of the prime reasons for giving this talk before the ADL. "Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel. My view is the opposite." For some totally unexplainable reason, Murdoch seems to think that a continuation of 63 years of force-of land confiscation, of theft of Palestinian aquifers, of home demolitions, of imprisonment of thousands without due rights, of abolition of civil rights, of humiliation and disrespect that comes with hundreds of checkpoints, soldiers who mock and deride civilians, who are indifferent to the suffering of a mother about to give birth as she is prevented from getting to a hospital, of the psychological pain a child endures, a pain that lasts a lifetime, when the soldiers break down the door and force the father to the wall incapable of protecting his family from such ruthlessness, of life lived behind a wall, a wall that testifies to the fear that Murdoch expresses in his talk to the ADL, a pathological fear imbedded in his very soul, and a wall that imprisons the youth of Palestine who grow to manhood locked behind concrete and steel and watch towers and guns-such is the view that Murdoch brings to Americans if peace is to be achieved in Israel.

One cannot but think that something is amiss here. Murdoch sees only through his own eyes, and he sees fear, a fear that has infected his entire being, a toxic residue of hate against the world brought on by ingesting every day another dose of Abraham Foxman's diatribes against the world. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look through the eyes of the world that Murdoch condemns. Norman Finklestein makes the point in his book, This Time We've Gone too Far: he cites the yearly resolutions of the UNGA that have condemned Israel for not returning to a legal position regarding its neighbor, Palestine.

Yearly, the US and Israel stand alone against the world as the people of the world view the catastrophe that is the occupied territories; recently, the world condemned Israel for its wanton destruction of Lebanon, and again only the US and Israel saw this action as justified yet Israel suffered no consequences for this illegal invasion of its neighbor; following the Christmas invasion of Gaza, the world rose against Israel's inhumane behavior and only Israel and the US stood in support of that merciless destruction condemning the Goldstone Report and preventing justice form being exercised; then came the flotilla of mercy to Gaza and Israel and the United States alone in all the world refused to comply with the UNHRC recommendations or permit international investigations from determining truth. And so it goes.

There must not and will not be criticism of Israel because that is by virtue of the name of the state, a Jewish state, damnation of the Jews. How convenient. Thus does Murdoch erect his own wall of fear around the people of the world should they dare to find fault with the government of Israel. He hides truth thereby behind slanders and lies, seeing all behavior through his own eyes instead of viewing truth as it is seen by his neighbors who suffer the wrath of Israel. Should he take that black veil off his eyes might he not see neighbors capable of love and joy, desiring to live in peace in a homeland large enough to accommodate them, and willing to share the resources of Palestine equitably that all might live a fruitful life.

* William A. Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of The Rape Of Palestine: Hope Destroyed, Justice Denied, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy and The Chronicles Of Nefaria. He can be reached at: wcook@laverne.edu.

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Abraham Foxman

Founded by B'nai B'rith in 1913, its stated mission is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all," calling itself "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, (fighting) anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry...."

In fact, Abraham Foxman, its national director, uses high-mindedness and unfounded anti-semitism hysteria as cover for backing Jewish supremacy and the right of Israelis over Arabs, including by occupation and belligerently enforced apartheid.

One of the 52 listed Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization (CPMAJO) Zionist organizations, ADL disseminates pro-Israeli propaganda and conducts smear campaigns against Israeli critics, under the guise of fighting anti-semitism and supporting human rights equitably. Overall, in fact, its long history is disturbing.

In the late 1930s and 40s, it spied on suspected communist sympathizers, working with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), later called the House Committee on Internal Security until abolished in 1975, its functions transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Later in the 1980s, it engaged in private spying, the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that, in April 1993, police raided its offices, revealing a political spy operation aided by a corrupt police officer, Tom Gerard. Working with Roy Bullock, a political informant, files about thousands of Arab Americans and hundreds left-of-center northern California organizations were pilfered.

Among them were the National Lawyers Guild, ACLU, NAACP, the Rainbow Coalition, Greenpeace, the Nation of Islam, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Bay Area anti-Apartheid Network, Asian Law Caucus, CISPES, and 20 Bay area labor unions, none supporting hate or revolutionary activities.

Later it was revealed that ADL conducted similar operations nationally through its LEARN program (Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network), infiltrating local law enforcement agencies, bribing police officers, and securing non-public information illegally.

Its penchant for spying is now exposed, if not acknowledged, yet so far it's escaped prosecution and harsh class action suit judgments by admitting no wrongdoing, and agreeing to remove improperly obtained documents from its files. Henceforth, it promised:

• to refrain from seeking non-public information;
• contribute $25,000 to a Hate Crimes Fund;
• another $25,000 for a public school course; and
• $25,000 more to a fund for improving relations among Jews, Blacks, and other minorities.

After Israel's "War of Independence," its publication, "The Facts," called supporters of Palestinian justice anti-semites, including Barnard College Dean Virginia Gildersleve, Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Theodore Roosevelt), and former American University of Beirut President Bayard Dodge. Its May 1948 publication charged:

"Their espousal of the Arab League cause and opposition to Zionism has been marked by the increasingly hostile attitude toward the Jewish people themselves. While anti-Zionism and sympathy for the Arab cause are not necessarily indications of anti-Semitic prejudice, there are many whose pro-Arab utterances and activities have contained sufficiently expressed or implied anti-Semitism to give cause for genuine alarm."

Thereafter, ADL used the same "guilt by association" and "guilt by juxtaposition" smears against other Israeli critics and pro-Palestinian supporters.

For example, in 1983, its handbook titled, "Pro-Arab propaganda in America: Vehicles and Voices" listed university faculty and staff members, critical of Israel and Zionism, calling them anti-semites, extremists, and radicals seeking to abolish the state of Israel and incite prejudice against Jewish Americans. Charges were, in fact, smears based on lies, distortions, and half truths, censuring numerous anti-Israeli critics.

Along with AIPAC, the Zionist Organization of America, and other prominent CPMAJO-listed groups, the ADL exerts enormous influence in America. Working closely with Mossad, the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ADL fronts for Israel without registering as a foreign agent. Using pressure, cajoling, and smear threats, it also demands media compliance, assuring one-sided pro-Israeli coverage.

ADL's Top US Anti-Israeli Groups

In early October, ADL published its top 10 list, including one Jewish-led one, Abe Foxman announcing:

"While there are hundreds of groups that organize and participate in various anti-Israeli activities, we have identified the largest and most well-coordinated anti-Israeli groups. These groups are not promoting peace. They are spreading propaganda to assault Israel's legitimacy. We want Americans to know who (they) are and what it is they really stand for, which is to delegitimize the Jewish state."

"These groups demonize Israel through various public campaigns. Their messages are one-sided and fail to take the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into account. They unfairly attack Israel while ignoring Palestinian terrorism and incitement. They apply a different standard to Israel than other countries, condemning it for implementing policies to protect its citizens."

The above statement reflects the last refuge of a scoundrel, blaming victims and their supporters, in this case, organizations for peace, equity and justice, unlike ADL and other pro-Israeli groups. Like all Jewish supremacists, they're for Israeli lawlessness, violence, aggressive wars, isolation, home demolitions, land theft, dispossessions, mass imprisonments, torture, targeted assassinations, and continued slow-motion genocide against millions of Palestinians, including besieged Gazans.

ADL's top 10 include:

(1) Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)

Formed post-9/11, it's been activist against war, imperialism, bigotry, and represents other issues, including civil and human rights, and support for Palestinian equity and justice.

(2) Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition

It's "committed to comprehensive public education on the rights of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands of origin, and to full restitution of all their confiscated and destroyed property," according to international law.

(3) Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

In defending civil liberties, freedom of religion, diversity, tolerance, and democratic freedoms, it combats hate groups vilifying Islam and Muslims.

(4) Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA)

It "promotes awareness and understanding" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict "through educational programs for North American Christians....FOSNA seeks reconciliation between people of the Holy Land in a vision of peace based on principles of a just peace," including "the urgency of ending US support for Israel's illegal military occupation."

(5) If Americans Knew (IAK)

Its mission is "to inform and educate the American public on issues of major significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media." It believes conflict resolution and justice depends on revealing truths, ones major US media sources suppress, supporting the worst of Israeli lawlessness.

(6) International Solidarity Movement (ISM)

A Palestinian-led initiative, it's committed to resisting Israel's occupation, oppression, domination, and apartheid through nonviolent, direct-action methods.

(7) Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)

It seeks equity, peace, security, and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians alike, through "grassroots organizing, education, advocacy, and media." It's the only US Jewish organization providing a voice for Jews and their allies, who believe that Middle East peace is only possible "through justice and full equality" for Jews and Muslims alike.

(8) Muslim American Society (MAS)

As a religious, charitable, social, cultural, and educational group, its mission is to "move people to strive for God consciousness, liberty, and justice, and to convey Islam with utmost clarity."

(9) Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)

By "visualiz(ing) the Palestinian struggle," it opposes apartheid and occupation through protests, memorials, and other ways, highlighting their plight against Israeli aggression and occupation.

(10) US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO)

It's a "diverse coalition working for freedom from occupation and equal rights for all by challenging US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Based on human rights and international law, it seeks peace, justice, and conciliation by "chang(ing) the US role," the essential way to do it.

A Final Comment

The contrast between ADL and the above groups is stark and revealing. Claiming human rights credentials, ADL backs the worst of Israeli lawlessness. Organizations like its top 10 support the rule of law, self-determination, equity, nonviolence, conciliation, and the right of everyone in the region to co-exist peacefully - notions Israel and its acolytes won't tolerate, ADL prominent among them.

Asking Obama to take the lead in an October 19 Jerusalem Post interview, Foxman expressed disdain for Palestinian self-determination, saying:

"Now is the time to send a message to the Palestinians and Middle Eastern and European nations that the US will not tolerate and sanction" Palestinians' creating a state unilaterally. "It has to be made clear to the Palestinians that they have to give up this pipe dream that their Arab and European friends (which ones he didn't say) will give them a state without them having to make concessions or sacrifices."

From most people this comment would shock. From Foxman it reflects his advocacy for enforced apartheid, the harsher the better, demanding all, giving nothing, what he's supported throughout his entire professional life, masquerading as a human rights champion.

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

By Paul J. Balles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

When Time Magazine carried an article on "Why Israel Doesn't Care about Peace", a whole coterie of American Zionist supporters reacted as if Time had become anti-Semitic.

For any writer to cast the slightest aspersion on Israel's claim to wish for peace is tantamount to alleging that there never was a Sermon on the Mount.

Author of the Time article, Karl Vick, writes, "Asked in a March poll to name the 'most urgent problem' facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty."

Referring to the same poll, Vick adds, "Israeli Arabs placed peace first, but among Jews here, the issue that President Obama calls "critical for the world" just doesn't seem - critical."

Time's cover and story on life in Israel prompted more than 1,000 letters, mostly in protest. Several of those letters allege the usual canard that the article is anti-Semitic.

They berated Vick for lacking reliable support for his claim. However, they ignored a journalist with impeccable credentials who writes for the influential daily journal Ha'aretz.

"The good life in Israel is real, while all the rest is somehow blurred, says Ari Shavit who writes a regular column for Ha'aretz."

Here are some of the ludicrous, though typical, comments made by readers:

"So Time Magazine is really sucking up to their Arab bosses. Without those petro dollars, Time would have folded years ago. We Jews have a long memory & will get even in the future."

A typical anti-Arab writer says, "'Never Again' only applies to the Jews. Not the Goy vermin. How much are you getting paid to post here, Arab?"

The type of comment by those who believe that Israel can do no wrong goes like this:

"This story and the cover graphic are worthy of a supermarket tabloid. Time has lowered its standards by using provocative and misleading graphics on its cover, and stooped even further by publishing an article better suited to a blog than a news magazine."

If they find nothing else wrong, they complain about the timing, "This is disgusting! On one of the holiest days of the Jewish calendar Rosh Hashanah, I am greeted by an inexcusable cover story by Time magazine."

One commentator simply said, without support, "What an unfounded article !!!!"

If a publication doesn't say what you want it to say, cancel your subscription. You may have to explain how you happened to read the offending article. This one doesn't:

"Hurrah for all of those who were nauseated by this latest piece of crass and untrue journalism by Time Magazine. I cancelled my subscription long ago and can only recommend that, if you are interested in what is going on in the Middle East, Time is not the place to find out."

Here's the gold-medal winner. "Wow! What's next? An update to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

Calling "the article and its arguments wrong, inappropriate and offensive," Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman repeated the age-old propaganda line about Israel's desire for peace:

"Ignored is the decades-long yearning of Israelis for peace and the tremendous efforts successive Israeli governments have made in pursuit of reconciliation."

Both the Israelis and the American Zionists have been lying and brainwashing others for so long they believe the propaganda themselves.

If there's any sincerity in the minds of those who say that Israel wants peace, they need to stop believing that Israel can do no wrong.

Israel needs to stop being a propaganda machine refusing to accept criticism and failing to indulge in self-criticism.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

By Jeff Gates* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Hate is a harsh word. As the counterpoint to love, hate reigns supreme among those emotions that the faith traditions seek to expunge from the human heart.

Hate we're told is the face of evil seen in plumes of smoke and ash on 911. Yet hate also serves a purpose for those adept at catalyzing conflicts.

In the aftermath of that horrific event, hate we're assured is a desired emotional state. Yet induced hate led us into two unwinnable wars. Hate may yet take us into Iran. Or Pakistan.

That hate is also bankrupting us both financially and psychologically.

This 4-part series identifies those who induce us to hate-and describes how.

1. The Hate Mongers Among Us

2. Signs of a Rift with Israel?

3. The Use of Pliable and Reliable Assets to Advance a Narrative

4. Staying on Message to Advance a Narrative

As the "how" of hate mongering becomes transparent, its common source will become apparent. With transparency comes accountability. That's when you can watch for hate to emerge yet again to shield those who hide behind the toxic charge of "anti-Semitism."

With the shared knowledge of how hate is evoked and sustained, those provoked to hate can say with confidence "Never Again" to those complicit in inducing this evil.

Timing is Everything

Hate can be personal or geopolitical. Those who induced us to war in the Middle East made it personal. The murderous provocation of 911 was emotionally wrenching and intensely personal. As a people, our gut reaction ensured that support for the war would become widespread.

In the aftermath of that mass murder on U.S. soil, Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic, summed up the situation: "We are all Israelis now."

So now we can all be persuaded to hate Muslims-even if we've never met one.

The shared mental environment was flooded with what then seemed like plausible justifications for the invasion of Iraq: Iraqi WMD; Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda; Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague; Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories; Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger.

We now know that all those rationales were fixed around a preset agenda. Yet a critical mass of false beliefs sufficed to take us to war. For those skilled at inducing hate, consensus beliefs need not be true, they need only be credible-and only for a limited time.

With a corrupt consensus ruling the day, anyone offering proof that Iraq was not a threat was dismissed as unpatriotic or soft on terrorism.

This 911-prompted hate fest started with Iraq, a former ally, as a U.S.-led invasion kicked off The Clash of Civilizations. The bravado of "bring 'em on" quickly became "shock and awe" as a vicious invasion was pursued with a relaxed "Aw Shucks" attitude supported with a media campaign comprised of photo ops of a commander-in-chief nonchalantly clearing brush at his home in Crawford, Texas.

Brand America became "We're still the world's biggest and baddest in the war-waging business. Just you watch."

And watch us go broke as America led an Atlantic coalition that, like Israel, alienated much of the Muslim world.

An Invalid War

Plus there's another strategic problem: our reason for invading Iraq was "invalid." That's the assessment of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He should know. After the invasion, the invalid storyline quickly shifted to "Saddam the Evil Doer" as our rationale.

How can the rationale be invalid? If we're all Israelis now, surely that entitles us to invade lands belonging to Muslims, kill them, transform them into refugees and, with impunity, create widespread outrage among the broader Muslim population.

Let's fast-forward to nine years after a high-profile slaughter in Manhattan and survey our success in the stark light of hindsight. Are we more secure? Are we more prosperous? Are Americans facing a brighter future? Are our children proud of the outcome?

Israel has occupied Palestinian land for more than six decades. The September 13^th issue of Time magazine captured the Israeli sentiment: "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace."

Israelis are too busy prospering to care. Outraged Muslims are a nuisance but they're now largely marginalized and, for the most part, manageable. Is that what happened to us? Have Americans become Israelis?

Not long ago an internal poll of friendly foreign intelligence agencies ranked our best and worst allies-those who behave as friends to the U.S. versus those who are clearly foes. Israel ranked dead last as a reliable ally. Though their brazen theft of technical and industrial secrets is well known among those in the know, the broader U.S. public remains deceived or in denial.

Most Americans still see Israel as an ally. The facts confirm that's a dangerous delusion.

Meanwhile Mossad agents are recruiting Arab-Americans to spy on their neighbors in the U.S. Though Tel Aviv is called on the carpet three times as often as other nations, Israel still ranks third in the aggressiveness of its U.S. operations, behind only China and Russia.

That ranking may well be out of date with Israel now first in foreign operations on U.S. soil.

Other Telling Signs

Zionist Jews deployed terror and intimidation to occupy Muslim lands long before Harry Truman was induced in 1948 to recognize an extremist enclave as a legitimate nation state. Disputes over land remain at the heart of the expansionist agenda for Greater Israel.

On September 7^th, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas asked that the U.S. settle a dispute over the Israeli expansion of settlements that threaten to derail Mideast peace talks. Those talks have dragged on since 1967. Settling those disputes would disrupt the Zionist agenda.

In a telling rebuke, on September 12^th, Tel Aviv rejected a proposed visit to Israel by the foreign ministers of France, Spain, Britain, Germany and Italy. Why? These senior diplomats sought a remedy to that dispute in order to achieve a long-evasive peace.

Therein lies Israel's strategic strength. Absent this sustained provocation (43 years and counting), hatred might subside and peace may become a possibility. That's a danger Tel Aviv works hard to avoid.

September 12^th also saw the release of a new report indicating that 2,066 new homes would be constructed in the West Bank as soon as the temporary freeze expires September 26^th.

Meanwhile back in the U.S., Americans remain unaware of how many contracts for Homeland Security were awarded to Israeli firms or to firms owned by pro-Israelis. Nor do Americans realize how many Homeland Security outlays have been directed to Jewish community centers.

That's all the more reason for Zionists-both Jewish and Christian-to create an uproar about an Islamic Community Center planned for construction two blocks from the 911 site in Manhattan.

And all the more reason for a Christian-Zionist preacher to designate the ninth anniversary of 911 as "International Burn a Koran Day" at his 50-member church.

The Koran gambit gained global attention, stoked by a media dominated by Jewish Zionists. High profile political personalities ensured that this hate-mongering stunt was kept in the forefront of international news coverage in the lead-up to the anniversary of modern history's best-known hate-mongering provocation.

Signs of a rift between U.S. politicians and U.S. national security

Even with the media support required to sustain hate in plain sight, today's background chatter suggests that those worried about U.S. national security are at work in the shadows to counter the influence of the Israel lobby.

If so, that is good news-for the United States.

When Israeli-American writer Jeff Goldberg appeared again in the news, you knew psy-ops were underway. In March 2002, Goldberg published in The New Yorker a lengthy story alleging an alliance between the religious jihadists of Al Qaeda and the secular Baathists of Iraq.

Though a nonsensical premise, his account made such an alliance appear plausible to a public lacking in knowledge of the Middle East. Goldberg's storyline made it easier for Saddam Hussein to be portrayed as both an Evil Doer and a threat to the U.S.

Goldberg's collaborator was James Woolsey, a former Director of the CIA and an avid Zionist. Woolsey assured us that Iraqi intelligence officials met in Prague with Al Qaeda. By association, his stature in intelligence lent credibility to phony intelligence fixed around an Israeli agenda.

Goldberg reemerged in July to promote Evil Doer status for Iran. Writing in the July 22^nd issue of The Atlantic, he argued the Israeli case for bombing Iran and urged that the U.S. again join the fray. No one in mainstream media mentioned his earlier manipulation.

Based on the consistency of his "journalism," it came as no surprise to see Goldberg reemerge just in time for the ninth anniversary of 911. Aided by an array of false intelligence reported by a complicit media, that murderous provocation helped persuade the U.S. to invade Iraq to remove Evil Doer Saddam Hussein.

That March 2003 agenda was first promoted in 1996 in A Clean Break, a strategy paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu by an Israeli-American team led by Richard Perle. This Jewish-Zionist operative re-emerged in July 2001 to chair the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board where he was joined by Woolsey and others supportive of this Israeli agenda.

Advancing the Narrative

Fast-forward to September 2010 and we find Goldberg back at work promoting his interview with Fidel Castro. Emerging fact patterns suggest it came as no surprise to our national security apparatus that the theme of this latest well-timed Goldberg article was the Cuban leader's concern that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "anti-Semitic."

The timing of this report came as a surprise to those aware that Castro has long been critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Goldberg reports he was "summoned" to Havana to discuss Castro's fears of a global nuclear war. After conceding in the interview that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis "wasn't worth it," Castro turned to a theme of topical importance to Tel Aviv, insisting that the Iranian government must understand that Jews "were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world."

Knowing Cuba's pre-revolution alliance with Meyer Lansky and other kingpins in Jewish organized crime, one must wonder if this "journalist" was dispatched to commence negotiations for gambling concessions as a means to fill the Castro government's depleted coffers.

The recent relaxation of restrictions on travel to Cuba may signal a pending return to Cuba's "glory days" as a nearby haven for organized crime.

Castro's well-timed comments about persecuted Jews may have been a signal that Cuba is again open for business-any business. At the very least, his comments were like a healing balm to nationalist Zionist settlers who have plans to construct another 19,000 home in the West Bank.

So much for those who seek to quell Israel's long-running land dispute with the Palestinians in order to keep peace talks on track.

Within two days of the release of the Goldberg interview, vandals in Sacramento, California used a swastika to deface an image of Israeli basketball star Omri Casspi. The identity of the vandals has not been confirmed.

This much has been confirmed: timing is everything when seeking to sustain a storyline. Casting Castro as pro-Israeli was a stroke of genius.

Here's where it starts of get interesting as Americans wake up to find themselves unwitting combatants in the first real Information Age War. When waging modern-day warfare in the shared field of consciousness, media is routinely deployed to displace facts with false beliefs.

Thus the need for substantial and sustained influence in that domain by those determined to shape the political narrative. No one does that better than those who induced the world's greatest super power to wage a war on their behalf.

Recent developments suggest that the dynamics may be shifting in the "field" where political narratives are advanced and where today's wars are either won or lost. That field is the shared field of consciousness where consensus beliefs are created and sustained.

In news reported from the Middle East on September 10, Washington took a surprising stance in support of Iranian claims that Tehran was not building a new uranium enrichment facility. That statement came after an Iranian dissident group, in a well-timed release, charged that Iran had a new secret nuclear site 120 kilometers north of Tehran.

That disclaimer preempted a lead editorial in The New York Times published in the U.S. later that same day-just before the ninth anniversary of 911. That editorial sought to give credence to a report that had already been dismissed as not credible.

Was this an example of U.S. national security attempting to reclaim the narrative? Does this signal a new aggressiveness by the U.S. in waging field-based warfare against those whose successful deceptions led us to war in the Middle East?

Two days prior, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech stating "there may not be another chance" for Mideast peace. That statement came the same day that a senior Palestinian negotiator confirmed they would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Clinton said nothing.

Could these developments signal a crack in the Zionist agenda that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for more than six decades? Are Zionists losing their chokehold on the White House?

If so, will the Israel lobby again rally Congress to Israel's defense?

Will we see another "unbreakable bond" resolution urging that U.S. interests continue to take second place to Tel Aviv's agenda for the region?

Will the national security interests of the U.S. prevail or will Zionist goals again triumph?

Timing is Everything

While these events were unfolding, The New York Times continued to stoke the controversy surrounding "International Burn A Koran Day."

The nation's "newspaper of record" conceded that this well-timed controversy began with local coverage by The Gainesville Sun (owned by The New York Times) when pastor Terry Jones posted a sign outside his small church that read "Islam is of the devil."

By August 26^th, The Times was prepared to publish a major article on Jones and the anti-Islam views of his 50-member congregation. By September 9^th, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was prepared to say with confidence that Zionists were responsible for the Jones plan to burn a Koran on 911.

In a fortuitous case of timing, recordings played in a federal courtroom on September 8^th showed how a government informer induced a 2009 synagogue bomb plot in New York. The recordings made it clear that those on trial as "homegrown terrorists bent on jihad" were not even modestly well versed in Islam. To make a plausible case for later use in the courtroom, the informer prompted comments consistent with the hate-mongering motivation at the heart of the prosecution's case.

Do these small chinks in the Zionist armor suggest that Israeli dominance of U.S. foreign policy may be drawing to a close?

The Use of Pliable and Reliable Assets to Advance a Narrative

Many of America's most prominent political leaders were induced to comment on "International Burn A Koran Day"-a high profile provocation proposed by a Christian-Zionist preacher with a small congregation in a small town in Florida.

When U.S. General David Petraeus spoke out against the proposal, the issue immediately gained an international profile as did Pastor Terry Jones who quickly became an international celebrity.

One need not dig deep to identify who may have advised General Petraeus to grant a global profile to a provocation consistent with Israeli goals for the region.

In March, as head of Central Command, Petraeus offered testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee confirming facts that have long been obvious but are seldom mentioned: our "special relationship" with Israel and its oppressive occupation of Palestine undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East and endanger American personnel. Read it for yourself:

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests... Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas...."

Petraeus is often spoken of as a potential Republican presidential candidate. Thus the chagrin among some in Washington when this high profile military leader appeared to curry favor with Max Boot, a former Wall Street Journal op-ed editor and outspoken Zionist. In an apparent attempt to soften the candor of his written testimony before the Senate, he wrote to Boot:

"Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?! And that I will be the speaker at?the 65^th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps in mid-Apr at the Capitol Dome..."

Boot wrote back to assure him that those comments were not necessary as Petraeus had not been described as anti-Semitic. Boot then posted a pro-Petraeus piece on the website for Commentary, a neoconservative publication, assuring readers that the general is not anti-Israel and dismissing his anti-Israel comments as inserted by staff in his statement-that Petraeus reviewed.

The Supporting Cast

After General Petraeus, now senior commander in Afghanistan, created a high profile for the Burn-A-Koran controversy, comments were offered by Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. With that, the provocation went viral.

These fuel-the-fire comments were followed by a personal appeal to Pastor Jones in a phone call from Defense Secretary Robert Gates that also went viral.

As any game theorist could predict, even the possibility of such a psy-ops (a Koran book burning) was guaranteed to galvanize anti-American sentiments and catalyze anti-American demonstrations. As the book burning gained steadily more profile, this provocation increased the probability of catalyzing long-lasting anti-American sentiments.

This stunt bears a remarkable resemblance to a Newsweek story alleging that a U.S. soldier flushed a Koran down the toilet. Though that May 2005 account by Michael Isikoff was later withdrawn in substantial part, its publication provoked an earlier well-timed response by setting off anti-American demonstrations in Muslim countries worldwide.

At first, the story gained only scant attention. That muted response changed dramatically when Pakistani cricket star Imran Khan gave Isikoff's story an international profile by announcing from Islamabad that American military personnel had desecrated a holy Islamic text.

That's when this Clash of Civilizations-catalyzing, U.S.-discrediting account went viral. In practical effect, Khan's celebrity was appropriated to associate the U.S. military with conduct similar in its psy-ops effect to the profile given an American proposing to burn a Koran.

Newsweek was recently acquired by Sidney Harman, the husband of California Congresswoman Jane Harman, the Jewish Zionist chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security. At the time of this provocation, Newsweek was a magazine affiliate of The Washington Post newspaper, an influential opinion-shaping newspaper based in the nation's capital.

In the annals of "field-based warfare," the Koran-flushing story will go down in history as a classic psy-ops for its success in targeting the minds of a built-in audience outside the U.S.-cricket fans-as a vulnerable and receptive shared field of consciousness.

When the high-profile Imran Khan described the alleged incident as factual, this operation transcended the literacy barrier as it provoked Muslims who did not even need to read in order to be reached-and provoked.

And because the story targeted cricket fans, its impact was disastrous to Americans while also remaining invisible to America where cricket is neither a well known activity nor a widely played sport.

In what passes for mainstream American media, the Isikoff story was called news. In national security parlance, the well-timed launch of that provocative storyline is called tactical psy-ops. So far, the Koran-burning story is being attributed solely to the whims of a southern preacher.

Stay tuned. It may be only a coincidence that Jones was a high school classmate of Rush Limbaugh, America's most provocative radio talk show host.

Information Age Warfare

If this sounds familiar, it should. You may recall when the wartime role played by global media became apparent in the Clash-catalyzing "cartoon riots" that swept the world in February 2006. That reaction followed the publication in France, Germany, Italy and Spain of graphic images of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September 2005.

Citing free speech as the rationale, cultural editor Flemming Rose published a compilation of cartoons certain to be seen by Muslims as blasphemous, including one featuring Muhammad with a bomb in place of a turban.

An Ashkenazi native of Ukraine, Rose worked as a reporter for five years in Moscow during the oligarchi-zation of Russia. As his contribution to that nationwide fraud, he translated into Danish a fawning 1990 autobiography (Against the Stream) of presidential candidate Boris Yeltsin whose administration enabled the wildly successful financial pillaging of Russia.

Six of the top seven Russian oligarchs were Ashkenazim who qualified for Israeli citizenship.

Rose's career tracks the trajectory of a typical media asset. After Russia, he relocated to Washington, D.C. Again employed as a journalist, he traveled to China with Bill Clinton before returning to Moscow to work for Jyllands-Posten, a rightwing Danish publication known for its anti-immigrant news fare.

Before catalyzing the cartoon crisis, Rose published a flattering interview with the Islam-bashing Daniel Pipes who heads Campus Watch. This organization monitors, disrupts and seeks to intimidate pro-Palestinian speakers when they accept invitations to speak at U.S. colleges.

Pipes is the neoconservative, Jewish-Zionist son of "Team B" leader Richard Pipes a Polish emigre. Team B was a 1976 alternative intelligence assessment whose success with phony intelligence during the presidency of Gerald Ford (when G.H.W. Bush was C.I.A. Director) informed those who fixed the intelligence that enabled the U.S. to segue seamlessly from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism during the presidency of G.W. Bush.

After the promotion of Rose to cultural editor and publication of the provocative cartoons, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer featured Pipes on The Situation Room. By showcasing Pipes, Blitzer ensured the airwaves would carry his anti-Islam interpretation of the Rose-catalyzed, media-fueled crisis.

Blitzer elected not to inform the viewers of CNN ("the most trusted name in news") that he (Blitzer) served as an editor of Near East Report, the Israel lobby's in-house journal, or that he spent 17 years with The Jerusalem Post, or that he published a sympathetic book on Israeli super-spy Jonathan Pollard who did more than anyone in history to damage U.S. national security.

The ensuing crisis cost many lives while the reaction to that provocation consumed the public's attention and polarized public opinion internationally. Appearing on television, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the crisis to criticize Iran and Syria, adding American credibility and military authority to stoke The Clash of Civilizations as the post-Cold War narrative.

Overall, the response heightened tensions and made an attack on Iran appear more reasonable as scenes of widespread outrage by Muslims fueled Islamo-phobia in the West. To escape the media scrutiny, Rose fled to the U.S. where he vacationed in Miami.

Timing is Everything

The usual suspects stepped into the fray in support of Pastor Terry Jones' First Amendment right to further outrage an already outraged Muslim population for whom the Koran is a sacred text.

Supporting cast for the Jones stunt included New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who chose an annual Iftar dinner at Gracie Mansion to cite the U.S. Constitution in support of this provocation. Likewise for New York Times columnist Charles Blow whose prominently placed op-ed on September 11^th urged that "great American debates" should not be "tempered for terrorists."

National security may (at long last) be catching on to how those complicit in these psy-ops use our guaranteed freedoms (of speech, press, religion, etc.) to undermine our freedom. It's no coincidence that those most concerned about domestic eavesdropping by national security are drawn from the same ranks as those complicit in this ongoing manipulation of public opinion.

The high profile nature of this latest 911 anniversary ensured that agent provocateurs would use the event to keep hate alive. The day prior, President Obama urged that Israel extend its "temporary partial freeze" on settlements for the sake of sustaining the peace talks.

Meanwhile Jewish Zionist Pamela Geller sponsored a speech at Ground Zero by Dutch politician Geert Wilders who likens the Koran to Mein Kampf. A staunch supporter of Israel, Wilders is known for his incendiary speeches with a strong anti-Islam theme.

Geller, a disciple of Russian philosopher Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenbaum), advocates measures to "Stop Islamization of America." She emphasizes the role of Barack Obama in doing the bidding of "Islamic overlords" in what she calls "The Obama Administration's War on America."

An outspoken Jewish Zionist, Geller urges that Israel "give up nothing." A regular commentator on Zionist-dominated media outlets (CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times), she insists that Israel should "take back Gaza" and "secure Judea and Samaria"-better known as the West Bank, the key area of contention on expansion of the settlements.

Geller is also a driving force behind anti-Islam hate groups working to scuttle plans for an Islamic Cultural Center two blocks from the 911 site. Allied with others in the hate campaign, she was among the first in November 2009 to describe the shootings on Fort Hood, Texas as a "Muslim terror attack."

Staying on message to advance the narrative

Keeping the "anti-Semitism" theme front-and-center remains essential to advance the hate-monger's narrative with the assistance of mainstream media.

Thus the Anti-Defamation League criticized the current cover of Time magazine for what ADL President Abe Foxman suggested was a portrayal of Israelis as more interested in making money than in striking a peace accord with the Palestinians.

The article highlighted Israel's booming real estate market and the pleasure Israelis are taking in late-Summer vacations.

Nevertheless, according to Foxman: "The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinians."

Foxman insisted that Managing Editor Richard Stengel issue an apology to readers both for the timing of the article and for calling up old anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money.

As if right on cue, the next day filmmaker Michael Moore jumped into the Islamic Cultural Center debate, arguing that the center should not be near the 911 site but inside it as a way for Muslims to recover their religion from Islamic extremists.

In his branded controversial style, Moore could have left it at that. Instead, he used his assured media profile to relate an account of George Washington's wish to see Jews receive equal rights.

Impressionistic Warfare

From a psy-ops perspective, the subject matter is secondary to the impressions left with the public. The imbedding of imagery and emotion is the strategic purpose of much of what you see.

For instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking to ABC's "This Week," said on September 12^th that the controversy over the site of an Islamic Cultural Center has heightened concerns among Muslims of rising anti-Muslim sentiment, saying he felt there was "growing Islamophobia in this country."

That's a foreseeable result of creating widely shared impressions that foster and sustain widely shared beliefs that, in turn, are kept intact with emotional triggers. That's how the hate-monger narrative progresses in plain sight.

When waging war in the shared field of consciousness, the most powerful weapon is often the power of association. Michael Moore's film success shows how it's done.

In his popular Fahrenheit 911, he deployed impressionistic "weaponry" to associate the war in Iraq with "Bush Oil." How was that done? He showed on film that one of the several dozen siblings of Osama bin Laden served on the board of advisers to the Carlyle Group, an investment banking firm in Washington, D.C.

Also serving on that board was former president George H.W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush. Therefore, by the power of association, the war in Iraq was for "Bush Oil." Storylines don't need to true, just plausible. The point of psy-ops is not reality but credibility.

Impressions gain the traction required to advance a storyline-in plain sight.

Consensus beliefs create and sustain a narrative-in plain sight.

Psy-ops succeed when they attract enough eyeballs to misdirect the public's attention-in plain sight.

Fahrenheit 911 was produced by Miramax, a Disney subsidiary. Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein loudly claimed that Disney reneged on its promise to distribute Moore's film. Disney chief executive Michael Eisner objected-just as loudly.

The high profile sparing between these two Hollywood titans dragged on for months in mainstream media. By the time the film was released, the interest generated by this "dispute" ensured that Moore's film opened on a record number of screens for a "documentary."

At virtually no cost, that public relations ploy helped ensure an international audience for a film that discredited not only the U.S. but also the office of the president. In its practical effect, the Moore film helped ensure there was virtually no mention of how key Zionist goals were advanced by this war-in plain sight.

Real-time Terror

Meanwhile, September 12^th news reports highlighted the extradition to France from Egypt of a terrorist who reportedly planned to bomb an Israel Defense Forces event in Paris. Noticeably absent were facts about the timeframe of this threat or even when the arrest was made.

That account provided an opportunity for the chief of French intelligence to make a high profile announcement that the risk of a terrorist attack on France "has never been higher." This week, the French Senate is scheduled to vote a ban on wearing Islamic veils known as burgas, a vote certain to reinforce The Clash of Civilizations as the consensus narrative

Also on September 12^th, the leader of Shin Bet announced in Tel Aviv: "Hamas forces in Gaza and the West Bank are engaged in an effort to foil peace talks." Israel's domestic security chief told cabinet ministers "threats are due to increase in the near future, as diplomatic developments occur...This isn't just an estimate but is supported by real intelligence."

Unmentioned in this volatile mix is the psychology of the hate monger. The purveyors of hate routinely project onto their opponents both their own personality traits (hatred) and, as here, their anticipated agenda. This announcement is far more likely to mean that Shin Bet will stage provocations designed to make it appear that Hamas is the instigator of violence.

For the Zionist agenda to continue in plain sight, peace must be avoided no matter what the cost. Disruption of the peace process, in turn, must plausibly be the work of others. The hate monger must appear to be hated; the aggressor must plausibly appear to be the victim.

Thus the need to portray as anti-Semitic (a hater) those who document the dynamics of how hate-mongers induce hate-in plain sight.

The Assassination of Bibi Netanyahu

Should we see a revival of the U.S. national security apparatus, we will also see a push back against the right-wing extremist coalitions that have long ruled Israel. However, any resistance to the Zionist agenda runs the risk that Israel's masters of game theory warfare will collapse another government.

That's how Tel Aviv responded when in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy pressured David Ben-Gurion for inspections of Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. This young president sought to ensure that the Zionists of that era did not start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He foresaw what we now see.

Before JFK's strongly worded letter could be physically delivered, Ben-Gurion resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. By the time a replacement governing coalition was in place and fully functional, the Kennedy problem had been handled.

In the parlance of national security, that's called an entropy strategy.

Fast-emerging circumstances suggest the likelihood of a similar strategy, particularly should there emerge any prospect of peace with the Palestinians. As Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman candidly put it, peace is impossible: "not next year and not for the next generation."

Should "Bibi" pressure his fragile governing coalition for an extension of the "temporary partial freeze" on settlements, members of his nationalist government could withdraw, collapsing the government. Key members of the coalition signaled their intentions on September 12^th by announcing that any extension of the freeze will end the Netanyahu government.

On September 13^th, four Likud Party members threatened to withdraw budget support if the freeze is extended. That threat was issued as Netanyahu departed for peace talks in Sharm el-Sheikh with Palestinian leaders and U.S. Secretary of State Clinton.

The recurring possibility of governmental collapse has long given Tel Aviv leverage over peace talks sought by the U.S. That era may soon draw to a close if our national security apparatus is now guiding U.S. foreign policy. To date, our elected officials have proven themselves unable to navigate through the manipulations often deployed by Israel to stymie agreement on the terms of a peace accord.

Tel Aviv knows the power that the perception of political vulnerability offers in negotiations. When the game theory dynamics of Israeli psy-ops are fully grasped, that leverage will quickly dissipate as negotiators realize they have long been manipulated. That makes the duplicity personal.

The key barrier to realization is the fast-fading belief among policy-makers in the U.S. and the E.U. that Israel is an ally and a friend rather than a sophisticated foe skilled at using deception to leverage its small numbers to great effect.

Though collapse is one possible strategy, Bibi may instead be assassinated.

The threads of a plausible storyline were laid in a September 9^th article on Haaretz.com where he was compared to French president Charles de Gaulle against whom French nationalists staged numerous assassination attempts.

Either approach would inject enough entropy into the peace process to sustain the Palestinian conflict and extend the occupation yet again.

Either strategy would strengthen the hand of the hate-mongers as settlers build another 19,000 homes and U.S. legislators continue to pretend that the Zionist state is a victim of anti-Semitism rather than a serial agent provocateur.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt by Association -How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008) his first release in the Criminal State series. His previous books include Democracy At Risk and The Ownership Solution. See his website Criminal State

Illustration by Khalil Bendib

By David Rosen* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The building of a Muslim community center in an abandoned building two blocks from the site of New York's former World Trade Center has become the latest controversy in America's long fought religious wars. The construction of the center, often referred to as a mosque, has become the latest rallying issue for the Christian right, Tea Party proponents and Republican operatives in their war to impose moralistic and corporatist values on America.

It is too early to know how the Muslim center issue will be resolved, but it is clear that the rantings of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Abe Foxman (of the Anti-Defamation League) and others have played an important role pushing a local issue into the center-stage of national politics. Since the horrendous attacks of 9/11, Muslims in general and American Muslims in particular have been the targets of an undeclared religious war promoted by Christian fundamentalists and self-serving Republicans. For some among these religious zealots, Islam is a threat to their belief that the U.S. is a white Protestant nation. Over the last four centuries, Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Jews and many others have been targets of religious persecution, often the victims of imprisonments, hangings, lynchings and other acts of violence.

Rightwing ranters might well not know the history of religious intolerance in America, but they are surely aware that they are fueling a deep-seated rage among a certain scary segment of the Christian populous. This round in the ongoing religious culture wars has yet to explode into the ugly violence that took place in the aftermath of 9/11, and one can only hope that the current controversy will not lead to attacks on Muslims.

Sadly, like the attacks the followed 9/11, rightwing ranters like Palin and Gingrich will act "shocked" by the violence if it occurs and will claim innocence as to their roles fomenting it. With a knowing sneer, they will wash their hands of the blood they have caused and seek out other innocent victims.

In an excellent article on Tomdispatch, Stephen Salisbury details the current Manhattan Muslim center controversy and the spreading anti-Muslim hysteria being whipped up around the country over the opening of new local mosques. As Salisbury opines, "The angry 'debate' over whether the building should exist has a kind of glitch-in-the-Matrix feel to it, leaving in its wake an aura of something-very-bad-about-to-happen." [tomdispatch.com, August 11, 2010]

Salisbury discusses the ongoing protests against mosques also taking place in New York's Brooklyn and Staten Island as well as in California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Wisconsin. He connects these controversies to the headline-grabbing opportunist comments by Palin (in true Palin-speak, "peaceful Muslims" need to "refudiate" the center) and Gingrich (who calls on Saudi Arabia to open churches and synagogues).

He also draws attention to the pernicious role played by Rick Lazio, New York State Republican gubernatorial candidate, who assails the center as subverting the right of New Yorkers "to feel safe and be safe." Because New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York State Attorney General (and likely Democratic gubernatorial candidate) Andrew Cuomo have come out in support of the Muslim center, it will like be a major issue in the November election.

Most importantly, Salisbury provides an invaluable overview of the anti-Muslim campaign that arose in the wake of 9/11, reminding readers just how alarmingly vicious good-old Christian love can be.

Part of the "glitch-in-the-Matrix feel" that Salisbury notes is the absence of a recognition that the current Muslin center controversy is part of a long history of religious intolerance in American.

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian, in a spontaneous and unscripted statement blurted out the unspoken truth that guided the U.S.'s initial military counter-attack campaign in Afghanistan: "This crusade," he said, "this war on terrorism." While Bush's admission was later repudiated and disappeared from the public discourse, it define the unstated goal of the ultra-reactionary Christians who were his core-constituency and knew full well what he meant.

At the heart of Bush's crusade agenda was an invocation of the "shock and awe" tradition that defined religious wars since the grand crusades of the Middle Ages and an acknowledgement that they needed to be applied in Afghanistan. The grand crusades waged by the Roman Church were against Muslims and Jews to capture and hold ancient Jerusalem and the Holy Lands, and to defeat Orthodox or Eastern Christianity. Many perished. Similar, crusaders were waged against Christian heretics, including early Protestants, and done so in the name of their absolutist god.

This tradition was brought over to the New World with the Pilgrims and other early British settlers. The worst and most sustained form of religious war in America has been waged against the Native people. For all the annual whitewashing that takes place at Thanksgiving Day parades, early Puritans fought the Pequot Indians in Eastern Connecticut until 1637 when the General Courts of the Plymouth and Massachusetts Colony launched a war of extermination against them. (Native people found that the Pilgrims stunk, literally; Europeans rarely bathed, believing it unhealthy, and seldom were naked, believing it immoral.) The white Christian race and religious crusade against Native North American people persisted for centuries.

Pilgrims also imposed religious intolerance on themselves. Early Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers were aligned with the Church of England and looked badly upon those who contested their orthodoxy. Those challenging Calvinist dogma were subject to banishment, whipping, branding, ear-lobbing and even hanging. Early leaders like Thomas Hooker, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were banished. Early Quaker settles in Plymouth were also banished and four were hung publicly.

Over the subsequent centuries, Americans have witnessed repeated bouts of religious intolerance. Not surprisingly, these episodes were often accompanied by the same shrill rhetoric we find shouted today by those opposing the Muslim center.

The Know Nothing movement grew out of the Second Great Awakening or the Great Revival of the 1830s and became the American Party that flourished during the late-'40s and early-'50s. It got its name when members where asked the party's positions and simply said, "I know nothing." It drew together Protestants who felt threatened by the rapid increase in European immigrants and, most especially, Catholics, flooding the cities. It felt that Catholics, as followers of the Pope, were not loyal Americans and were going to take over the country. It had strong support in the North that witnessed large-scale Irish immigration after 1848. The American Party captured the Massachusetts legislature in 1854 and, in 1856, backed Millard Fillmore for president, who secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast.

The Ku Klux Klan was established in 1866 and, during Reconstruction, began a systematic campaign against freed African Americans. However, by the '80s, it had lost its way as a racialist organization. It was revitalized in the wake of the Atlanta trial of Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman who had been falsely charged and convicted of murdering Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old white Christian girl, in 1913. In 1915, after the Georgia governor commuted his sentence, Frank was forcibly removed from the state penitentiary where he was being held by a mob of white Christians and lynched. Subsequently, many of those who participated in Frank's murder came together to re-launch the Klan.

In the late-'10s, the Klan aligned with nativists, eugenicists and the Anti-Saloon League (ASL) to not only promote temperance but racialist and anti-immigrant policies. As WWI hysteria mounted, ASL's New York representative, William Anderson, equated being pro-German with being anti-American: German beer, saloons and breweries were the unnamed enemy. He had a deep antipathy toward Catholics, accusing the Church of mounting an "assault on law and order," of opposing Prohibition because it was promoted by Protestants and accusing it of engaging in "efforts to destroy [the Prohibition] victory and bring back the saloons." Anti-Catholic antipathy contributed to the defeat of the country's first Catholic nominee, Al Smith's, in the 1928 presidential election.

Many other episodes of religious intolerance have taken place since the '20s. However, John Kennedy's 1960 presidential victory marked the moment in American history when anti-Catholic appeals in national election were no longer acceptable. Similarly, the growing acceptance among Christian evangelicals of the notion of the "last days" has lead to a weird embrace of Jews and Israel and may have contributed to a moderation in anti-Semitism.

In the days before 9/11, most informed people accepted Islam as a variant within the Abrahamic tradition. However, in the aftermath of the attacks, even this claim came under suspicion. Earlier this summer, Ron Ramsey, a Republican candidate for governor of Tennessee, claimed that Islam is a "cult" that did not deserve First Amendment protection: "You can even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, a way of life, or a cult -- whatever you want to call it... ." Challenged by a diverse assortment of Tennesseans, including traditional conservatives, Ramsey has backed off this assertion.

If truth be told, the Manhattan Muslim center is both a real issue and a fictitious spectacle. It is real in the sense that its being built at the designated site on Park Place will be a victory for religious tolerance. America is undergoing a profound economic and cultural realignment. Traditional white society is giving way to a truly multi-cultural America; conventional Protestantism is giving way a significant increase in the Catholic populous (mostly Hispanics) and growing Muslim, Hindu and Sekh communities.

The Muslim center story, like that of Michelle Obama's holiday in Spain, is a false issue, a spectacle promoting social deception. Since Obama's victory, the Republican right has implemented a very effective wrecking-ball strategy, attempting to destroy every issue considered. Its guiding principle is simple: Obama and the Democrats can do no right. To realize this goal, it did anything and everything in its power to make sure as little as possible got through Congress, got honestly assessed in the media and got to help ordinary Americans. Sadly, the Christian Republican right is succeeding and the Obama leadership remains clueless.

A century-and-a-half ago white Protestants came to accept Irish immigrants as white. While hard to imagine today, early Irish immigrants, those who came to America in the wake of the 1848 famine, were seen by many traditional Protestants as "niggers," not really different from African Americans. Faced with the inevitabilities of post-Civil War modernization, old-world Protestants changed. And with it, racism changed.

The challenge that faces today's Anglo-American Protestant descendents, those who see Muslims as "niggers," is whether then can change and accept America as a multi-cultural society.

* David Rosen is the author of "Sex Scandals America: Politics & the Ritual of Public Shaming" (Key, 2009); he can be reached at drosen@ix.netcom.com.a

By Anait Brutian* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

On August 4, 2010, Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine and chair of the Interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, published an article in Sabbah Report, entitled "Shame on ADL for Opposing Mosque 2Blocks from Ground Zero."

Rabbi Lerner's position on the ADL's (Anti-Defamation League) objection to building an Islamic Community Center in Manhattan, near Ground Zero is praiseworthy. But his interpretation of ADL's reasons for resisting such a project lacks insight. ADL leader Abe Foxman's statement: "In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right," spells out the real reasons behind the decision. That decision cunningly reinforces the notion that Muslim fundamentalists were behind the attacks of 9/11 - a position also perpetrated by the architects of those attacks.

Rabbi Lerner's statement: "It was not 'Muslims' or Islam that attacked the World Trade Center, but some Muslims who held extreme versions of Islam and twisted what is a holy and peace-oriented tradition to justify their acts and their hatred," echoes George W. Bush's address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, September 20, 2001, whereby the blame for 9/11 was put on "a fringe form of Islamic extremism ... that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam." Unfortunately, both positions - the first, explicitly, the second, apologetically - demonize Islam.

As rightly noted by Jack G. Shaheen in his book Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilified a People (see, also Reel Bad Arabs - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5), a consistent stereotype of Arabs and their religion existed since the earliest, most obscure days of Hollywood. Perhaps, this was the continuation of European fascination with Orientalism. However, in the hands of Hollywood, it acquired a new malicious bend that increased proportionally with the number of Jewish entrepreneurs in Hollywood. Arabs were typically presented as rich and stupid, and their Western captives as victims of prejudice, manipulation and oppression. This pattern was further exploited by Zionists to include violence and acts of terrorism.

In 1993 Foreign Affairs published an article by Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington entitled: "The Clash of Civilizations?" that expanded into a book with the same title in 1996. The article endorsed the idea that "during the Cold War, the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds." According to Huntington, "those divisions ... [were] no longer relevant": "It is far more meaningful now to group countries not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of their level of economic development but rather in terms of their culture and civilization." "It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations."

Amplifying the "differences among civilizations," Huntington emphasized the role played by history, language, culture and tradition. According to Huntington, differences of religion are the most important among cultural discrepancies: "Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim." Huntington identified seven or eight major civilizations including "Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African," predicting that the most important conflict will occur "along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another": "The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

According to Huntington, the same "fault lines" will replace the "political and ideological boundaries of the Cold War as the flash points for crisis and bloodshed": "... Conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization." Huntington identifies these conflicts as "the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars." "The West and the Rest" in Huntington's prediction of future clashes amounts to a conflict between "the West and several Islamic-Confucian states." Islam is not identified as the single source of conflict; rather it appears in juxtaposition with Confucian civilisation. Yet, Huntington's reliance on the opinions of Indian Muslim author M. J. Akbar - "The West's 'next confrontation' ... 'is definitely going to come from the Muslim world" - allows him to ignore the advice of Bernard Lewis, whose article "The Roots of Muslim Rage" inspired his title.

Bernard Lewis' statement: "We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations - the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both," quoted by Huntington, had a continuation: "It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival" - that was perhaps more relevant for the argument than the emphasis on the clash of civilizations. This statement and the embedded advice were ignored by Huntington. Instead, Huntington sites historical and modern factors to promote the idea that a "bloody" clash between Western and Islamic civilizations is imminent: "Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years."

A superficial overview of history allows him to state that "Islam has bloody borders." This statement, notoriously emphasazing a civlizational conflict between "Islam and the West," became the credo of Zionists like Steven Emerson, whose crusade against Muslims conveniently took yet another turn - anti-Muslim attitudes were camouflaged as anti-terrorist sentiments. Emerson's 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America "was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations." Robert Friedman accused Emerson of "creating mass hysteria against American Arabs." Emerson accused Bill Clinton for "legitimizing self-declared 'civil rights' and 'mainstream' Islamic organizations that in fact operated as propaganda and political arms of Islamic fundamentalist movements." He went as far as to declare that "Muslim terrorist sympathizers were hanging out at the White House."

Conveniently ignoring the growing problem of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel and the United States (see, "The Ugly Face of the Zionist Jihad: The Halachic Guide for the Killing of Gentiles"), and typically prefacing his "diatribes" by stating that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, Emerson blacklisted Islam by espousing in a deliberate assault against it: "The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's great religions - which has more than 1.4 billion adherents - somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine."

After the events of 9/11, a few of Emerson's earlier comments acquired the status of "prophesy." In 1994 he claimed that radical Muslims in the United States were plotting the "mass murder of all Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims." In 1996 he attacked the Council on Foreign Relations for including "Muslim points of views" in its newsletter. And finally, in1997 he warned that "the U.S. has become occupied fundamentalist territory."

The anti-Muslim rhetoric of the "grand inquisitor" acquires a new meaning, when one considers Emerson's "friends." Yigal Carmon, "a right-wing Israeli intelligence commander, who endorsed the use of torture" stayed in Emerson's Washington apartment during his trips "to lobby Congress against Middle East peace initiatives." A retired CIA counterterrorism specialist Vince Cannistraro said that Emerson's allies, Pomerantz, Revell and Carmon were "Israeli-funded." "How do I know that?" Cannistraro explained - "Because they tried to recruit me." Cannistraro's assertions were vehemently denied, but others suspected Israeli backing as well. Jerusalem Post of September 17, 1994 noted that Emerson had "close ties to Israeli intelligence," Mossad, whose director reported only to the Israeli Prime Minister.

Hollywood's groundwork was certainly useful to all that planned on instigating a clash of civilization between Muslims and non-Muslims. Huntington's civlizational conflict between "Islam and the West" became the cornerstone of Zionist propaganda. But long before the establishment of Israel, the Zionist intellectual Maurice Samuel in his You Gentiles of 1924 polarized the Gentile and the Jewish worlds: "There are two life-forces in the world I know: Jewish and Gentile, ours and yours ... Your outlook on life, your dominant reactions, are the same to-day as they were two thousand years ago. All that has changed is the instrument of expression" (pp. 19-20). Samuel admits that the "surface credo of a Jewish faith" imposed on a gentile way of life did not make a fundamental difference: "But in the end your true nature works itself into the pattern of the borrowed faith, and expresses itself undeniably" (p. 22).

According to Samuel there is a "clear and fateful division of life - Jewish and Gentile," with an "unsounded abyss between" them. Gentiles have a "way of living and thinking" that is distinctly different from Jews: "I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever..." (pp. 22-23).

Samuel's description provides a classic example of a real "clash of civilizations." The notion of a clash also fits Samuel's final solution, based on the destruction of the existing world order: "A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. ... We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build" (p. 155).

The modern equivalent of Samuel's "God-world" and "destroyers" is religiously motivated terrorism - the accusation conveniently hurled at Muslims. After 9/11 - a false flag operation, no doubt - every Mossad-induced terrorist hoax, from shoe-bombers to crotch-bombers, is blamed on Muslims. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks on civilians of a humanitarian aid ship are dubbed as self-defence. There certainly is a clash of civilizations, witnessed by its concomitant double standard. But the clash is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, as the Zionists claim. Rather, the real clash, as Samuel described so promptly, is between Jews and Gentiles. The bogus clash, conveniently induced through tags like "Islam has bloody borders," is of Zionist origin. It fits the Zionist strategy of demonizing Islam, and is an expedient cover for the real clash between Jews and Gentiles.

* Anait Brutian (B. Mus. with Honours in Theory, McGill University; M. A. in Music Theory, McGill University) is a student in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill. Her previous research includes a self-published book entitled: Reconciling Geometry, Rhetoric and Harmony: A Fresh Look at C. P. E. Bach. She is currently working on another book on mathematical paradigms in literature (Old and New Testaments), art, architecture, and music. She can be contacted at anaitbrutian@videotron.ca

As widely reported, the Anti Defamation League (ADL) has sent a letter to cartoonist Garry Trudeau about his Doonesbury cartoon that ran May 31. They then released the content of that letter to media sources.

Click to Enlarge - Garry Trudeau Doonesbury Cartoon

The ADL is demanding Garry Trudeau to apologize because he "maligned Judaism" and is guilty of promoting "anti-Jewish stereotypes and biblical illiteracy".

I will leave this for concerned religious scholars to decide, but my concern is the multi-faced, racist, hate-promoting ADL and how they work tirelessly to tag anyone and everyone asbeing an anti-Semite if s/he touches or even comes close to anything Jewish, Israeli or Zionist (even if it's baseless), while they play deaf and blind when obvious and clear hate, racist, anti-human and anti-Gentile cartoons are promoted by Zionist-Jews (if you don't know what a Gentile is, well, then according to Zionist-Jews, you're probably a Gentile).

So the question is: How come Abe Foxman finds no hate in the "How To Cook A Gentile" cartoon?

The following Zionist-Jewish cartoon depicts a pair of Jews murdering and killing Gentiles in the best humor of a neo-Nazi!

Click to Enlarge - How To Cook A Gentile

The above cartoon was published by Heeb #16 ("the Goy issue"), as a "family-friendly little comic strip", as per the cartoonist words.

If this is a 'family-friendly', 'non-racist', 'non-hate', humanist peace-loving cartoon, then no wonder or doubt where all the hate is coming from the Zionist-Jew families of Israel and their ilk.

Imagine the ruckus raised by the ADL should a magazine do a cartoon like this about Jews.

Abe Foxman fires New England ADL leader for speaking truth about Armenian Genocide.

But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.

It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?

Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable.

Read more at MuzzleWatch!