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

Related posts:

• Jeff Gates- When Will Israel Attack the U.S. – Again?
• Did you know?
• American Hate; Military “Death Squad” Arrested

By Gordon Duff* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Politics, Religion And The Military, A Recipe For Disaster

A Trophy For The Mighty Victors

A dozen American soldiers are under arrest, five for murder, in crimes that we may never know the full extent of. The accusations, killing for sport, collecting fingers as trophies, is "meat" for the media. It will sell papers, it will bring TV viewers and, combined with the threatened Koran burning and the "hatefest" over the Manhattan Islamic Center, everything imaginable is being done to make certain that terrorism is alive and well and aimed at the United States.

The Koran burning is cancelled but we can't undo the murders, not this set, not the last nor the decade long nightmare beginning, not with 9/11 but the election of George W. Bush, or more honestly, Dick Cheney.

Today's killers, accused killers, alleged killers, are they serial killers, criminal psychopaths, or "boys out for a good time and things got a bit out of hand?" Do we blame them or the America's failed attempt to build a permanent wartime standing army, replacing traditions with cheap politics and "revival tent" religion?

A normal argument that "liberals" make is that it wasn't them but their environment that was responsible. That's just an excuse and we all know it. We also know that this isn't the first time this has happened. The stories, all verified, of kidnapping and rape as with Dr. Aafia or dragging detainees behind vehicles, torturing them with power tools or flying them to the ends of the earth, Egypt, Bulgaria, Poland, "one way trips" that no "detainee" has ever returned from or has ever survived, are no different than these new crimes.

We also can no longer ignore the fact that, thus far, over 75% of our "terrorist detainees" are the wrong people, simply "mistaken identity." The remaining 25% are waiting for court dates for release. Estimates that as low as 5% of those captured, detained, really kidnapped, during the Bush administration were ever involved in anything.

These are the facts, not published but real, the results of court records open to every American.

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued opinions that kidnapping, torture and indefinite detention of anyone, American citizen or not was, in his opinion "legal" he knew where this would go.

Were Nuremberg type trials to begin today, they could go on for years, the defendants filling the dock making up a "who's who" of America's political, economic, religious and media elite. Oh, and more than a few from our military would be there too. It would almost be as though we had "flushed" the Pentagon. At one point, we could claim that, even where there were parallels between the "War on Terror" and Hitler's "Blitzkreig" and "Final Solution," we could always claim our scale was so much smaller.

We aren't so certain of even that anymore, how could we be when nothing can be trusted, nothing from any source under control by the corporations that tell us what they want us to believe. How many secret prisons is America running? Where are they? How many have been held there for how long? How many have been killed?

The people of Nazi Germany, when asked these same questions didn't know.

How many are we killing each day in Afghanistan? Hitler sent special military groups, a Nazi "Special Forces" into the Ukraine and Belarus, to wipe out the local population. Are our Predator unmanned aircraft doing the same thing, randomly wiping out Afghanistan and sections of Pakistan, village by village? Much of the world thinks so and nobody has been able to prove them wrong.

Five or ten years from now, how many countries will be exhuming mass graves, sites of victims of America's psychopaths?

There is no difference between these five recently arrested and the Special Forces squads doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is using known unreliable intelligence, let me correct that, known "gossip" as a basis for executing civilians or doing it for entertainment.

What we have seen is that, inside our military, the pride of our nation, where our sons and daughters risk their lives in what they have been told is honorable service of mankind, we are harboring criminal psychopaths who murder the innocent at the orders of the Pentagon's "grocery clerks." From the 1979 film by Francis Ford Coppola, Apocalypse Now:

Marlin Brando As Colonel Kurtz, Apolcalypse Now (1979)

Colonel Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Captain Willard: I'm a soldier.
Colonel Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

I am supposed to say these men are not guilty. I don't believe it for an instant, nobody does. They are only doing what they were taught. Murder and hate became "policy" for the military when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, an ignorant extremist bigot, was chosen by President Bush to head our armed forces.

He and Vice President Dick Cheney, retreads from the disastrous Nixon years, petty political functionaries, saw the opportunity to recreate the military as a political and religious organization modeled on Himmler's infamous SS. It isn't just forcing religious instruction on the troops or the selective screening at the service academies with special preference given to Evangelical, read "Christian Zionist" applicants, giving us the "dumbed down" officer corps that has overseen the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Will the last real warrior resigning in disgust please turn out the lights

It wasn't just in the training, constant talk about "the conflict of civilization," Christianity versus Islam. The normal "pep talks" about military tradition were replaced by political vitriolic, partisanship and playing on racial and ethnic fears, class envy and cheap propaganda. They Nazi's never tried anything like this, the educational level of their military was much higher than that of typical American recruits. Their professional officer corps, taken from the Junker class, sons of the noble houses, were replaced by political hacks from the Nazi party. Some, like Erwin Rommel, were great commanders.

Those more like the neo-con underclass that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, has overseen the torture and rendition programs and political buffoonery and continual prayer sessions, products of the service academies and ROTC programs, were killed by their own men.

The problem isn't just the training or the wars or PTSD or "bad recruits" or even incompetent leadership. When General George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff assessed the officer corps in 1941, just after the Pearl Harbor attack, he was shocked. Over 10,000 officers in what was a relatively small military force were removed as unfit for command.

President George W. Bush went the other direction entirely. Our first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was General Omar Bradley, possibly America's finest military leader. On October 1, 2001, while the rubble of the World Trade Center was till smouldering after 9/11, Bush appointed General Richard B. Myers, a "neo-con" dandy, tasked with building a force better suited for a 3rd world dictatorship than a modern democracy. Myers turned to religious extremists, political hacks and any officer willing to trade honor for a career.

This is how America conquered Iraq, won a war, accomplished a mission and destroyed itself at the same time. It was always Cheney and Rumsfeld, it had been for years, in one administration after another. Myers was just "small potatoes," a small man for a small job working for grocery clerks, collecting a bill.

Bush friend and ally, Saddam Hussein paid with his life. Was Osama bin Laden a Bush friend and ally also? History says yes.

When it came time for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to explain to the 9/11 Commission why the United States Air Force was on a "stand down" under his personal command on 9/11, it was General Myers holding his hand. Bad as these moments were, humiliating or worse, they may have been the high point of General Myers career.

Four years later, we had been beaten in two wars by forces one tenth our number, had worn our military down to a shadow of our most basic security requirements but one thing for sure, they would all vote Republican. It became a military of bloated waistlines, berets, dickeys, and medals for any and all. The American military became the most "thanked" and "congratulated" force in history.

With all the medals and fancy uniforms and 6000 calorie a day meals, or so the Pentagon loves telling journalists, something seemed to be very wrong.

Volunteers from the "all volunteer army" began "unvolunteering" in droves with 400,000, nearly a third of America's entire military pool, active duty, reserve and National Guard, filing for service connected disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The majority submitted documentation, medical findings, indicating severe lifelong disabilities. The majority of filings support the fact that soldiers leaving the military after repeated deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq will never be able to work, support a family or, in many cases, manage their own affairs.

25% of those who remain in the military are on anti-psychotic medications with thousands of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a medical problem that precludes, not just combat deployment but any active duty.

Battalions of "disinformation" specialists spewed press releases by the dozen while military broadcasting parroted the neo-con and extremist Christian right, read "extremist-white supremist" Christian Zionist right message 24 hours a day to any member of the armed forces unfortunate to have access to a television. You couldn't watch a rerun of Gomer Pyle without the inane blithering of Vice President Cheney, real leader of "Bush America," another of a long list of American military experts without, not only one second of combat experience, but in Cheney's case, as with so many, not a minute in uniform of any kind.

Yesterday, America was panicked because two minor religious leaders have publicly planned to desecrate a Koran. Similar leaders had been burning American flags at the funerals of soldiers fallen in battle. Were Bush still in office, these two manics would be having lunch at the White House.

Secretary Rumsfeld would have named them honorary military chaplains.

Today, five Americans are under arrest as serial killers in uniform. They and their friends and who knows how many others have been hunting the people of Afghanistan for sport, killing them like animals and taking trophies, or so the representatives of the military justice system allege.

Anyone paying attention for the past decade should know. All these five Americans, five or a hundred and five or a thousand and five have done is exactly what they were told to do. If you can torture, you can kill. If you can kidnap, you can kill. If rape is "interrogation" can murder be wrong?

Who do we blame? We blame the Commander in Chief. He knew what he had inherited, a sick and dysfunctional institution of bottom-feeders, fanatics and fools, morally bankrupt cowards and bullies hiding behind a uniform and a bible.

We all knew it, every one of us.

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

Related posts:

• Death of the American Empire
• Mass Assassinations Lie at the Heart of America’s Military Strategy in the Muslim World
• The Death Angel, Knocking Gaza Doors

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

Illustration By Carlos Latuff

Then we realized it also morphs. To that feature I can attest. In November 2002, I met a "John Doe" in London who proposed a research challenge. While meeting that challenge, I encountered various versions of anti-Semitism.

A colleague advised against this challenge. First he fretted at the criminal nature of what the research has since confirmed. Then he inquired about my safety. That said a lot.

The colleague was M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky. For his criticism of Israeli policy, he was attacked as a self-hating Jew. Were he not Jewish, doubtless he would have been an anti-Semite. For critics of Israel, those are the only two options. He cautioned me:

You'll get the same thing: anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, want to kill all the Jews, etc. It doesn't matter what the facts are. Bear in mind that you are dealing with intellectuals, that is, what we call 'commissars' and 'apparatchiks' in enemy states.

Is anti-Semitism a geopolitical strategy? If so, for what purpose? Character assassination?

Ten months ago, I met with Professor William Robinson on the University of California Santa Barbara campus. We met soon after he was attacked by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) and its smear team.

Robinson had read Guilt By Association, the first release based on this research. His question mirrored Prof. Chomsky's concern: "Are they going to kill me?" he asked. They are those who smear anyone critical of Israeli policy.

Anti-Semitism-A License to Kill?

To his class on globalization, Robinson provided an email link to a photo essay critical of Israeli policy that had been circulating online for weeks. When two students complained to the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), its attack troops insisted on Robinson's removal while its national network urged alumni to threaten the withholding of gifts and bequests to the university.

Word quickly spread among academics nationwide. That time-critical ADL strategy silenced on-campus criticism of the Israeli assault on Gaza. Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that's how anti-Semitism works?

When the ADL (Anti-Defamation league) intimidates on a national scale, does anti-Semitism morph into something even more sinister? The Gaza assault killed 1,400, including 400 Palestinian children. That slaughter was scheduled during America's political and media "down time"-between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inaugural of Barack Obama.

Is it anti-Semitic to suggest a strategic motive behind the timing of Israel's latest barbarity?

Then there's the motive for 911. Is it anti-Semitic to raise that taboo subject? Ask those members of the 911 Commission who objected-successfully-when the chair and vice-chair proposed hearings on the motivation for that high-profile provocation.

Instead, Americans were left to cope with the results of an overwrought reaction to an unexplained mass murder too quickly blamed on "Islamo" fascism. Only now can we see the full costs in blood and treasure of a war waged on fixed intelligence and false pretenses.

The fiscal tab alone is projected to top $3 Trillion, including the future costs of military pensions, disabilities, record-level post-traumatic stress, suicides and so forth.

All of the money has been borrowed, a first for an American war. The interest cost could reach $700 billion. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that debt is always the prize?

At the end of WWII, the victorious U.S. was home to 50% of the world's productive power. Our bonds were guaranteed to be gilt-edged for at least two generations. Now we are widely hated, our credibility is shot, our credit rating is slipping and our economy teeters on a meltdown.

Is it anti-Semitic to ask, "What happened?"

Is it anti-Semitic to report that the so-called "mastermind" behind 911 cited as his motive the U.S.-Israeli relationship? Is it anti-Semitic to ask for an accounting of the "but for" costs of this relationship?

But for this "special relationship" what would be the current condition of the U.S.-financially, militarily, diplomatically, geopolitically? Would the computation of those costs be an exercise in anti-Semitism?

Is it Anti-Semitic to call for a New 911 Commission?

America was misled to wage war in Iraq. Who had a relationship with us that was privileged enough to succeed with such duplicity in plain sight?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and-importantly-the stable nation state intelligence to deceive us from inside our own government? Is that question anti-Semitic?

We were betrayed. Does that betrayal trace to those who befriended us? We were defrauded. Does that treason trace to those we were induced to trust?

As counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980 to 1987), I crafted federal tax law that governs the bulk of funds under management. Those funds surged from $800 billion in 1980 to more than $17,000 billion by the spring of 2007.

The result created a vast pool of "money-on-autopilot." Today's consensus belief can be simply put: money should be allowed to pursue more of itself-freely.

The unspoken assumption is that money is smarter than people. That's the generally accepted truth behind the finance-fixated obsession now known as "economics."

Legions of consensus-touting consultants insist that this One True Faith must guide lawmaking worldwide. By law, financial freedom has now become a proxy for personal freedom. Tribunals under the World Trade Organization may yet enforce that worldview.

How did that narrow perspective become a widely agreed-to mindset? How were we induced to set America's course by those values peculiar to money?

Rather than the civil rights refrain, "Let my people go," the consensus refrain is "Let my money go." Were we induced by a subculture within a subculture...within a subculture to freely embrace the very money myopic mindset that now endangers our freedom?

This mindset first surfaced as the "Chicago model" before morphing over decades into the "Washington" consensus.

How were we as a nation induced to brand American democracy with a point of view that, by law, displaces those values not denominated in money? Is it anti-Semitic to pose that question?

Shutting Down Debate

Early on in this challenge, I included the noun "Jew" in a Google search. I received in return an automated response from the ADL implying that I was an anti-Semite. Why?

More importantly, how did a Google response appear in my email inbox-automatically-from the ADL?

The ADL now conducts trainings for law enforcement under recently enacted federal hate crimes legislation. By my use of a common noun in an online search, am I now identified in a database as wanting to kill all the Jews?

Mark Yudoff, president of the University of California, could have intervened in the on-campus events that caused Professor Robinson to fear for his life. He declined. Richard Blum, chair of the state's Board of Regents, could have intervened. He too declined.

Judith Yudoff is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. Blum's wife, U. S. Senator Diane Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Is it anti-Semitic to report these facts?

My apologies. Clearly I don't yet grasp what anti-Semitism is. Thus I throw the challenge to you the reader: what is it? Together perhaps we can sort this out.

* 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

Related posts:

• How to get rid of anti-Semitism!
• Anti-Semitism: Silencing The Messenger Of Truth With Canada’s “Hate Provisions”
• Anti-Semitism: Zionist myth v truth and reality

Misuse of "antisemitism" illustration by Carlos Latuff

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

As an American living under Bush's Military Commission's Act, I feel a bit unnerved when charged with "allegations" of hate crimes issued by Canada's Council on Human Rights, "allegations" made by an unidentified group against the editors of "Peace, Earth and Justice," (PEJ Internet publications), and specifically against certain unidentified authors for articles claimed to be anti-Semitic. One might expect from a democratic government that the accused would be notified of such charges, be provided with the details of the allegations, and offered an opportunity to rebut the points raised.

But no. The charges are made, the Council brings the charges to the editors who are prone to protect the publication by removing the articles, and the goal of the group bringing the charges is accomplished -- silencing the messengers who raise issues of significance that can no longer be seen or read. Such is democracy and the free press in the 21st century.

Thank God for our last domain of free speech, the Internet, and in this instance the Internet publication Dissident Voice. On May 28th, 2007, Kim Petersen wrote "When Monopolization of the Media Fails, then Squash Freedom of Speech." It is there that I found out that I was charged before the Council on Human Rights with anti-Semitism by a Mr. Harry Abrams with the support of the B'nai B'rith of Canada. .

Since neither the Canadian Government or the accusers have seen fit to notify me that I am charged with a "hate crime," I am forced to present my case before the public lest Council members and others made aware of these accusations assume that the allegations are true, a conclusion that could result from such slanderous allegations and cast aspersions on my personal and professional character.

Let me undertake my own defense by quoting from "The Nizkor Project" of the League of Human Rights of B'nai B'rith Canada. "The international community has recognized the need to deal with human rights violations and hate propaganda under the law. The foundation of Canada's hate laws can be found in several international treaties which Canada has ratified. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, established the basic principles upon which subsequent anti-racist legislation would be based, including legislation designed to afford identifiable groups protection against racist attacks. Hate propaganda, the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups, became a criminal offense in Canada in 1970 (Criminal Code, Sections 318-320)." Additionally, Canada adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1966, a convention that requires states "to criminalize hate propaganda and other activities which promote racism."

Canada's acceptance of these international laws and conventions indicates that the state is sensitive to its various populations and the potential for discrimination that can be brought against them. As the Nizkor Project notes: "The premise underlying Canada's anti-hate laws is that in a democratic society, identifiable groups must be protected against racism, including its verbal manifestations, in order not to limit their basic freedoms and thereby their full participation in Canadian society." I agree with Nizkor's assertion that the catalyst for this legislation might well have been the experience of Nazism, "that unchecked racism and hate propaganda could lead even a highly educated, cultured and democratic society to justify the most heinous crimes against humanity."

Now let me turn to the actual sections of the Criminal Code that are applicable here: Section 318: Advocating Genocide and section 319: Defining Genocide. "The criminal act of 'advocating genocide' is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an 'identifiable group' – persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The intention would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment..." Section 319 defines genocide as "any acts committed with intent to destroy an identifiable group – such as killing members of the group, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction."

Section 319(3) makes explicit acceptable defences that prohibit conviction based on the following: "statements in question are established to be true; were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true; ....; were expressed in good faith and intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."

I provide this background to establish this profound truth: my article published by PEJ, "The Hamas Challenge to Israel," provides a disturbing picture of a Prime Minister in Israel who has undertaken, with the collaboration of a distinct minority of like mind, a concerted effort to commit genocide against an identifiable group, the Palestinians, because of "race, ethnicity, and religion," by "promoting the killing of members of the group" and "deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction."

The article was not written specifically for Canadians or any state, but rather to make known to the community of nations the reality of the actions undertaken by Sharon and his government (and subsequently by Ehud Olmert and his administration). Every statement in the litany of accusations made against this man has been substantiated by scholars, journalists, resolutions by the UNSC and the UNGA, and even the International Court of Justice. Nothing in the article condemns the Jews as a people; indeed, the article sympathizes with the Jews as they, like Americans under Bush, must endure racist actions of the Israeli government acting in their name.

The article is in every particular a graphic defense of the Canadian Criminal Code against hate, but hate perpetrated by a hard core Zionist group (See for example statements by Olmert's colleague Avigdor Lieberman) that has aligned itself with the Olmert government to inflict genocidal acts against the Palestinians. Books have been written on this subject. It is not my invention. (See for example, Dr. Uri Davis' Apartheid Israel, Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Cook's "The Rape of Palestine," and most recently this week, Richard Falk's "Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust."). I believe that publication of the article provided Canadians with documentable evidence of these heinous acts, information beneficial to the public if they are to become sensitized to the plight of Palestinians and Arabs living within their state. They are the ones at risk. Only through the availability of such information can the Islamophobic hysteria present in America and Canada be blunted.

I will end this piece with two passages from the article in question, an article you cannot now read because an unidentified group has made insidious allegations against this writer, one of a number, without providing him (or them) his due rights before the law, a most slanderous and clandestine way to silence voices one does not wish to hear.

"Shouldn't it be clear by now, today, that Israel and its obedient partner in war crime, the United States, has no intention of seeking peace with the Palestinians? How else maintain an unending war of terror? How else fuel division, hatred, vengeance, retaliation and destruction than to systematically strangle by slow, insidious suffocation the rights of a people declared openly in a mutually accepted Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How else continue expansion and acquisition of another's land than to foster violence with violence and cry aloud to the world your pain even as the cries and torment of the Palestinians are muffled behind a Wall of Fear Sharon leaves as his memorial to a life time of savagery and death?"

"When this Wall of silence is breached, when the truth is made manifest, what the world will see and what Jews around the world will see, is that Sharon has destroyed the moral fiber of Judaism. What Jews suffered under the boots of Nazi Germany – the humiliation, torture, powerlessness, and fear – impressed on them by a racist nation arrogant in their superiority, the Israelis now inflict on the hapless people of Palestine."

* 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.
www.drwilliamacook.com

Related posts:

• Anti-Semitism: Zionism’s Indispensable Alibi
• Kevin MacDonald – The Global Anti-Semitism Report: The organized Jewish community opposes free speech
• How to get rid of anti-Semitism!

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"We sent thee not, O! Muhammad, save as a mercy to all the people. Say, O! Muhammad: "It has but been revealed unto me that your God is the One and Only God: will you, then, surrender yourselves unto Him?" (Qur'an: 21: 107-108)

There is only one "Absolute" form of Free Speech in the west, the freedom and right to bash Islam, stomp, shoot, and flush the Holy Qur'an down the toilet, and portray Islam's beloved Prophet Muhammad (p) in the most vile manner in all forms of "art".

Freedom of Speech is an ever changing and evolving right that depends on time, person, place, method of delivery, issue, and people involved. Since the time of Socrates who was prosecuted for corrupting young minds to today's blasphemous attacks on Islam, the Quran, and Islam's Prophet; freedom of speech has always been defined and determined by those in power.

Bashing Islam is not new. In fact it began during the Prophet's own lifetime by those who rejected his message in Arabia only to be followed by Christians, Jews, and followers of other faiths. Saint John of Damascus (7th – 8th C) while ironically working as an administrative officer for the Muslim ruler of Damascus wrote that the Prophet Muhammad (p) was a "false prophet...heretic...an Anti Christ." Such attacks continued throughout historical Christian Europe by men such as Martin Luther, Voltaire, Dante, to , right wing European parties, to the U.S. by such men as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey (who called Allah (God) Satan), and politicians. Bashing Islam has become a respectable political and money making cottage industry.

Thus it's not surprising that 9/11 opened the flood gates for a wider multitude of westerners who inflame and further incite hatred of Islam. Such vileness arises out of total ignorance of Islam and the historical innate fear of the "other". The West fears what it does not know. In Europe, especially, fear of an Islamized Europe has conveniently morphed into a political agenda against the immigration of the "other", mainly people of color who immigrate to Europe from formerly European colonized nations.

It is inexplicable to describe the West as civilized when such uncivil behavior toward those of a different faith or color permeates a significant portion of the population. If civilization is based on education then such people must be hailed as arrogant, racists, supremacists, and ignorant fools.
The Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks as part of an art exhibition entitled "Dog in Art" decided to follow in the footsteps of the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist) and drew a cartoon of the Prophet with the body of a dog. While the public rationale is freedom of speech, the underlying motive is pure racism. But freedom of speech in the west depends on who you offend. Offending Jews, discussing the Holocaust, criticizing Israel's brutality against the Palestinians is either attacked as "Anti-Semitic", or met with jail time while the western kosher media quashes such "free speech". God forbid such a cartoonist would draw a similar cartoon of Moses (p), a Jew with a swastika as a tail, or of the Crown Prince of Spain. (Spanish cartoonist fined for royal dishonour", UK Telegraph, Nov. 14, 2007)

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote of Freedom or Speech, "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

The European Union Human Rights reports on Racism and Xenophobia annually reports that racism against Muslims and people of color in Europe is an ever increasing problem. While the E.U. and Sweden have laws on "hate crimes", which I consider these foul cartoons to be, they seldom if ever prosecute the perpetrators of such hate crimes if the intended victim is Islam or Muslims. On the contrary such politicians and artists are applauded and welcomed in the U.S. (Salman Rushdie, "The Satanic Verses", in the White House), by Conservative Christians and Pro Israeli lobbies, think tanks, and the mainstream Pro Israel media as idols of free speech. Yet in Europe and the U.S. if the perceived crime is "Anti Semitic" governments are in the fore front to decry and prosecute such "hate crimes".

When Israel is portrayed in a negative light in the Arab media due to its murderous occupation of Palestinians and constant theft of their land both European and U.S. governments immediately and publicly condemn such actions as hateful and anti Semitic, but when Islam's Prophet is subjected to vile hate it is considered "freedom of speech". It is a fine line and slippery slope between what is considered free speech and blasphemy. Didn't the Nazis use hateful cartoons of Jews as part of their propaganda for the "final solution?

It is this double standard and hypocrisy by western governments that inflames the Muslim world against their policies and practices, especially with respect to Israel's invasions and genocide against Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Criticizing Israel for its illegal occupation, inhumane siege of Gaza, massacring Gaza's children, demolishing thousands of homes, destroying hospitals, clinics, schools, churches and mosques, depriving the population of food, water and medicine, it's massive abuse of human rights and defiance of International laws, and much more is unacceptable, censored, hateful, and strongly defended by western governments and the media as "Israel's right to self defense", a right that its victims are denied.
Muslims are strictly forbidden from carrying out any violence or calling for death threats against the perpetrators of hate against the Prophet. The Holy Quran forbids such violence and directs Muslims to endure and be patient as the Holy Prophet endured during his lifetime.

"And, whenever they heard frivolous talk, having turned away from it and said: "Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong]." (Quran: 28:55)

"Believers (Muslims), stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others toward you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that you do." (Qur'an 5:8)

The European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) and the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) condemned the death threats issued by Al Qaeda and other small extremist groups against Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist, and Ulf Johansson editor in chief of the paper that published his cartoon of the Prophet with a body of a dog. Such hate must be met with patience and a strong educational outreach program to tell the truth about Islam and its beloved Prophet Muhammad (p).

Perpetual racism, arrogance, and ignorance of Islam in the west are the combustible ingredients for assured mutual destruction of our planet. The lack of any sacredness in the west that belies the misguided application of free speech against the "other" rests on the premise that if I hold nothing sacred and I damn my own faith and religious figures then I have the right to damn yours and if you are civilized like me you will accept such racist rantings as free speech. That is the rational of fools who've surrendered their superficial intellect to misguided stupidity.

It's not enough that the west has annihilated, bombed, and committed holocausts across the globe against the "other"; now the "other" must endure the verbal and written bombs upon their faith, culture, and traditions.

What conceivable civilized aim can be achieved by denigrating a Prophet of 1.6 Billion Muslims? Why aren't Muslims retaliating with the same vile hate against Judeo-Christian religious founders such as Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them both, or the Torah and Gospel? Because Muslims believe and revere these two prophets and the original holy revelations they received.

The least that can be expected from "civilized" people who wish to criticize a faith is to have a working knowledge on the subject to confer some credibility for their critique. Such knowledge of Islam is sorely missing in the West, thus such critiques are frivolous and meaningless.
Both the Danish and Swedish cartoonists who drew the vile cartoons of the Prophet were unknown entities until they entered racist contests concocted by two small papers in a competition to defame and demonize a most exalted person. After the controversy these two men achieved the celebrity status that has eluded them for decades.

But what of this man, Muhammad (p), who for centuries became the object of racist depictions by people who knew nothing about him in Christian Europe and in the U.S. (Read: "Muhammad in Europe", by Minou Reeves)

The British Historian Michael H. Hart in his book: "The 100: Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" chose Muhammad (p) as the most influential human being in history. He wrote:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he
was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the
religious and secular level."

The famous French writer, poet, and politician Alphonse le Lamartine (1790-1869) in his book, "Histoire De La Turque", wrote of Muhammad (p):

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in
modern history with Muhammad"?

The renowned Professor of Comparative Religion Karen Armstrong wrote a book in 2006 entitled "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time"

There are endless biographies, books, speeches and statements on Prophet Muhammad (p) by renowned authors around the world that exalt his person, his unshakeable spiritual beliefs, morality, ethics, compassion, mercy, and extraordinary leadership.

Sadly in America's educational system the study of cultures, world religions, history, and geography are sorely lacking. Such a vacuum can only lead to further misunderstanding and conflict between religions and peoples

"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions."
--Hans Kung, Catholic Theologian

The foundation for a peaceful world is the knowledge that all humanity is equal in the eyes of God and in human laws and that human nature is the same throughout time, place, and geography. The secret is simple: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted with all things. (Qur'an: 49:13)

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

Related posts:

• ‘Apartheid Israel’ week at Oxford and ‘Freedom of Speech’
• Pro-Israel Mouthpiece Says Freedom of Speech Dangerous
• Freedom of Racism!

The Sequel to the Video YouTube Censored:

Max Blumenthal and Jesse Rosenfeld interview young Tel Aviv residents about Iran, Obama and right-wing laws limiting the speech rights of their Palestinian-Israeli neighbors. The shocking responses reflect the deepening of racist and authoritarian trends in Israeli society. This is the sequel to "Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem," the video banned by YouTube, Vimeo and the Huffington Post after topping 400,000 hits.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5dbxPO8cU

Related posts:

• Bikini-clad activists crash ‘Tel Aviv Beach’ party at Central Park
• The Rabbi of Hate
• I hate you, my ENEMY!

Update (June 27th, 2009): As usual, youtube removed the original video (vimeo did the same too) (like many of my videos before - sample). Here is a replacement from my Blip.tv:

++++++

Imagine all the support offered by USA to Israel; this is what Americans and Mr. Obama gets in return (don't miss the racist slogans):

Warning: NSFW!

These racists are the same kids who brought Netanyahu to office and his infamous racist thug, Avigdor Lieberman's - Israel's new foreign minister!

Racism is a culture in Israel. What you have seen in this video is a product of the same culture.

Related posts:

• Christian Zionism: The Doomsday Code
• Updated: Gaza Massacre Video “Inappropriate Content”
• Video: Clear off all the city!

By Carlos Latuff

It is something of an axiom of Jewish life that "Is it good for the Jews?" remains the litmus test of Jewish communal activity - in other words, interest over principles. A good example is free speech. There can be little doubt that the organized Jewish community sees free speech as a problem because it may be used to criticize the behavior of Jewish organizations and especially Israel.

In Canada the response of the organized Jewish community to recent demonstrations against Israel was to attempt to invoke Canada's restrictions on free speech in order to silence their critics. The Canadian Jewish Congress complained that protests against Israel's incursion into Gaza contained images that were "uncivil, un-Canadian, that demonize Jews and Israelis." They are asking the police to investigate the matter for referral to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which is in charge of enforcing laws that infringe on free speech. Although the organized Jewish community in Canada has strongly supported the thought crime legislation (see below), Bernie Farber, the head of the CJC, stated "we are firm supporters and believers in the need to be able to demonstrate passionately in free and democratic societies."

Because of the First Amendment, we are still a ways from the situation in Canada here in the US. Nevertheless, the ADL has been in the forefront of promoting hate-crime legislation in America, and there can be little doubt that they see the First Amendment as a barrier to their interests in suppressing thoughts and speech critical of Israel and other Jewish interests.

An example of the efforts of the organized Jewish community in the direction of thought control is the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. This law created an office of "Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism" within the State Department, headed by Gregg J. Rickman. The act not only requires the State Department to document acts of anti-Semitism, but also to "combat acts of anti-Semitism globally."

The act does not say what the U.S. must do to combat anti-Semitism around the world. I assume combating anti-Semitism wouldn't require any more in the way of lives and money than, say, the war in Iraq - another project spearheaded by Jewish activism on behalf of Israel. But that may be wishful thinking as the same activists are avidly promoting a war with Iran which would likely be even more disastrous.

In any case, the office issued its most recent Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report (GASR) in March of last year. The document is an excellent example of Jewish activism that would be unremarkable except that it is now officially ensconced at the highest reaches of the U.S. government. As we shall see, it goes beyond criticizing anti-Jewish actions to anti-Jewish attitudes, such as statements about Jewish influence.

The report performs the by now familiar casuistry on Israel as a cause of anti-Semitism. The reader is led to believe that the allegations of Israeli atrocities are overblown propaganda - when the real question is just how Palestinians manage to survive at all in the occupied territories. The recent horrifying incursion into Gaza is only the most recent example. Not only did Israel carry out a starvation-inducing blockade during a ceasefire and an assault that finally provoked Palestinian retaliation, there seems little doubt that Israel committed war crimes - particularly the use of white phosphorus bombs in densely populated civilian areas.

The report complains that Israel's bad behavior is singled out while nobody cares when other governments behave inhumanely. The problem here is that because Israel's bad behavior is an important ingredient in enflaming the entire region, it should interest everyone. And because of the role of the Israel Lobby in shaping American policy, Israel's bad behavior is even more properly the concern of all Americans. American taxpayers are not being asked to massively subsidize other badly behaved governments, nor are they asked to fight and die in wars designed to advance the interests of those governments.

The report graciously states that "responsible criticism" of Israel's policies is acceptable. (Thanks!) But there's a catch: "Those criticizing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews."

This, of course, has the effect of proscribing criticism of Israel for fear of being called an anti-Semite. Presumably responsible criticism of Israel does not include books like John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt's The Israel Lobby, despite its academic tone and masterful marshalling of evidence. Jewish activists have routinely accused the authors of resurrecting the Protocols and other vicious acts of anti-Semitism.

As the report notes, Israel is without doubt the source of most anti-Jewish words and deeds in the contemporary world. But the report also points to traditional Jewish stereotypes as a continuing concern: Jews as more loyal to Israel and Jewish interests than the interests of their country of residence; and Jews as having inordinate influence and control over media, the economy or government. For example, according to ADL surveys, substantial percentages of Europeans believe that Jews have too much power in business and in international financial markets. (The percentages range from around 20% in Germany to 60% in Hungary.)
Similarly, ADL surveys indicate that beliefs that Jews are disloyal are common among Europeans, ranging from 39% in France to 60% in Spain. The report notes that "those who believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country tend to believe that Jew­ish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential positions in national governments seek to bend policy toward Israel's interests."
In other words, these anti-Semites are living under the illusion that organizations like AIPAC actually have some influence. And they may even believe that highly placed Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams and Richard Perle may have steered U.S. policy in a way that benefited Israel to the detriment of the United States.

As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt,

Pro-Israel activists such as Perle typically phrase their policy recommendations as aimed at benefiting the United States. Perle does this despite evidence that he has a strong Jewish identity and despite the fact that he has typical Jewish concerns, such as anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and the welfare of Israel. Perle poses as an American patriot despite credible charges of spying for Israel, writing reports for Israeli think tanks and op-eds for the Jerusalem Post, and maintaining close personal relation-ships with Israeli leaders.

Needless to say, the GASR is not a good place to find nuanced or fair treatments of these issues.

The GASR also has a section deploring ethnic nationalist movements of non-Jews, mainly in Eastern Europe, complaining that these movements are commonly anti-Jewish. Typically the anti-Jewish sentiments of such movements stem from the perception that Jews are an elite with considerable power and that this elite opposes the ethno-nationalism of non-Jews-a view that certainly has some basis in reality. (Jewish opposition to ethno-nationalism is restricted to non-Jews in areas where Jews form a Diaspora; it does not, of course, apply to Israel.)

For example, the GASR singles out Roman Catholic institutions as "encouraging anti-Semitism and ethnic and religious chauvinism." Chief among the offenders is a conservative Catholic radio station in Poland, Radio Maryja, cited for claiming that "Jews were pushing the Polish government to pay exorbitant private property restitution claims [for Holocaust reparations], and that Poland's President was 'in the pocket of the Jewish lobby.'"

This seems odd, since it would hardly be surprising if indeed Jews and Jewish organizations were pressuring the Polish government on this issue. Indeed, Norman Finkelstein points out:

In negotiations with Eastern Europe, Jewish organizations and Israel have demanded the full restitution of or monetary compensation for the pre-war communal and private assets of the Jewish community. Consider Poland. The pre-war Jewish population of Poland stood at 3.5 million; the current population is several thousand. Yet, the World Jewish Restitution Organization demands title over the 6,000 pre-war communal Jewish properties, including those currently being used as hospitals and schools. It is also laying claim to hundreds of thousands of parcels of Polish land valued in the many tens of billions of dollars. Once again the entire US political and legal establishment has been mobilized to achieve these ends. Indeed, New York City Council members unanimously supported a resolution calling on Poland 'to pass comprehensive legislation providing for the complete restitution of Holocaust assets', while 57 members of Congress (led by Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York) dispatched a letter to the Polish parliament demanding 'comprehensive legislation that would return 100% of all property and assets seized during the Holocaust'.

No sign of Jewish involvement there. Clearly, Radio Marija is way out of line.

Incidentally, Finkelstein has paid dearly for offending the Israel Lobby: blacklisted from employment in the academic world, deported and barred from Israel, and living in a rent-stabilized apartment near his boyhood home in Brooklyn. The Lobby clearly believes in free speech so long as it's in done in one's closet and assuming the neighbors can't hear it. (More on this below.)

Incidentally, the GASR complains that Giertych also claimed that "Jews 'create their own ghettos' because they like to separate themselves from others." Residential segregation, of course, was standard Jewish behavior in the Diaspora beginning in the ancient world, and it certainly occurred in Poland well into modern times. Indeed, it continues in many areas of the Diaspora today. But, as with thought crimes generally, truth is no defense.

The GASR coyly states that "While the report describes many measures that foreign governments have adopted to combat anti-Semitism, it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution."
Nevertheless, the act requires the compilation of material that would presumably be protected by the US Constitution, in particular "instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred ... against Jewish people." When one considers that a great many of the attitudes mentioned in the GASR are either substantially factual or reflect common religious beliefs, they would certainly seem to fall within the protections of the First Amendment.

And it's pretty clear where its heart lies. Indeed, as Ezra Levant has recently described, Jewish organizations and activists have been a major source of support for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, intervening in dozens of cases in favor of plaintiffs. Levant describes the Simon Weisenthal Center as "one of the most vicious interveners in Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship trials." And Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress stated recently that "our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused." Levant comments: "That sounds like Ian Fine, senior counsel for the CHRC, who declared that 'there can't be enough laws against hate.' So while the rest of the country is realizing that our government censorship has gone too far, Farber says it goes nowhere far enough; it's underused. He wants more censorship, more government intervention into thoughts and ideas - and the emotion called 'hate'."

Clearly the office of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is nothing if not a Jewish activist organization. And it doubtless would love to institute the same kinds of thought control in the U.S. that have made Canada into a police state. Indeed, it would be entirely within the letter of the law that created this monster if the United States were to declare war on Poland as a means of combating anti-Semitism. At least it won't be necessary to invade Canada.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University-Long Beach.

SOURCE

Related posts:

• How to get rid of anti-Semitism!
• Israel anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism Recipe
• When Does Opposition to Israel and Zionism Indicate Anti-Semitism?

Here is a sample of the hate emails, which I waste considerable time on reading lately:

Name: Billiam Mortain

Email: willie21@peoplepc.com

Subject: Israeli Kids sending Palastinians gifts

Message: I think the Israelis,should send you muslim pigs the BIG
GIFT. .A big NUKE. I think you pigs forget what you did to us
Americans on Sept 11TH.A curse on all muslim fanatical child
killers.Fuck you.

IP: 207.69.140.33
HOST: ca01-ch02-bl04.accel.atl.earthlink.net

Well, what can I say?

Thank you, Billiam Mortain! You gave me (and other millions) more reasons to feel sorry for you.

Related posts:

• The Rabbi of Hate
• I hate you, my ENEMY!
• Hate crime investigation surprise ending

That's right. Mercaz HaRav Rabbi approved revenge terror attack against the Palestinian Mufti. He called Yeshiva Students to practice what they learned and it almost happened:

Image by Carlos Latuff

Seminary students planned revenge attack: TV

JERUSALEM (AP) - Students from a Jewish religious school where a Palestinian militant killed eight last week planned a revenge attack against a senior Arab official affiliated with a Jerusalem mosque, Channel One TV reported Tuesday.

The attack has not been carried out but no arrests have been made, the TV said, quoting security sources.

The three students met at the seminary with two rabbis to discuss whether Jewish law would permit such an attack, the TV said. One of the rabbis gave his blessing for the attack, according to the report. An additional rabbi from a Tel Aviv suburb also gave his approval for the attack, the TV said.

"Torah law is that you should respond," the TV quoted one of the rabbi's as saying.

The plan was to harm a senior Arab official affiliated with a mosque at the disputed Jerusalem holy site known as the Temple Mount to Jews, Channel One said. To Muslims the hill is known as Haram a Sharif... read on!

The Israeli version (Ynet) of the story:

Channel 1: Rabbi endorses Jewish revenge attack
Several Jews reportedly granted rabbinical approval to avenge Jerusalem yeshiva attack
Ynet - Published: 03.11.08, 23:21 / Israel News

Jewish revenge in the works? A group of Jewish men have apparently been granted religious approval to carry out an act of retribution in retaliation for the attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem last week, Channel 1 reported Tuesday.

According to the report, several 25-35-year old men met with two prominent rabbinical figures – the first a rabbi at Mercaz Harav yeshiva and the second a rabbi known in far Right circles – two days after the attack, to discus possible retribution.

After reaching the conclusion that the IDF is unlikely to retaliate for the attack, the rabbis apparently sanctioned an independent act of revenge, giving three of the men – all believed to be yeshiva graduates who served in the IDF and are licensed to carry arms – several books on the redemption of the Land of Israel.

Three of the men then met with a Bnei Brak rabbi, the head of a Sephardic yeshiva, and introduced him to the notion of retribution in the form of harming an Arab figure associated with Temple Mount.

The rabbi, said Channel 1, gave them his blessing.

However, the Mercaz Harav yeshiva vehemently denied reports that any student or rabbi associated with the seminary planned to carry out an attack on Arabs.

"This report is baseless, and as proof of that, no arrests have been made," the yeshiva said in its response.

Defense establishment monitors developments

Meanwhile, the defense establishment has been following similar reports suggesting the possibility of Jewish radicals carrying out an act of revenge

A Security source told Ynet that there is great difficulty tracking Jewish elements looking to harm Arabs, citing the 2005 Eden Natan Zada case, in which an IDF deserter opened fire on a bus in the Arab town of Shfaram, killing four.

That was a lone, unforeseeable attack, said the source, and while the defense establishment is looking into several reports indicating some Jewish elements might seek revenge, no concrete leads are available.

Should am imminent threat be detected, concluded the source, the defense establishment will not hesitate to stop it.

But that's not the end of it... they signed their names. It looks like they are preparing to celebrate the 14th anniversary of their terrorist, Baruch Goldstein, who conducted Hebron's massacre.

Here's the proclamation and a partial list of the terrorist Rabbis calling for Jewish terrorism:

...In notices posted along Jerusalem's Kiryat Moshe neighborhood, near the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the rabbis wrote: "Each and everyone is required to imagine what the enemy is plotting to do to us, and to match it measure for measure.

The rabbis' announcement calls on Jews "to work to create a proper Jewish leadership," and envisions the day when "Jews will congregate in thei cities... and strike those who wish upon them ill," - in reference to a verse from the Book of Esther, which will be read next week on the Purim holiday.

The long list of rabbis who signed the notice includes Daniel Staveski, Itzhak Shapira, David Drukman, Yaakov Yossef - son of Shas spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef - and Uzi Sharbaf, who killed several Arab college students in Hebron 20 years ago and was recently pardoned from a life sentence.

The list of rabbis also includes figures who are linked to the ultra-right Kach movement which was banned in 1994.

This proclamation can't be perceived innocent by anyone. These rabbis did not state that no violent action should be taken, contrary, they are pushing for it. In fact some of these rabbis are known for supporting criminal and terrorist actions.

Rabbis Druckman and Yosef are Chabad members. Shapira is the student of Chabad rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg, who has been arrested for violence and related crimes several times. These three rabbis along with the others mentioned above are all well known members of the hard right. Many are supporters of the dead terrorist, Baruch Goldstein.

What they are calling for?

The statement also says that the massacre at the yeshiva was "the direct result of the lack of a proper government, which should have acted according to the 'Shulkhan Arukh' (a 16th century rabbinical codex) which states that one must not forgive goyim who harm Jews or their property."

"The governing leaders have decided to appease the Arab enemy. Only the real Jewish leadership can send the country to war knowing that it is a righteous battle against the enemies of Israel and God."

"In going to war," the rabbis write, "the Cohen fills the people with motivation by giving him the knowledge that he is going to fight his enemies and he must not show compassion or mercy."

The message is clear: Murder Arabs. Commit Jewish terror.

I think the call for Jewish terrorism is clear in their announcement. They say "Each and everyone is required to envision what the enemy is plotting to do to us, and to match it measure for measure." They also believe that their government "should have acted according to the Shulkhan Arukh [Code of Jewish Law] which states that one must not forgive goyim who harm Jews or their property." The rabbis also called for "blessed local actions" (guess what action) and the day will soon come when "Jews will congregate in their cities... and strike those who wish upon them ill."

The sentence quoted by the rabbis in full reads this way:

"The Jews assembled in their cities, in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on those who sought to harm them, and no one stood up before them, for their fear had fallen upon all the peoples." Esther 9:2.

In other words, the rabbis are saying: "The Jews will assemble in their cities [on Purim] to lay hand on those who try to harm them, and no one will stand up to stop them, because fear of these 'holy' Jews acting in 'God's name' wills frighten the nations into submission."

Can they do it? "Yes they can, and no one will stop them." Will they do it? "They are doing worse than this every day." That's what the killed student of Mercaz HaRav were doing... learning to kill Arab.

Related posts:

• Top Israeli rabbis advocate genocide
• So what do we call THIS?
• ‘Hello’, this is your NIGHTMARE wake up call!

Palestinian newborn, killed on Tuesday by the IOF [ 05/03/2008 - 01:23 AM ]

""So I believe that I act in the spirit of the Almighty God. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924

""A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail" Dov Lior, Rabbi of Kiryat Arba

"We will carry out a greater holocaust against the Palestinians," Matan Vilnai, Deputy Defense Minister, 1 March, 2008

Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the ultra-orthodox Shas party, which represents Jews from the Middle East, has urged Jews around the world to pray for Israeli soldiers, not only on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, but also on Mondays and Thursdays.

According to the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, Yosef told his followers that Israeli soldiers need to be blessed by the Almighty for killing and maiming hundreds of Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, in the past few days.

"Had it not been for them, would we have time to study the Torah? To turn the books," Yosef was quoted as saying Saturday night during his weekly sermon in Jerusalem.

It is really lamentable that Yosef thinks that it is only through murder and genocide of Palestinians that Jews can sit down and study the Torah.

Jews, after all, have been and are studying the Torah for many centuries without "Jewish soldiers" engaging themselves in mass murder, mass terror and mass oppression. Does the rabbi think that linking Torah studies to mass murder in Gaza brings honor to the Torah and to Judaism?

Yosef, who on several occasions called Palestinians "rats," is considered by many in Israel as one of the greatest living sages of the Torah. However, his enthusiastic support for ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinians caricatures a callous man who quotes ancient texts to justify every conceivable crime against humanity and every abomination against God and man.

Yosef is not unaware of the Nazi-like atrocities the soldiers he is blessing have committed and are committing in Gaza.

He knows too well that an army that murders innocent civilians, including babies in their mothers' laps, is not an army of righteous soldiers, but rather an army of thugs and criminals, not unlike the Gestapo and SS and wehrmacht.

I understand that some Zionist rabbis tend to believe in the horrible idea that in war time, there is no such a thing as "innocent civilians of the enemy." In other words, "All's fair in love and war."

But this is a stunningly immoral concept that degrades man to cannibalistic savagery. Because then every mass murderer from Adolph Hitler, to Joseph Stalin, to Ariel Sharon, to Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak could justify the mass murder of civilians on the ground that in wartime, no holds are barred. Indeed, this would be the most comfortable justification for all the holocausts, genocides, pogroms and inquisitions in the world since Adam and Eve.

Well, I really wonder how these rabbis of evil, people such Yosef, Dov Lior, David Batsri, and many many others, would react if a Nazi apologist argued that the mass killings of Jews during the holocaust was a perfectly justified and legitimate act "since we viewed European Jewry as our number-1 enemy, and we were at war, and in wartime there is no such a thing as innocent civilians of the enemy."

Now, what is the difference between a rabbi praying for and blessing an army that has just murdered and maimed hundreds of innocent people in Gaza , and a German Nazi priest praying for and blessing Nazi killers who had just carried out one of those pacification raids in central or Eastern Europe?

Does the rabbi think that a holocaust by Jews is kosher? Does he think that non-Jewish children and women and men are un-human, or lesser humans? What kind of Torah is he studying? What kind of God is he praying to? Does he think that the Torah prohibition against murder covers only "Jews"?

Rabbi Yosef is more than just an unenlightened old man; he is actually an evil man. He is evil because in the name of the Torah and in the name of Judaism, he tries to make evil look good, ugliness look fair and cardinal sins against God and man look as great acts of charity.

It is really hypocritical that while many Zionists don't stop denouncing Catholic religious leaders for supporting the Third Reich and for keeping silent in the face of the Holocaust, rabbis, even prominent rabbis, such as Yosef, are more of less indulging in the same evil behavior they are denouncing.

Yosef may be a learned man in matter of Jewish theology. But he seems to be a dwarf in understanding the moral messages of the Torah. Because if he were truly faithful to the true spirit of Judaism, he should realize that murdering innocent people-non-Jews as well as Jews- is the greatest crime under the sun.

Doesn't he read "Thou Shall not murder"? Doesn't he read "thou shall not oppress?" Is this his way of making "Tikkun Ha'olam," or fixing the world, by blessing and encouraging child killers and mass murderers?

It is sad how men of religion who think they are hallowing the name of God are actually doing Satan's work.

And we wonder why the world is in such a mess!

Related posts:

• I hate you, my ENEMY!
• Did you know?
• Weekend Video: Interview with Rabbi Aharon Cohen

Here is an example of the anti-peace, warmonger Zionist's 'Machiavellian perspective', which show how close (not) we are to peace with Israel and how pointless it is to speak to such people.

This piece of crap was shamefully published by someone called Danny on "Samson Blinded" blog (not linking to it deliberately, google it if you wish):

We need a respite from peace

[From Danny: The comments we receive are 95% spam, and of the balance the vast majority is hate mail. Probably related to the Annapolis, we experience a flood of hate mail from peaceniks. I delete it all, since talking to them is pointless. Here, however, is a short summary of our reasons to oppose the peace process.]

Peace process doesn't lead to peace. Concessions to Arabs and imploring for peace only provoke them for the last-ditch fighting. That correlation is clear at least since the Oslo accords.

Peace process cannot lead to peace. If history is any lesson, peace is only achieved through crushing defeat of one's enemy.

Peace process is highly unusual. Every other nation destroyed whatever aborigines happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state.

Peace process is illegal. The original arrangement for the Jewish state included Transjordan, but the British illegally cut it off. Then the UN further partitioned Israel to accommodate Palestinian Arabs.

Peace process is immoral. Palestinian Arabs don't constitute a nation. Offering them a state is a plot against Jews.

Peace process doesn't offer safety. Jews need a secure state rather than a beach strip eight miles wide.

Peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the peace process gives to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could as well settle in Uganda or Arizona.

Peace process is not for real. Israeli government employs the peace process for the sole objective of destroying Jewish religious and nationalist opposition to its rule. Neither security of the Jewish state, nor fulfillment of Jewish objectives are the peace process' goals.

Peace process is pointless. Israel can settle with Palestinian government, but a sufficient number of Palestinian Arabs would always resent what they think is Jewish occupation of the land of their ancestors. A few thousand such Arabs would always be there, and will always attack Israel employing terrorist tactics.

Peace process fails to address the major issue of Israel's Jewishness. Israeli Arabs already constitute more than a third of Israeli youth. Arabs constitute majority in many important areas of Israel. The area of Lod near Ben Gurion airport is as much hostile to Israel as Gaza. Israel's real problem is not the Palestinian Authority, but the Israeli Arabs who can field the largest faction in the Knesset ten years from now.

Peace is not viable in our case. After the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel continues immense military spending. Egypt continues anti-Israeli propaganda and builds an army whose only target is Israel.

Peace is not a proper objective. Jews moved into Israel to fulfill religious and nationalist objectives. If peace and security are the utmost objectives, Israelis should move to Canada.

It's not surprising to hear such hate speech from Zionists if you know what Zionism is (yet they are complaining that 'others' hate them).

They are nothing but anti-human, hate-filled terrorist who hesitate-not to kill even a foetus and feel proud by doing so.

To learn more about Zionism, here are few references for your read and bookmark:

1. Zionism 101
2. Lies and Truths

Related posts:

• Time to talk peace
• Peace & Despair
• Did you know?

George Washington University hate crime investigation has a surprise ending

NBC - Jewish GW Student Admits Putting Swastikas On Her Door

WASHINGTON -- George Washington University officials said a Jewish student who complained about swastikas showing up on her door put them there herself.

The student lives in Mitchell Hall, where half a dozen swastikas had shown up on her dorm room door in the past several weeks.

University police set up a hidden camera. They said the girl admitted responsibility Monday.

News 4 interviewed the student last week after the fifth swastika was discovered. She did not want to be identified.

"It's a big story," said Jake Sherman, GW Hatchet editor. "Thirty percent of GW students are Jewish"

Reporters at the GW Hatchet newspaper have been following the story since it began. They said they learned on Monday morning that the alleged victim would likely be implicated.

They said they spoke to her twice by phone.

According to reporters at the newspaper, the student said, "I wasn't looking to create this sort of insanity. I wasn't looking to become a media darling. I was just looking for acknowledgment from the university that someone drew a swastika on the door."

The student now faces disciplinary action from the school and could face criminal charges.

Now watch it... that is called "self hate" only. Imagine if she was not a Jew!?

Related posts:

• Surprise: United States & Israel among least peaceful nations!
• Surprise!
• Zero Investigation