By Stephen Zunes*

An ad on my Facebook page from barackobama.com reads, "Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!"

This struck me as odd for two reasons:

First, it is disingenuous and misleading. The actual position taken by these Republican presidential candidates is that all foreign aid should initially start at zero as means of reducing the deficit, to be immediately followed by the resumption of aid on a case-by-case basis. As they themselves have acknowledged, they would immediately resume aid to Israel and perhaps even increase it. Ironically, U.S. "aid for Israel" goes almost exclusively to U.S. arms manufacturers, with which the Republican candidates have a close relationship.

Secondly, millions of Americans-particularly younger voters who are the primary users of Facebook-support zeroing out aid to Israel on human rights grounds. The Obama campaign, therefore, is effectively labeling those of us who oppose the use of our tax dollars to arm the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has repeatedly used U.S. weapons against civilians, as "extreme." Presumably, they feel the same way about those of us who support a cutoff of aid to other governments that violate international humanitarian law as well.

In 2009, Amnesty International, citing war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and the armed wing of Hamas earlier that year, called on nations to suspend arms shipments to both. The Obama administration categorically rejected the proposal. The administration has also rejected calls by human rights groups to condition military aid and arms transfers to other countries that use U.S. weapons against civilians, including Colombia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Azerbaijan, and Morocco. Recently, the Obama administration requested a waiver on human rights restrictions in the forthcoming foreign appropriations bill in order to resume arming the Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, which has massacred hundreds of pro-democracy protesters and has literally boiled its opponents alive.

One can speculate whether, if Obama were seeking re-election in 1984, his campaign would similarly label those who opposed aid to the murderous Salvadoran junta as "extreme." Or, if it were 1996, his campaign would have marginalized opponents of U.S. aid to the genocidal Suharto regime in Indonesia. The president's re-election team for 2012 sure appears to think of us that way.

Republican candidates certainly have taken a number of extreme positions regarding Israel and Palestine. Gingrich, Perry, and Romney, for example, have aligned themselves with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, opposing Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and opposing a freeze on illegal Israeli settlements. Gingrich has even said the Palestinians are an "invented people" and implied his support for mass population transfers.

I've searched barackobama.com and elsewhere, and nowhere does the Obama campaign appear to label such positions or similarly outrageous statements as "extreme." However, if you oppose sending billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded aid to Israel-whether as a means of cutting the deficit, reducing cuts in social programs, or defending human rights-the Obama campaign considers it an "extreme plan" that should be rejected.

What is so bizarre about the Obama campaign's hostility toward those who oppose aid to Israel is that Israel doesn't need U.S. assistance to begin with. Israel, the region's only nuclear power, has by far the strongest military capability in the greater Middle East, and it possesses the only significant domestic arms industry in the region. Israel also has, by far, the region's highest standard of living, comparable to that of most European countries. Even putting human rights concerns aside, questioning why American taxpayers should be spending over $3 billion annually in aid to Israel at a time of massive cutbacks at home doesn't seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans believe U.S. military aid should be made conditional to human rights.

Most people for whom providing unconditional support for the Netanyahu government is their top priority are going to support the Republican nominee anyway. Meanwhile, there are millions of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans who question spending billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up that rightist Israeli government every year. Why risk alienating these voters by labeling their position "extreme"? Is it simply a headline thrown together by an overzealous young wonk in the campaign? Or is this part of a larger effort to stifle debate on the Obama administration's policies of aiding governments that violate human rights?

Either way, it sends the message that the Obama campaign does not welcome concerns about human rights. In addition, it serves as a reminder for Americans who do care about human rights that neither party will provide a presidential nominee we can vote for.

* Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist and senior analyst, is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author, along with Jacob Mundy, of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press, 2010).

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

The biggest political mistake I've ever made was to vote for Barack Obama. I should have known that a really great campaign speaker and organizer would probably make an inept president.

All of Obama's emphatic talk about change sounded appealing; even though Washington has proven so often that it's incapable of changing. There are just too many self-interests needing trade-offs with other self-interests, none of which has public needs in mind.

The fact that Obama opposed the Iraq War carried a lot of weight with those who don't believe America should mind everybody else's business.

Many had enough of Bush-Cheney war-mongering for the neo-cons (aka American Zionists who desperately wanted America to take out Iraq before Saddam Hussein could wage the mother of all WMDs against Israel).

So the Zioncons made up stories, pretended that fiction was fact and lied about non-existent WMDs.

Some argue they even went so far as to arrange for the slaughter of 3000 plus people on 9/11 with Israel's help.

Let's say Mossad, Israel's intelligence deceivers, speaking perfect Arabic and pretending to be Arabs, infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell and hatched a plan to highjack four planes; and that would show everyone how clever Al Qaeda was.

Of course the hijackers knew nothing about any plan to fly into buildings like kamikaze pilots on a suicide mission.

Once they got into the air and managed to get control of the planes, there would be nothing else the hijackers had to do. Thank you very much; everything would now be on remote control, with planes being flown like drones and directed by the Pentagon.

All the Israeli-firsters needed to do now was trigger the already placed thermal devices in the Trade Centre buildings just before the time the flying drones were guided into the top of the twin towers.

Another plane was droned into a largely unoccupied wing of the Pentagon, and the last--not allowed to fly into the White House--was shot down over Pennsylvania.

The whole story is perfect enough to allow Bush to continue reading to school children in Florida and for Cheney to pretend fear of terror while hiding in a bunker under the White House.

Of course the dots had to be connected between hijackers and Al Qaeda who at first knew nothing about the operation, and later -Bin Laden hearing they were blamed for 9/11- ignorantly accepted credit.

Is there any better rationale for assassinating Bin Laden, once he was allowed to be found, than to keep him from eventually testifying that he had nothing to do with 9/11?

Once Bin Laden claimed credit for bombing America, the Taliban refused to turn him over to US authorities without evidence that Bin Laden was indeed guilty.

That provided enough reason for America to gather a coalition of 9/11 sympathizers to agree to invade Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously believe it took 10 years to find Bin Laden? Certainly Obama must know better!

Before locating and capturing the Al Qaeda mastermind, it was necessary to go to war with Iraq. In order to do that, Iraq had to be associated with the reign of terror connecting the triumvirate of evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

North Korea was simply thrown into Bush's Axis of Evil to send a message to China while pretending that the US wasn't focusing only on Middle Eastern threats to Israel.

Now here's Barack Obama, foster child of Bush-Cheney, trying to prove to the Zioncons (who have already jumped ship) that he's as much a warrior for Israel as his predecessors were.

Shame on me for ignoring the lessons of history: a great campaigner can make an inept leader!

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

By Philip Giraldi * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The issue of Israel is of critical importance to the antiwar movement, as frequenters of this website are surely aware. This is because Israel and its lobby in the United States have succeeded in so intertwining their interests with those of the United States that whenever Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sneezes four hundred congressmen say "Gesundheit!" What Israel does has consequences for every American citizen, and not only because Tel Aviv is the largest recipient of US economic and military assistance. It is indisputable that Israel and its friends in the White House and Defense Department played a major role in creating the lies and generating the momentum in the drive to war against Iraq in 2002, a conflict that continues to claim American casualties and which has left Iraq in ruins. Now the push is on to "do something" about Iran. There have been a number of bills in Congress that stop just short of declaring war on the Mullahs and there are signs that the Israeli government might be planning a military action before the end of the summer. Does anyone doubt that the United States would immediately be drawn into such a conflict, with disastrous consequences in terms of a terrorist response and energy prices that would skyrocket? It would be a particular misfortune in that there is no actual evidence of the alleged casus belli that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the US is not threatened by anything Tehran does or could possibly do, and John Citizen has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by Washington going to war.

There were two stories last week that illustrate just how bad the situation has become in the wake of the virtual capitulation by President Barack Obama during Netanyahu's triumphal May visit to Washington, the first time in recorded history that a small nation with less than eight million citizens has subjugated a much larger country with a population of more than 310 million.

The first story is about the annual meeting of Ralph Reed's evangelical Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington on June 3rd and 4th, which included cameo appearances and a number of speeches by Republican presidential candidates. Support for Israel was on the menu du jour in nearly every speech and for every panel. It dominated the conference. One panel had as its subject "Israel: surrounded yet undaunted in the face of evil." Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's oddly named Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission spoke for fifteen minutes about Israel, saying "If we want God to bless America, then we have to bless the Jews. God gave that land to his chosen people forever. That issue is settled by God almighty." Land called Obama "...the worst president of the United States that Israel has ever had," an assertion that probably had much deeper meaning than he intended. Danny Danon, a Knesset member for the Likud Party, warned President Obama "Take your hands from Jerusalem! Jerusalem will remain under Jewish control forever!"

Among the Republicans, only Mitt Romney failed to mention Israel, but he had already denounced Obama for "throwing Israel under the bus." Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain demonstrated complete ignorance on basic Middle Eastern issues when he revealed in an interview that he did not understand the meaning of "right of return." But he reportedly "blew the audience away" with his expressions of support-"You mess with Israel and you mess with the United States of America"-and then flew up to New York City to attend a Salute to Israel rally in Central Park. Michele Bachmann produced a standing ovation when she cited a "shocking display of betrayal of our greatest friend and ally Israel." She added "I stand with Israel...President Obama...does not speak for us on the issue of Israel." Tim Pawlenty enthused "We need a president of the United States who stands shoulder to shoulder with our great friend Israel."

The second story comes from a reported visit by Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk to Israel. The coverage of the visit by Josh Rogin (isn't he an actor?) on the Foreign Policy website, is headlined as a "new policy approach." The story features a photo of a beaming Kirk standing next to a similarly glowing Netanyahu, demonstrating beyond all doubt that excellent dentistry is available in both countries. Kirk, who appears to have some problem in keeping his resume straight regarding his military record, traveled to the Middle East on an "intense fact finding" mission funded by you and me, unfortunately.

Senator Kirk envisions a "host of ways" to bring about a lot more Israeli-US defense cooperation, suggesting that the $3 billion plus per year they already get is inadequate to their needs. He would like to have the Israeli navy assist the United States navy in patrolling for pirates in the Indian Ocean. Sounds good, doesn't it? The world's mightiest navy with eleven carrier battle groups needs help from Israel's three corvettes to patrol the Indian Ocean. Ah, but there must be a catch and I would guess that since Israel's navy is inadequate to the task, the United States will generously pay to muscle it up, provide a few new vessels and maybe some advanced weapons systems. Probably also cover all the operating costs. It makes perfect sense as everyone knows that Israel is vulnerable to attack from the sea, particularly by car ferries manned by ferocious Turks wielding sticks delivering aid to the Gazans.

Kirk would also like to have the Defense Department consider the purchase of Israel's Iron Dome defensive missile system to protect "our borders" in case either the Canadians or Mexicans decide to attack with Katyusha rockets. Iron Dome was largely developed with US funding but the sales would all go to Israel. Ka-ching!, just listen to that cash register opening up. Kirk would also like to have NATO buy the system to protect against somebody somewhere at some time who might be considering something bad. Ka-ching! Ka-ching!

But Senator Kirk's brilliant insights into the state of the Middle East do not end with the Israeli navy and buying needful things. Kirk advocates ending US funding to the Palestinians as long as Hamas is involved and also terminating it anyway if the Palestinians dare to declare statehood in the UN. Or if they fail to curb "anti-Israeli incitement in Palestinian schools." If those three reasons won't do, there are almost certainly others. Oh yes, and Kirk wants the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH, which supported the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza in May, declared a terrorist organization.

Kirk concluded his visit by making a video with Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky on human rights in Iran. Sharansky recited a list of dissidents in prison in Iran. He apparently misplaced the list of dissidents in prison in Israel, which would be a whole lot longer, as would the corresponding list of those shot and killed by Israeli security forces on the West Bank and in Gaza.

I really don't care what America's hypocritical evangelicals do except insofar as they waste my tax money on their divinely sanctioned wars and demand my grandson for cannon fodder. The fact that they ignore Christian teachings of love and forgiveness and seem to gravitate instead towards Old Testament bloodshed because of their skewed and ridiculous interpretation of what they think it says in the bible is a symptom of their ignorance and hubris. That a US senator goes to Israel to genuflect and kiss the Netanyahu ring is not that surprising either. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Ralph Reed's followers and the nincompoops that seem to proliferate in Congress because of their witlessness and hypocrisy. People like Land and the gaggle of Republican wannabes are both powerful and dangerous. The evangelicals appear to control who will be the next Republican presidential nominee, and their choice might well turn out to be a Bachmann or a Palin, with terrible consequences for the United States if they are elected and are able to carry out their fundamentalist agenda. Senator Mark Kirk is, by comparison, a useful idiot. He will give Netanyahu what he wants in return for support from the Chicago political machine to get reelected. But he buys that support with a Faustian bargain, using taxpayer money and compromising the security of every American. There was a time when someone like Kirk would be laughed out of the public forum, but currently every fool appears to have his day.

Americans have to make a hard decision on what kind of country they want to have. If they want a state shaped by a holy book and guided by the venal and hypocritical they can have it and it will turn out something like the Muslim equivalents in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Thought and moral guidance police on every corner with mandatory prayer services. Or we can opt to throw all this nonsense into the garbage where it belongs. Make Ralph Reed and his cheering Israel firsters go away or emigrate to Israel if that is their wont. We can make do without them.

* Philip Giraldi is a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues. He is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 18 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992 designated as the Agency's senior officer for Olympic Games support. He is a contributing editor to The American Conservative, a columnist with AntiWar.com, and his frequent media appearances include 60 Minutes, al-Jazeera TV, National Public Radio, and the British Broadcasting Corporation.

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

Despite no legitimate provocation, Israel began terror bombing Gaza on December 27, 2008. Invasion followed, attacking innocent civilian men, women and children for over three weeks, using missiles, bombs, shells, and illegal weapons against defenseless people. Mass slaughter and destruction ensued.

Brazen crimes of war and against humanity were committed. No culpable officials were held responsible. Security Council no-fly zone protection wasn't ordered. International community leaders approved or were silent. Washington was complicit by supplying Israel with weapons, munitions, and encouragement. Obama acts the same as Bush, waging a quartet of lawless wars and using proxies in others.

Operation Cast Lead remains one of history's greatest crimes. Yet Israel was green-lighted to wage it with impunity, what it's done numerous times in its history, besides terrorizing Palestinians by:

• illegal military occupation;
• collective punishment and intimidation;
• air and ground attacks;
• isolating Gaza illegally under siege;
• intermittently bombing and shooting its residents, including noncombatant farmers, fishermen and children;
• regular residential neighborhood incursions;
• bulldozing homes;
• dispossessing residents;
• land seizures;
• arbitrary arrests;
• torture as official policy, including against women and children;
• targeted assassinations;
• denying refugees their right of return;
• movement and free expression restrictions;
• violence, not peaceful coexistence;
• confrontation, not diplomacy;
• war, not peace; and
• denying Palestinian sovereignty, as well as equal justice, human rights and civil liberty protections.

Israel is a rogue terror state, a democracy in name only affording rights solely to Jews. Remember Cast Lead, one of history's greatest crimes. Justice Richard Goldstone documented them convincingly in his 575 page report titled, "Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict."

It covered Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza siege, the impact of Israel's West Bank military occupation, and much more, including:

• events between the "ceasefire" period from June 18, 2008 to Israel's initiated hostilities on December 27, 2008;
• applicable international law;
• Occupied Gaza under siege;
• an overview of Cast Lead;
• obligations of both sides to protect civilians;
• indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians, causing many hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries;
• "the use of certain weapons;"
• attacking "the foundations of civilian life in Gaza: destruction of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing;"
• using Palestinians as human shields;
• detention and incarceration of Gazans during the conflict;
• the IDF's objectives and strategy;
• impact of the siege and military operations on Gazans and their human rights;
• the detention of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit;
• internal Gaza violence - Hamas v. Fatah;
• the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem;
• Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive or lethal force during demonstrations;
• Palestinians in Israeli prisons;
• Israeli violations of free movement and access rights;
• Fatah targeting Hamas supporters in the West Bank, and restricting free assembly and expression;
• rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians;
• repression of dissent, access to information, and treatment of human rights defenders in Israel;
• Israeli responses to war crimes charges;
• proceedings by Palestinian authorities;
• universal jurisdiction;
• reparations; and
• conclusions and recommendations.

It collected enough information "of a credible and reliable nature....to make a finding in fact." It established clear evidence of crimes, determining they were deliberate or reckless. An accompanying press release said:

"(T)here is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity."

It explained that Israel falsely used the pretext of rocket attacks to attack "the people of Gaza as a whole" illegally.

A detailed discussion of Goldstone's findings can be accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/09/goldstone-commission-gaza-conflict.html

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Report Remembers Cast Lead

In its December 2010 report titled, "The Illegal Closure of the Gaza Strip: Collective Punishment of the Civilian Population," the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) remembered Cast Lead, saying it exacerbated isolation:

• killing over 1,400 Gazans, mostly civilians;
• injuring thousands more, many seriously; and
• causing "extensive destruction of houses and civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and industry."

Moreover, Israel violated Security Council Resolution 1860 (January 8, 2009), calling for "full withdrawal of Israeli forces," as well as "unimpeded humanitarian assistance" for Gazan victims. As a result, deepening crisis ensued.

On April 1, Richard Goldstone's Washington Post op-ed headlined, "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes," saying:

"Our report found evidence potential war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity by both Israel and Hamas." The latter ones, in fact, were minor by comparison, responding only to Israeli provocations.

Israel's, however, "were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where....evidence (pointed to no) other reasonable conclusion."

Goldstone, however, softened his initial condemnation by commending Israel's Cast Lead inquiry, ignoring how all its internal investigations whitewash crimes of war and against humanity - most recently the Gaza and May 2010 Freedom Flotilla massacres.

According to PCHR:

"Rather than uphold the rule of law, the Israeli investigative and judicial system is artfully manipulated to provide an illusion of investigative and judicial rigour, while systematically perpetuating pervasive impunity" for crimes too extreme to ignore.

Whitewash Examples

On April 29, 2009, IDF Chief of Staff, General Gabi Ashkenazi authorized publication of the findings of five military investigate teams. Unsurprisingly, they concluded that:

"(T)throughout the fighting in Gaza, the IDF operated in accordance with international law. The IDF maintained a high professional and moral level while facing an enemy that aimed to terrorize Israeli civilians whilst taking cover amidst uninvolved civilians in the the Gaza strip and using them as human shields."

It continued at some length justifying brazen Israeli crimes of war and against humanity. In contrast, a year after hostilities ended, Human Rights Watch called Israeli attacks "indiscriminate, disproportionate (and) at times seemingly deliberate, in violation of the laws of war," condemning IDF investigations as no "substitute for impartial and thorough investigations into laws-of-war violations" they whitewashed.

In his April 1 op-ed, Goldstone failed to explain and denounce them. Instead, he defended the indefensible.

Netanyahu's (Jacob) Turkel commission investigation of Israel's Freedom Flotilla massacre also produced lies, distortions, omissions, false conclusions, and exoneration of cold-blooded murder, ordered by top government and military officials who got off scot-free like Cast Lead criminals.

Specifically, it concluded that Israel's (illegal siege) does not break international law....(and) there were clear indications that the flotilla intended to break the naval blockade....By clearly resisting capture, the Mavi Marmara had become a military objective," despite on board activists having no weapons and offering no resistance. Saying so was a lie.

In contrast, an independent UN Human Rights Council investigation "concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

It added that Israel's attack:

"was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and resulted in the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers."

Also that at least six of the dead were killed by "extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions," some shot multiple times in the head at close range.

Moreover, similar tactics were used before, during, and after Cast Lead, facts Richard Goldstone knows and should have explained instead of suggesting civilians may not have been "intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

Indeed they always are under Israel's "Dahiya Doctrine," targeting civilians as official policy. Named after the Beirut suburb IDF attacks destroyed in the 2006 Lebanon war, it's how all Israeli wars are waged. IDF Northern Commander Gabi Eisenkot explained, saying:

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force at the heart of the enemy's weak spot (civilians) and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages (towns or cities), they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

It also prioritizes damaging or destroying assets, economic interests, and centers of civilian power, requiring long-term reconstruction even though international law prohibits attacking civilians and non-military related targets. Israel spurned international law in Cast Lead, against humanitarian Flotilla activists, and in all its belligerent confrontations.

Instead of condemning this policy, Goldstone softened his criticism, contradicting his detailed findings, replicated by other reputable human rights studies, unequivocally accusing Israel of crimes of war and against humanity.

A Final Comment

On March 25, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution, urging the General Assembly address Israel's Cast Lead impunity by asking the Security Council to request investigation, action and resolution by the International Criminal Criminal Court (ICC).

For over two years, justice for thousands of Palestinian victims has been denied. Gaza remains illegally under siege. Meaningful action is demanded. Crimes this great can't be tolerated.

Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council can request ICC action. Washington's veto, of course, looms. Nonetheless, it's high time other members demanded, shamed, and did whatever it takes to assure long-suffering Palestinians justice. Then do it for other victims of injustice instead of authorizing war on Libya when it should have acted resolutely to prevent it.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

By Mantiq al-Tayr * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

1. Hey goys and girls, this one is hot off the presses. A little bird who says he works with Judas Assholange has leaked to us the hottest little piece of news of the year. It turns out that Israeli Vice President for American Affairs (IVPFAA), Barrack Obama, really does want to run for re-election in 2012 and therefore he has done something which will be announced before the end of the Judeo-Christian Hannakuh celebrations. But thanks to our little bird, who also knows how to use a flash drive, we know what the IVPFAA is going to do. He and some of his new advisors are truly going to bring us hope and change and they are going to prove it by having the Department of Fatherland Security release to all military and government agencies next week the brand new design of the American flag. Soon it will be flying over top all those buildings in Washington DC that you get to pay for and in all those 700 or so military bases we have around the world that you also get to pay for. And now, since you are one of the chosen elites who is allowed to read Mantiq al-Tayr on a regular basis, you can scroll down and see the new Stars and Bars, err, Stripes, whatever. Anyway, isn't it a beauty? Gives me a chill.

Photo courtesy of Skulz "Betsy Ross" Fontaine

2. I have a question: How many more people have to die for the state of Israel?

A little background discussion.

I have heard at least two pretty good alternative media types the past few months talk about an interesting aspect of Israel's obsession regarding Iran's ever acquiring even one nuclear weapon. The theory, discussed months before the latest deluge of Wikiwitzleaks documents, says that Iran's having a nuclear weapon would mean that even fewer Jews would immigrate to Israel to live on land stolen from the Palestinians and that in fact Israel might even have a net exodus some day if Iran gets a nuke. And of course, this would mean that the Arabs, who seem to like to have sex a lot, being Arabs and all, would then quickly outnumber the Jews and then Israel would be like South Africa, etc, etc. Actually, Israel would have to improve in order to become what South Africa used to be, but I digress.

Anyway, this sounds like a reasonable Israeli concern, right? I mean, if Iran had a nuclear weapon, why I'm sure it would just love to drop it right smack in the middle of Tel-Aviv because Iran, unlike all other countries on earth, is too stupid to think that Israel or the US would ever retaliate. That's because Iranians are different, speak a funny language, and have an even funnier religion. I guess the one good thing about all of this is that Haifa Wehbe does not live in Iran, though she shares that funny religion with the Ayatollahs, so if we did nuke Iran in retaliation for Iran's inevitable nuking of Israel, at least she might be spared. But again, I digress.

Anyway, it turns out that the Wikiwitzleaks material just happens out of nowhere to confirm the theory that the Israeli government believes that when Iran gets a nuke Israeli immigration will go down and then the literally fucking Arabs will end up taking over. Juan Cole writes at length about this here.

In the course of discussing this position, Dr. Cole notes Israel's immigration-emigration problem.

Natan Sharansky has admitted that the days of mass migration of Jews to Israel are over, and only 18,000 are likely to come in 2010. In one recent year, 2005, over 21,000 Israelis emigrated out, almost all of them Jews or ex-Soviets, and they had not returned by 2008. Because thousands of expatriates do return, there is not a net outflow at the moment, but obviously immigration no longer gives Jewish Israelis a demographic edge.

Of course, as even commenters on Dr. Cole's blog have noted, maybe if Israel weren't a racist, expansionist, violent, aggressive, war mongering state in the first place then maybe more people might want to immigrate there. But who the hell wants to serve in the military all the time and go around shooting Palestinian kids for sport? Well, too many people do of course, but for lots of Jewish immigrants to Israel, it is just too much.

This brings me back to my original question, this time slightly modified. How many more people have to die for the racist state of Israel, a state that many Jews find to be an intolerable place to live?

A little more discussion.

According to most reports, the world Jewish population is about 13 to 14 million. This report [PDF] even has a nice graph and looks all official and academic and everything. Wikipedia seems to be reporting pretty much the same stuff. According to Wiki, the government of Israel says that the population of Jews world-wide is 13.4 billion, oops, sorry, I mean million, it only seems like it's 13.4 billion. But I digress. Anyway, the government of Israel says the figure world-wide is about 13.4 million.

Now, of the 13.4 million world-wide, 87% of them live either in the United States or in "Israel". Wow.

I have "Israel" in quotes because some studies distinguish between the number of Jews living inside the 1967 borders on the one hand and those living in the "occupied territories" on the other. For right now I'll just use the combined figure of 5.8 billion, damn it, I mean 5.8 million, living on land stolen from Palestinians both inside and outside the so-called 1967 borders. Yep, 5.8 million. That's about 42% of Jews world-wide. I mean, they don't even have six million Jews in THE state created just for the Jewish people. In the US according to Wiki, the figure is 6.5 billon, err, 6.5 million. Yup, so out of 13.4 million world-wide, 12.3 million live in either the US or Israel and more live in the US than in Israel. I find this most interesting.

Let's rephrase my question again. How many more people have to die for the racist state of Israel, when a plurality of the world-Jewish population already lives in the United States?

Now,let's look at the figures for inside and outside the 1967 borders just for a second.

Inside the 1967 borders, the number of Jews is about 5.4 million according to this study [PDF] and the Jews there make up about 76% of the population. So here you don't not have a serious demographic problem when speaking from a strictly bigoted Israeli Zionist perspective.

Ah, but if you want to take the West Bank figures into account where a few hundred thousand Jews live - illegally, then the figures and percentages change drastically. In the West Bank there are about 490 million, sorry, 490 thousand Jews - oh and Shas Party people, I am counting "East Jeruslaem" as part of the West Bank since making a distinction between EJ and the WB is nothing but a bunch of pure unadulterated Zionist Bullshit. Anyway, 490 thousand Jews in the West Bank. Sadly, those fucking Arabs live there too. Damn. Over 3.4 million of them. Oh shit, what's a war mongering Zionist Jew to do? Kind of reminds me of the last words of General George Armstrong Custer "Holy shit, look at all those fucking Indians!" but I digress. Anyway, if you add all those Arabs there plus a few in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, the total percentage of Jews in pre and post 1967 stolen Arab lands comes to be just 52.6 percent.

One would think that given the demongraphics (pun intendeded), the Israelis would say, "okay, we'll take pre-1967 and be the majority" and just continue to screw the Arab minority out of their rights until they leave." But nooooooooooo, not these guys. They want everything. They want the WB too and I don't see them itching to give up the Golan Heights either and I'm sure they are pissed as hell that Hizballah forced them out of Lebanon, they've always wanted a good piece of Lebanon.

So the goal is get rid of all the Palestinians some how, some way, and to keep getting Jews to come in and help steal more land. Are they really afraid an Iranian nuke would prevent this? Well, they aren't so afraid that they will strike a reasonable peace deal with the Palestinians so I don't think they are worried at all. Especially since, even if they are worried, Americans will be forced to do the killing for them anyway.

So, let me rephrase my question again: "How many more Americans will die killing people for the sake of the state of Israel where 60 percent of the world's Jews don't want to live anyway?"

I think it's a pretty damn good question and I'd like to see the Eric Cantor's of this world answer it.

3. I have another question. It kind of comes from all the brouhahahahahaha surrounding Wikileaks and whether or not the Wikiwitzleaks folks are some sort of Zionist tool. Lots of people think this and it is quite plausible. So let's assume that the Wikishtizleaks thing is some sort of Zionist enterprise. My question is: Since the Israeli-related stuff that's come out so far in the very tiny percentage of materials that have been released seems to support Israel and Israel's desire for killing Iranians and all that stuff, are the Wikileaks folks holding back in the mass of stuff they have any cute little documents that could be used to blackmail US leaders? I wonder if they have something on Israeli Vice President for American Affairts, Barrack Obama? After all, lots of this shit is coming from the Zionist-infiltrated State Department and gee, I seem to remember some scandal two or three years ago at State Department about some folks looking up Obama's passport information. Some guy even got murdered or something. Some company,what was it called, oh yes, Stanley Inc. apparently had two of its employees fired for doing things. Stanley Inc., just happens to "operate facilities for the production of United States passports." It does a shit load of US defense contracting too getting about two thirds of its revenue from the Pentagon. You'll no doubt be pleased to know that Stanley Inc. was recently taken over by CGI, a Canadian company that was founded by Canadian Serge Godin who is also its CEO.

Anyway, I'm just asking.

4. I have another question, this one posed to those who may go off to fight in another war for Israel.

And have you seen the old man
Outside the seaman's mission
Memory fading with
The medal ribbons that he wears.
In our winter city,
The rain cries a little pity
For one more forgotten hero
And a world that doesn't care

From "The Streets of London" written by the great Ralph McTell.

5. Many fine musicians have performed "The Streets of London." My favorite version, as readers might suspect, is by Liam Clancy. He was really something.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVW3yPCwOfU

6. But I can't leave you all on such a sad note again, well, maybe next time I will but not this time. So, in honor of TSA - hold on a sec - let's all take a minute of silence as we ponder the depths of our souls looking for words that can truly express our deeply-felt gratitude and love for the wonderful things the TSA does for us. Here goes, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha! And another ha!

Anyway, in honor of TSA, here is an old and very timely and very funny bit by the great George Carlin. (You know, everyone in heaven must be having fun singing with Liam Clancy and hearing George Carlin tell jokes.)

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFW6NHbWX0E

* Mantiq al-Tayr is a blogger who is attempting to wake up other American citizens to the true dangers and challenges which face their country and is devoted to justice for the Palestinian people. Truth is his objective, satire is his tool. He also enjoys reading the Qur'an from time to time. See his website.

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

The Wikileaks revelation that some Persian Gulf Arab leaders wanted (and still want?) America to attack Iran is confirmation of what some of us thought we knew – that Arab leaders are not merely impotent but as dangerously deluded as their Israeli counterparts.

Netanyahu was absolutely correct when he told a group of editors in Tel Aviv that "Israel has not been damaged at all by the Wikileaks publications." A senior Israeli government official went further in his response to questions from AFP. He said: "We have come out looking good." The leaked documents, he added, "confirm that the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran... The Arab countries are pushing the United States towards military action more forcefully than Israel."

Actually the assertion that "the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran" is nonsense. The Arab regimes which more or less do the bidding of America-and-Zionism are terrified, but the same cannot be said of many of their repressed subjects. As Noam Chomsky pointed out in a recent interview with Open Democracy's Amy Goodman, a poll of Arab opinion indicates that 80% regard Israel as the major threat in the region. Iran is seen as a threat by only 10%. The poll also indicated that 57% believe the region would be a more safe place if Iran had nuclear weapons. (As with Israel/Palestine, the regimes are effectively on one side – that of America-and-Israel, and the Arab masses are on the other side – that of the Palestinians).

The only good news confirmed by the latest Wiki leaked documents is that President Obama has so far resisted pressure from both Israel and the Arabs. (In fairness it should not be forgotten that President George "Dubya" Bush also said "No" to an attack on Iran when Vice President Cheney wanted him to authorize it).

There is no mystery about why any U.S. president who is not completely nuts will refuse to authorize an American attack on Iran (and do his best to stop Israel going it alone, no doubt with clearance through Saudi airspace). An American attack on Iran would have huge and possibly incalculable consequences for American interests. It would set in motion an escalating and possibly unending counter offensive including unbridled terrorism against American forces and facilities (civilian and business as well as military) around the world. And while that was happening, what is left of the global economy could be wrecked by sustained rises in the price of oil.

If those Arab leaders who pressed America to attack Iran discount the catastrophe scenario indicated above, they are very, very irresponsible. But there is more to their folly.

I don't believe Iran's ruling mullahs want nuclear weapons, but under pressure from the Revolutionary Guards (the real power in the country when push comes to shove?), they may have agreed in principle a while ago that Iran should have at least the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb for deterrence.

Prior to the publication of Wiki's latest leaks, the question of how far and how fast Iran should go to have the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb was still the subject of debate in the leadership in all of its manifestations. It may be that Wiki's revelations will play into the hands of those in Tehran who are insisting that Iran must have a nuclear bomb for deterrence.

While I was absorbing what the Wiki leaks confirmed about the attitudes of Arab leaders, I asked myself this question: What would I want if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the present regime?

My answer?

I would want my government, whatever its composition, to crash ahead with developing a nuclear bomb for deterrence. I would tell myself that was the only way to keep Iran safe from Arab-backed Israeli threats. And when challenged in argument, I would say, "Do you think America and Britain would have invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons?"

My main point?

If Iran does becomes a nuclear-armed state, it will be because of Israeli threats and Arab leadership's endorsement of them.

Now to a most controversial question, one at least as controversial as the various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Is Wikileaks being manipulated by intelligence services – one or several?

There are a number of bloggers – some of them informed writers with credibility, some of them uninformed, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nutters – who think the answer is "Yes". More to the point is that no less a figure than Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, thinks the answer could be "Yes". He said so in an interview with PBS's Judy Woodruff and also in a subsequent BBC World Service (Radio) interview. To Judy Woodruff he said:

"The real issue is, who is feeding Wikileaks? They're getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed... The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home...It's a question of whether Wikileaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments... I have no doubt that Wikileaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives."

Another way to look at the matter is to ask this question. If a visitor from Outer Space studied the first two days of Wikileak's revelations, what preliminary conclusion would he (or she) come to?

I think it's entirely possible that he (or she) would say: "The main message is clear. Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world and not only because the Israelis say so. Arab leaders agree with them. The secondary message is that apart from the Arab leaders who say they share Israel's assessment, other Muslim leaders, those in Turkey and Pakistan especially, are not to be trusted."

And here's another question. Which party benefited most from the first two days of Wikileaks revelations? The obvious answer is the Zionist state of Israel.

I must also confess that I have a nagging worry (small but real) about the possibility that Julian Paul Assange, Wikileaks' founder, has been compromised in some way and is open to manipulation. My concern on this account is the fact that he is a 9/11 conspiracy denier. He is firmly on the record as saying: "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

As I have said on public platforms in America and written in a number of articles for the worldwide web, I think there is irrefutable evidence that the Twin Towers were not brought down by the planes and their burning fuel.

My own conclusion at the present time is that I don't have a conclusion; but I think the question of whether or not Wikileaks is being manipulated, and if so by whom, is worthy of deep and serious investigation.

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

Al Qaeda Ink Cartridge Bomb

By Maidhc Ó Cathail * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

While Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) may have claimed responsibility for the parcel bomb plot, it's worth considering how this latest Yemen-linked terror scare has been a gift to their avowed enemies.

A mere two weeks before the discovery of mail bombs addressed to "two places of Jewish worship in Chicago", Rupert Murdoch sounded prescient as he received an award from the Anti-Defamation League for his support of Israel. "The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world," declared the media mogul in his acceptance speech. "But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government - and they have not weakened Israeli resolve." Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, the Fox News owner smeared the growing worldwide condemnation of Israel's rogue behaviour as an "ongoing war against the Jews".

Binyamin Netanyahu, a frequent London house guest of Murdoch and a likely recipient of his political contributions, was quick to make hay of the foiled plot. Briefing the cabinet on his impending address to the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, the Israeli prime minister told them that it would be "held against the background of reports about the attempt to attack the Jewish community in Chicago".

Linking the parcel bomb plot to some of the most iconic terrorist attacks of the post-9/11 era, Netanyahu said that "it does not matter if the target was a synagogue in Chicago or a railway station in Madrid, London, Mumbai or Bali". Deftly associating his increasingly isolated government with the victims of those attacks, the Israeli prime minister proclaimed: "We are facing a growing wave of terrorism by extremist Islam."

Netanyahu, never one prone to understatement, offered this analysis of the unsuccessful attempt to use desktop printers as terror weapons: "It is growing in the scope and brazen gall of its attacks, in the weapons with which it is arming itself, and in the sweeping objectives of the leaders of global terrorism."

He then assured his colleagues that "one of the main issues" he would be addressing in New Orleans with American Jewish leaders was "the steps that the civilized and free world must take in order to stop this wave that threatens us all."

Needless to say, those "steps" are unlikely to include an end to the 43-year occupation and colonization of the West Bank or a lifting of the four-year blockade of Gaza.

An American apologist for Israel's self-appointed guardian of "the civilized and free world" took a similar line. Joel Pollak, a Republican candidate in the mid-term elections, released a statement condemning the attempted terror attack, saying he would be spending the Jewish sabbath in West Rogers Park "in solidarity with the people of the ninth congressional district who were the direct targets of Al Qaeda terror". Sounding a lot like Netanyahu, Pollak attempted to rally his constituents by telling them, "We must not stop fighting to eradicate the twin evils of terror and hatred."

Again, we can take it as read that the "terror and hatred" Americans are being urged to combat only applies to Israel's enemies (PDF).

The Israeli news website DEBKA-Net-Weekly, which describes itself as "the leading geopolitical newsletter", has even attempted to implicate Israel's current enemy number one, Iran. The next issue, for subscribers only, promises to reveal "how the Al-Qaeda air package plot fit [sic] into the selective partnership between Tehran and Al-Qaeda and homes in on the areas where their schemes dovetail".

But how trustworthy is this "leading newsletter"?

"Debka is prepared mostly by former Mossad operatives. A reliable stream of information," Martin Peretz, the Islamophobic editor-in-chief of the staunchly pro-Israel New Republic assures us.

Ever since an Israeli firm let the Christmas Day crotch bomber "slip through" security at Schiphol Airport without a passport, a few influential voices with close ties to Israel have been instrumental in making Yemen "the new buzzword".

Appearing on Fox News two days later, the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress, Senator Joe Lieberman, announced: "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war."

Within a week, Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Saban Center in the Brookings Institution, had an op-ed in the Daily Beast titled "The menace of Yemen". Touting the botched Christmas Day plot as evidence of "the growing ambition of Al-Qaeda's Yemen franchise," Riedel called for "significant American support to defeat AQAP".

Riedel's employer, the Saban Center, is named after Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media mogul, who in 2002 pledged 13 million dollars to found the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Two years later, Saban admitted to the New York Times: "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."

"The US may be walking into a bit of a trap," warns Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert and doctoral candidate at Princeton University's Department of Near Eastern Studies.

That "trap" has been best described by a former CIA officer. "America's misguided war on terror", Philip Giraldi pointed out in a recent article, "is in fact a complete adoption of Israeli security paradigms without any regard for the actual threats that confront the US, making Israel's many enemies also the foes of Washington".

Israel must be very grateful indeed for this latest terror scare. If Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula did not exist, they might have to invent it.

* Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The United Nations celebrated its 65th birthday (1945 to 2010) on 24 October 2010. At 65 the world body has lasted 27 years longer than its predecessor, the League of Nations (1919 to 1946). Will the UN go another 65 years? To help answer that question a quick look at what did in the League of Nations is in order.

The League of Nations was certainly not a perfect organization, infected as it was with the colonialist notions of its European founders. We can see that aspect of the organization in its mandate system which served as a cover for imperialism. But ultimately the mandate system is not what brought the League low. The fatal flaw was its inability to achieve its primary goal of preventing war by transcending the power of nationalism and compelling all states to end their quarrels through negotiation or arbitration. What success the League did have in this effort was restricted to a category of relatively weak states. For instance, it successfully brought an end to disputes between Columbia and Peru, Greece and Yugoslavia, Finland and Sweden, and even, in 1921, Poland and a very weak Germany. However, when disputes involved aggressive 'great' powers, as they did in the 1930s, the League failed utterly. It was ultimately destroyed by its inability to project authority and influence, as well as punishment, on countries like belligerent Italy and resurgent Nazi Germany. As Mussolini observed while, with impunity, using poison gas on the Ethiopians, 'the League is very good when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out.' He thought of Italy as an eagle.

As the League was founded in response to the First World War, so the United Nations was founded as a response to the Second World War. Where once there was the horror of the trenches, now there was the horror of the Holocaust. Where once there was mustard gas, now there was something much worse, nuclear weaponry. Thus the prevention of war still formed the central and urgent mission of the United Nations. This time around it should have been easier for the new world body. Where the First World War spurred on imperialism, carving up the Ottoman Empire and introducing the facade of mandates, the Second World saw the dismantlement of empires and, finally, the fulfillment of Woodrow Wilson's promise of self-determination for most of the non-European world. Most, but not everywhere. For at the end of World War II, as the United Nations Charter was ratified and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed, the members of the United Nations were coerced into committing a fatal mistake. Under heavy pressure from the United States, the General Assembly gave its blessing to an arrangement whereby the sin of European and American antisemitism was to be paid for by the Palestinians, a people who had nothing at all to do with Europe's death camps or America's death dealing immigration policy. The United Nations blessed the creation of Israel. By doing so it went a long way to assuring its own demise.

It is this background that makes so important, and depressing, the statement made before the General Assembly by Richard Falk on 20 October 2010. Falk is ending his tenure as Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Palestine. Here are some of the points he made in his address:

1. Throughout his tenure the Government of Israel has been consistently uncooperative, even to the point of refusing him entrance into Israel and the Occupied Territories.

2. The United Nations itself has failed to respond strongly to this challenge to its authority thereby encouraging the view that the world body has not the political will to uphold international law and the principles of its Charter when it comes to the ally of a Great Power.

3. The response of the international community has also been 'disappointing.'

4. Falk concludes as follows, 'The United Nations will be judged now and in the future by whether if contributes, at long last, to the... realization of the Palestinian right of self-determination, and thereby brings a just peace to both [Israeli and Palestinian] peoples.'

Dr. Saeb Erakat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, also spoke about this dilemma in his remarks on the UN's 65^th birthday. He observed that 'Israel has undermined the efficacy of and derogated the UN system, the very authority through which it was created.' He then went on to list some of the sources of international law in which Palestinian rights are grounded. These include UN General Assembly resolutions, UN Security Council resolutions, and the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of which Israel has been allowed to violate.

Both Erakat and Falk know that there is virtually no chance that the United Nations can or will even try to force Israel to abide by international law. Whatever its Charter might say, its decision making structure is designed to prevent any challenge to the great powers that have permanent seats on the Security Council. The United States is the great power patron of Israel and has, and will continue, to block efforts to sanction its ally. Thus, like the League of Nations, the UN can deal only with sparrows and but not eagles. It can go after the leaders of Sudan, Serbia and Rwanda, but not those of the United States for its crimes in Iraq, Not China for its crimes in Tibet, not Russia for its crimes in Chechnya, and not Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians or its near fatal corruption of an ancient world religion. It would seem that Israel flies with Mussolini's eagles.

It is unlikely that the UN will end its days abruptly as did the League of Nations. While Israel does encourage war and mayhem in the Middle East, liking nothing better than to push the United States into a war with Iran, it is unlikely to spark World War III. Thus, it is probable that the United Nations' fate is to go out with a whimper and not a bang. It will linger on for many decades to come, a tool of the great powers to be used to shoot at sparrows when appropriate. Ironically, this means the final legacy of the United Nations will be the opposite of its original ideal. Ideally meant to keep the peace and hold all nations to the rule of law, it will stand emasculated as an symbol of the ultimate supremacy of power in the world.

Power has been supreme for a very long time. In the 5^th century BC the city state of Athens (alleged birthplace of Western democracy) was fighting the Peloponnesian War. Its naval forces came to the neutral city of Melos and demanded its surrender. The historian Thucydides recounts the ensuing debate in which the Athenians told the Melosians'... we both alike know that in the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.' In our modern day such Machiavellian honesty has fallen out of favor. We need to manage our ruthlessness so as to keep our consciences clear. And that is what the United Nations is for. It will run after the sparrows so that the eagles can feel they have some modicum of justice to point to as they 'exact what they can' from those they do treat unjustly. The United Nations has become a cover for great power hypocrisy.

Such is the way of international politics. Do we have to put up with this evil? The answer is no we do not. But we cannot look to any of the great powers for justice, fairness, equity or the like, for theirs is the world of Realpolitik and raison d'etat. Hope, such as it is, lies with civil society. The fortunes of justice, fairness, equity are a function of the ability of citizens worldwide to organize themselves for a specific cause, and the great precedent here is the struggle that brought down apartheid South Africa. This strategy, born of mass communications and the ethical potential of individual consciences, knows no national boundaries and thus has enormous potential. It is presently focused on the condemnable behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians. If, in the next quarter century (for it is likely to take that long), the power of mobilized civil society can bring justice to the Palestinians it will create the possibility for a more humane world in practice and not just in theory. It is an intoxicating prospect. And it is one that has a chance of realization.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

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

A few days ago, Robert Elman, President of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), published a letter praising David Harris, Executive Director of the AJC.

The AJC boasts that it has worked since 1906 to safeguard Jewish life and to protect the dignity of all people.

In that motto alone, the thinking reader must see a dichotomy, a contradiction that casts doubt on what the organization represents.

If the AJC has worked to "safeguard Jewish life", it cannot honestly claim to protect the dignity of all people in the same breath, under which lays its treatment of Palestinians.

David Harris, as executive director of the AJC, has been the organization's leading spokesman. In short, he has been their chief propagandist in America for Israel.

A closer look at Elman's letter reveals how Harris and the AJC have used their propaganda machine to brainwash America.

In praising Harris for his 20 years of service as AJC executive director, Elman says:

No single professional has epitomized AJC's values, vision, activism, humanitarianism and achievement more than David Harris. David has been hailed as one of the Jewish people's foremost advocates and most distinguished and eloquent spokesmen.

Elman adds: "Looking to the future, David will continue to advocate for the issues most important to the Jewish people..."

Cheap propaganda

Here are the mythical issues Elman attributes to Harris. Each has an element of propaganda in it:

• Supporting a democratic Israel in its quest for peace and security.

  Israel's claims to be democratic are belied by its treatment of the Israeli Arabs as lesser members of an apartheid state.

Its so-called "quest for peace and security" has been proven to be nothing more than sound-bites for peace and military hardware for security.

• Speaking out against Iran's mission to build nuclear weapons.

  This is an outright lie similar to the lie about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction aimed at Israel. There's not a shred of proof that Iran's nuclear development involves weapons.

• Building mutual respect between different religious and ethnic groups, leading to a more tolerant world.

  Instead of working toward mutual respect, Israel has done everything possible to breed animosity.

• Moving America towards energy independence - critical for both our national security and our environment.

  In other words, cut American dependence on foreign oil, thereby diminishing positive relationships with Arab oil-producing countries.

• Seeking a world in which all people are afforded human rights, human dignity and human freedom.

  Before anyone can believe this Goebbels-type rubbish, Israel will have to vastly upgrade its relationships with the Palestinians.

Three themes run through most Zionist propaganda:

1. Brainwash the public into believing that Arabs are devils and all Muslims are extremist bombers.

   Professor Jack Shaheen's in-depth studies of American films thoroughly establish how Arabs have been consistently vilified in that medium for a century.

2. Convince the public to believe it's a hate crime to criticize Israel, while propagating guilt for the holocaust.

   Criticism of Israel in America is a guaranteed route to castigation as anti-Semitic at best and unemployment, like Helen Thomas's, at worst.

3. Instil fear in Jews and their supporters that others are out to destroy Israel and Jews. "Israel is surrounded by enemies," writes Steven Rosen. If true, why?

This theme ignores Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. More importantly, it overlooks the fact that Israel thrives on keeping Syria and Lebanon as antagonists and Iran as a threat. The propaganda device maintains unrestrained American support.

AJC propaganda does more harm than good. Israel needs healthy criticism from Jews in America and around the world.

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

By Philip Giraldi * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Let us suppose for a moment that an individual enjoying the full confidence and trust of the United States government was given access to the most secret information possessed by the US military, to include how it would react to an attack by an aggressor armed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Let us further suppose that that individual violated his trust in the most egregious and vile fashion, offering to sell the information to anyone, but eventually settling on a nation ostensibly friendly to the US but not in any way a formal ally. The individual then proceeded to deliver defense secrets literally by the carload, not only information that might plausibly have been construed as relevant to the buyer’s own security, but also strategic defense information that could conceivably have led to the deaths of millions of American citizens. That information was then bartered and re-sold to an enemy who was in a position to use it to devastate the United States, together with sources and methods information on intelligence operations that in short order led to the deaths of many American citizens and also foreigners who had been cooperating with the United States.

Let us further suppose that the individual who stole the secrets was eventually caught because the sheer volume of what he was stealing was detected in spite of the indolence and incompetence of his superiors and he was convicted and imprisoned for life. In the damage assessment made after the arrest, it was determined that the espionage had been the most devastating ever experienced by the United States of America, both in volume and in the sensitivity of the information that had been betrayed.

Fast forward a few years. The country that paid the man to steal the secrets becomes a major beneficiary of US assistance and uses the money to set up a lobbying organization that effectively manages key players in the federal government and the media, making it virtually invulnerable to any criticism. Pumped up by hubris, that country seeks on several occasions to obtain the freedom of its spy, claiming inaccurately that he was only taking information used for purely defensive purposes. Fast forward a few more years and legislators in the US Congress known to be advocates of the foreign country that bought the secrets join in, calling for the release of the convicted spy. The media, also compromised and in the pockets of the foreign lobby, obligingly does not report the tale of American legislators who have apparently sold out.

I am, of course, referring to Jonathan Pollard and his friends in Israel and the United States. Pollard did more damage to the United States than any spy in history. And it was genuine damage, not just a mass of documents that had been routinely classified. Pollard’s Israeli handler, aided by someone in the White House who has up until now evaded arrest, was able to ask for specific classified documents by name and number. The Soviets obtained US war plans, passed to them by the Israelis in exchange for money and free emigration of Russian Jews without any regard for the damage it was doing to the United States. The KGB was able to use the mass of information to reconstruct US intelligence operations directed against it and a number of Americans and US agents paid with their lives. Pollard also revealed to the Israelis and Soviets the technical and human source capabilities that US intelligence did and did not have, which is the most critical information of all as it underlies all information collection efforts. Compounding the problem, the United States has never actually been able to accurately ascertain all of the damage done by Pollard because the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the investigation and has not returned the documents that were stolen.

And make no mistake, Pollard did it for money. He has since wrapped himself in the Israeli flag and promoted himself as an observant Jew to justify his crime and to obtain his freedom. He is reported to be a very popular person in Israel, an Israeli citizen by act of parliament, and there is a square in Jerusalem that has been renamed "Freedom for Jonathan Pollard Square." There is also an active "Justice for Jonathan Pollard" movement in the United States supported by the heavyweight Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Never before has there been such a transformation, with a despicable lowlife spy who sold out his country for money turned into a hero.

Pollard is just one symptom of the asymmetrical relationship that makes many mutter "wag the dog" whenever the subject of Israel comes up. If ever a foreign country has stuck its thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam, it is Israel in its willingness to take the United States for a ride while always demanding still more. And when it demands more it is invariably given more, with US politicians and mainstream media ever willing to genuflect and do what is right for the kleptocracy in charge in Tel Aviv.

The latest criminal outrage is a quartet of congressmen who are calling on the Obama Administration to free Pollard to "advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks." Well, first of all, everyone knows that the talks are kabuki, designed to accomplish absolutely nothing while advancing the standing of Obama prior to the US congressional elections in November. Israel continues its creeping annexation of the West Bank aided and abetted by Washington, which will do nothing substantive to stop the illegal and immoral activity. Abbas presumably is being bought off to stay silent while the play unfolds and Hamas, which should be sitting at the table, has been excluded.

That means that the congressmen in question, who actually took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, know that they are doing nothing but throwing yet another bone to Israel. The congressmen are Barney Franks of Massachusetts, Edolphus Towns of New York, Anthony Weiner also of New York, and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. Mark their names well. Franks and Weiner are presumably acting due to tribal solidarity, but Pascrell and Towns are the straight men in the routine, brought along to make the Free Pollard movement appear to be less than a complete ethnically based sell out.

It is time for the American people to rise up and throw these bums out. Putting them in jail for malfeasance and corruption would be even better. I would like to see a panel of USS Liberty survivors and widows and orphans of the dead intelligence officers question Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns about their plan to free Pollard. Better still, I would like to see some US veterans groups and their publications develop a backbone and take up the cause, finally saying that enough is enough since it is our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have paid the price in their blood for the Israeli connection. And then there is the intelligence community. Its leading lobby, Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), has long ignored Israeli espionage and prefers to regularly express concern about "Islamofascism." Look in your own backyard folks, it is the Israelis who are skinning us alive, not the Muslims, and Pollard is the poster child of what exactly is being done to us. He is sometimes cited as proof that spies for Israel are caught and punished, but the truth is that he is the only one who has done hard time in jail and only because of the enormity of his crime while all the others have somehow slipped through our criminal justice system. Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns are only the latest in a long line of collaborator politicians who should sometimes sit back and ponder where their loyalty actually lies. If they persist in their Pollard campaign, they should be regarded as not fit to sit in the congress of the United States. And that goes for anyone else who decides to lobby on behalf of Pollard.

An opportunity is coming in November to remove the snakes from Congress. Let’s organize to get rid of Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns. To be sure they will be replaced by others who are probably just as attached to Israel or fearful of its lobby as they are, but the time will inevitably come when allegiance to a foreign nation that is a strategic liability for the United States will become unseemly. May that day come soon.

* Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. His "Deep Background" column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative.

(antiwar)

Tanks, Bulldozers And “Einsatzkommando” IDF Squads Poised For Attack

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

Einsatzkommando Gruppen Waiting Orders To Assault

It is the third day since the Israeli government demanded the release of "nuclear super-spy" Jonathan Pollard. Tel Aviv calls it a "spy swap" but it isn't spies they are offering but rather the lives of Palestinian hostages. Israel has promised that, if the US releases Pollard, it will hold off its plan to begin additional "resettlement" operations against Palestinian villages on the West Bank.

In the past, Israel, criticized for "ethnic cleansing" operations against Palestinians paralleling Serbian operations in Bosnia 0r those of the apartheid regime in South Africa, has resorted to the use of "blitzkrieg" tactics with the predicted high levels of civilian casualties.

Officials of the Obama administration have, thus far, failed to give in to Israeli demands. In an almost identical scenario in 1979 in Iran, American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days, released only after coverts shipments of high-tech weaponry were promised by the Reagan administration, weapons still being used by Hizbollah fighters in Lebanon today.

President Obama has little reason to submit to Netanyahu's demands as the Israeli leader has failed to keep to any agreements he has made in the past.

Video link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

What Israel Is Taught About Their "Best Friend In The World"

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

Bundy And Johnson, Jew Hating Plotters?

Though Tourney is certainly outspoken about Israel, this kind of reaction, against a retired member of America's armed forces seems ill-conceived at best, violating the unwritten code every intelligence operative lives by. Tourney and his wife were threatened. The threat was in public. The Tourneys are "civilians," non-combatants, hardly legitimate assassination targets.

This threat is timed with admissions by Israeli intelligence sources of, not only new and shocking reasons for the USS Liberty attack but of a previously unknown rift between Israel and the United States dating back to 1967. The roots of this confrontation begin in 1963 with President Kennedy's written demands to Israel that it dismantle its nuclear weapons program and extend into the present day, an unstated but bitter and poisonous feud.

Admissions are made, in the heat of anger, indicating that Israel had full foreknowledge of the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon better known as "9/11."

Israeli intelligence sources indicate that both operations had been infiltrated but no effort to prevent the attacks was made. Israel had long ago admitted it knew about the killing of the 241 Americans in Lebanon, well in advance. However, admissions that the terrorist organization said to have planned the 9/11 attacks had been similarly infiltrated is a disturbing revelation.

The rationale initially given American military sources for Israeli failure to warn the United States in 1983 was that such a warning would potentially endanger the value of Israeli intelligence sources.

That has all changed. We are now told that the "stand down" of intelligence sharing was and is based on retaliation against the United States for an incident in 1967. Israel claims that the United States, in combination with Egypt, planned a "nuclear castration" of Israel.

This runs totally opposite of accounts that place Johnson as Israel's "president of choice," accounts that support theories of Israel's complicity in the Kennedy assassination.

One of the most dangerous and controversial policy initiatives of Kennedy's presidency, even compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was Kennedy's insistence that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons and that Israel dismantle its nuclear program by the end of 1963. The crisis reached a height during the summer of 1963 when Kennedy sent written demands to Israel demanding inspection of their nuclear facilities, demands that brought down one Israeli government.

As of November 22, 1963, Israel had not responded to the president's letter. No response has been issued to this day. Only journalist Helen Thomas, a good friend of President Kennedy, continued to demand that this issue be addressed. Her loyalty to President Kennedy's memory eventually cost her everything.

The intelligence community almost universally accepts that Israel killed Kennedy, especially when extrapolated through the total lack of media conspiracy "chatter" regarding this, the most obvious possible scenario. Compare this to police arriving on a murder scene; blood drenched suspect standing over a body with an axe in hand.

The first thing they ask, "Did you see who did it?"

The cottage industry of selling wild speculation over the Kennedy murder(s) that never touch on the Dimona demand are seen as conclusive. A nearly five decade disinformation campaign blaming everyone from organized crime to Corsican drug cartels has managed to hide any constructive focus from the general public.

Oliver Stone's film, JFK, was particularly notice worthy. According to Stone, Kennedy was killed by "southern boys" with too much time on their hands.

THE INCIDENT

Israel claims the United States was planning an attack on its nuclear facilities during the 6 Day War, using the "fog of war" as cover. They now privately claim the brutal attack on the USS Liberty was, not only defensive but a warning to the United States from, as Moshe Dyan calls it, "a junkyard dog."

Thus, the varying positions on, not only the USS Liberty but America's allegiances during the "6 Day War," are irreconcilable. Members of the USS Liberty crew were unaware of any such taskings as indicated in the Israeli accusations. However, carrier personnel with the American battle groups in the Mediterranean at the time have told this author the "load outs" were clearly for ground targets including "runway denial" munitions, cluster weapons designed to crater large concrete surfaces.

A ground attack could have been staged, Israel, Syria or Egypt.

Threats, such as those made against Tourney, were made against other American veterans openly angry at Israel for decades, demanding an explanation for the merciless attack on the US Navy ship in the Mediterranean in 1967, a carefully orchestrated attack of Israeli naval, air and airborne commandos, killing or wounding 201 of 296 crewmen.

We know for certain that the attack was a terrible embarrassment to the United States.

To cover up the incident, the captain was given a Medal of Honor, survivors were decorated, given duty stations of choice and silenced. Israel was allowed to claim they believed they were attacking an unarmed Egyptian cattle boat, an attack of a nearly "Pearl Harbor' scale.

We believed that Israel still held to this absurd cover. We were wrong, very wrong.

Over 40 years later, we learn from Israeli sources, their side of the story. When we heard it, we were flabbergasted. We now know why Israel is so hostile to USS Liberty survivors and involved in a covert struggle against the United States spanning decades, or at least what they now tell us.

This is their side of the story:

Israel says they were deeply suspicious of President Lyndon Johnson and his National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, a Kennedy Administration hold-over. Israel feared that Johnson and Bundy planned to carry out Kennedy's plans for nuclear disarmament of Israel, by force if necessary.

Israel is said to have based their suspicions on information received from Soviet sources, information that they were told originated from James "Jesus" Angleton, CIA Counter-Intelligence Director. Angleton, who died in 1987, was the most controversial figure in America's intelligence community, accused of both being a Soviet mole and a rabid anti-communist, seeing imaginary threats everywhere.

Editor's note: The intelligence sharing relationship between Israel and the Soviet Union was, in itself, a reason for Israel to be fearful of American retaliation.

According to Israel, the USS Liberty was providing targeting data, they used the term "triangulation," as its role in a planned American attack which was to begin with the destruction of Israel's air forces by carrier based aircraft followed by the destruction of the Dimona nuclear complex.

America was believed to be working directly with Egypt and Syria, coordinating a two pronged attack on Israel to eliminate them as a threat to the region. Though overtly Egypt and Syria were allied to the Soviets, in fact Israel's influence with the Kremlin was known to be a source of broad suspicions in the American intelligence community.

Israel claims they attacked the USS Liberty as a "preemptive" strike to disrupt the planned US attack, a justified act of self-defense and proof that America is and always will be an untrustworthy ally and inherently anti-Semitic.

Increasingly, in ways not noticed publicly, relations with Israel have been strained. Americans are, on the whole, indifferent to the Palestinians living in Israel. Decades of branding all Palestinians as terrorists have indelibly imprinted unquestioning support for Israel in the minds of almost all Americans.

Despite broad control of the media in the United States and Western Europe by Israel, an undercurrent of mistrust exists and is becoming worse every day, a mistrust better characterized as a "falling out" of criminal co-conspirators rather than a moral awakening. Perhaps "junior partners" in America aren't getting a big enough percentage of "the take."

Even considering the stresses of two unsuccessful wars and a concurrent monumental economic crisis, the subtext of hostility, decades old but an active and festering animosity, particularly between two nations that are publicly "inseparable" is uniquely disingenuous.

If Israel hates an America and carries an agenda meant to bring America to its knees tied to, what it sees as American betrayal, how do we explain the political and military leaders who support them in their efforts?

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

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

Judaic Republic Of Iran?

It is one thing if a spokesman for Bibi Netanyahu's Likudist government had tried this, but it was all the networks and newspapers in America, all carrying the same story, a story, not only inaccurate but an outrageous lie. The story, the translation, was so false, that it should have been a joke were it not being used to try to convince America to attack Iran to "defend" Israel. This is what Ahmadinejad actually said:

"History will erase the Zionism from the sands of time"

Even though misquoted, "Cardboard Lethario" Ahmadinejad isn't hard to pick out, an actor, waiting for cues from his handlers, waiting in the wings, his "Tel Aviv connection." Weak as all these Iranian theatrics may be, they are all Israel has to work with nowadays, that and bottle rockets from Stalag Gaza. Building a holocaust threat out of Israeli mole, Ahmadinejad, isn't even a "cardboard" threat.

Using the same logic, every time someone in Israel washes their clothes, they must call it a "soil and stain holocaust." No, none of it is funny, but not because Jews have been persecuted for centuries but rather because we are learning they have built an industry out of selling their own "victimhood."

Whenever you hear an outrageous attack on Israel or Jews, you can be certain of one thing, it is a "false flag" attack, Jews attacking themselves. With the one of the largest intelligence/terror organizations on earth, 500 times the estimated size of Al Qaeda, and openly operating in over 190 countries worldwide, along with direct control of over 40% of the world's economic resources and hundreds of nuclear weapons, seeming like a victim takes a considerable effort. Think of the kind of "imagineering" required to fool a nation of Jews, half of them Nobel Prize winners, to hide under their beds?

One "self induced" Israeli threat is "holocaust denial."

Managing the holocaust denial movements the same way they dominate the 9/11 Truth movements and the Tea Party, all "field based warfare" tactics, controlling the information age "battlefield," is how Israel plays both sides against the middle. Thus, a candidate now accused of being a "witch" can win a Senate primary for the Tea Party. Her campaign is financed by Zionists but after winning a primary, the same Zionists in their newspapers are the first to turn on her. Why is this? Offer Americans hope for freedom from the two owned and controlled useless political parties. Then smash that hope. Why would anyone hate America that much?

Imagine a 9/11 Truth group that will avoid talking about arrested Israeli agents or the mysterious destruction of building 7 "ordered" by Larry Silverstein but rather chooses to focus on UFOs and useless infighting.

There are more Mossad operatives in "9/11 Truth" than FBI Agents in the 1960s KKK.

Obama "Propaganda Czar" Cass Sunstein, an Israeli -American (if such things can exist) has continually stressed that all "9/11 Truth" groups be seen as "enemies of America." Why do the terms "Israeli-American" and "truth is un-American" used in this context not surprise me?

We wonder why the 140 Israeli's arrested in the US after 9/11 were released almost immediately, many with no questioning at all, and 75% of all Muslims arrested, some detained for many years, have proven to be "mistaken identity." All but a handful of the rest are awaiting release with the government continually filing motions to prevent the public from discovering the abuses tied to their detention and arrest, all without any cause, any evidence or even any reasonable suspicion. Were they Jews, they would have had "extralegal" protections, above and beyond American law.

Does "Holocaustsploitation" help create this environment of lawlessness which may have endangered America?

Israel pushes the focus of holocaust denial into worship of Hitler, not accurate documentation of factual history so that innocent researchers like Ernst Zundel are imprisoned. Historians in Europe, in Canada, face years in prison, not for denying anything but failing to read, word for word, from prepared "talking points" on the holocaust. It is safer putting up a billboard in Saudi Arabia insulting the Prophet (peace be on him) than saying only 5 million Jews died in the holocaust.

In Europe, a teacher can go to jail for misstating a number. Any lawyer that agrees to represent them is automatically imprisoned also. No, I am not kidding, this is law in Europe, law in Canada and it is ruthlessly enforced. Historians studying World War II who stumble upon "banned" or "disapproved" documents face years in prison.

Laws passed to protect Jews from crazed extremists, who like Adam Perlman are Jews themselves, are never enforced against Jews. How many hundreds of times did Americans watch Adam Perlman pretend to be the Al Qaeda spokeman, taking credit for 9/11 and ranting threats, always timed for a news cycle, an Israeli funding bill or the election of a political candidate willing to send American troops to fight Israel's wars of choice.

Perlman got as much publicity as Madonna until the fact he was a phony began to leak out. From that second on, it was as though he had vanished from the face of the earth. We are told that Blackwater teams are looking for him in Karachi, Paksitan. We might suggest some place else where they are more likely to find him.

The last thing Israel wants is people really looking at Gaza, 9/11, financial crimes in the US, the Israel lobby and the lies and massive corruption tied to these and other issues. Running a "circus" through exploiting the weak Sarkozy and Merkel governments of France and Germany, little but client states of Israel, requires almost no effort at all.

In fact, at the same time, Israel orchestrates hate campaigns against, not only the Roma, but Muslims across Europe. In fact, millions are spent every month in what can only be an attempt to organize a holocaust in Europe against Muslims. One has already begun in France against the Roma, once carefully orchestrated in Tel Aviv and put into motion by Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France and an ethnic Jew.

That president Sarkozy's plan to expel the ethnic Roma population of France, all legally residing in that country, in accordance with European Union laws, an illegal act deeply parallel to Israel's expulsion of Palestinians, may only be coincidental. Could Sarkozy's acts be inspired by Tel Aviv?

DID ISRAEL CREATE "HOLOCAUST DENIAL?"

We don't hear much about "historical revisionism" or "holocaust denial" in the United States. Any university, any journalist who would attempt to discuss such things would be crushed immediately and many have. In Europe it was different. The Germans hate the idea of, generation after generation, being blamed for being Nazi butchers. So, when certain aspects of the holocaust began to seem, let us say, "fictional" or "insubstantial," Germans and others jumped on it. Testimony, documentation and scientific evidence supplied by "revisionist" historians began to make a case, one some found compelling, that much of what was reported, seen in films, even testified to at Nuremberg, was simply invented. Thus began a controversy between two warring sides or are they two sides at all. What if one side was on both sides, fighting with itself just to seem like the offended party? It wouldn't be the first time.

No real historian denies the holocaust. 60 million died in World War II, most Russians. Doubting anything happened is insane and doubting that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis is without realistic basis. Additionally, any moralist will has to consider a single death a holocaust, the future of a single child, a disaster.

These are the real issues but "holocaust denial" was never about what was real or what was reasonable. There seemed only one reason for the "movement," to prove that there were enough dangerous and insane Nazi maniacs in Europe, even today, to require suspension of freedom of speech to silence them. Only one candidate for that honor can be found, Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and, oddly enough, for those who are unaware, Sarkozy is a Jew.

Laws forbidding Holocaust Denialism, as it is called, throughout Europe and even in Canada are an admission that a substantial threat exists in those countries of the people rising up and murdering Jews. If the case for suspension of rights of speech and due process were, however, based on, not a dangerous mass movement but rather a few "false flag" actors working in conjunction with powerful Israeli owned press organizations throughout these nations, then who is the real victim?

However, rather than simply asking questions, it quickly went much further with cartoon character "neo-Nazi" types bragging about death camps or trying to make a hero out of Hitler and his gang of cut throats. There was a sudden explosion of crazy "holocaust denial" types, violent, dirty and evil. In order to protect the minds of impressionable European children, any discussion of the holocaust had to be immediately outlawed.

Problem is, the "crazy" holocaust denialists were Jews, same as with Adam Perlman, the famous American Al Qaeda spokesman whose grandfather ran the Anti-Defamation League.

Would Israel stage attacks on Jews simply to gain support from the United States or special laws protecting Jews in Europe and Canada? We know that Israel organized synagogue burnings in regions of Europe and North Africa in order to convince Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is now admitted and the reasons are explained as "necessary based on need at the time." The motives are there, the evidence is available. If Israel has been involved in organizing Holocaust Denial, much as with the current wave of accusations tying Israel to 9/11 and other terrorist acts, how can this be investigated without breaking laws?

Why the "Catch 22?"

December 2001 Funeral Announcement For Osama Bin Laden (Egyptian News Sources)

We have seen where, by attacking the holocaust, laws giving special privileges to Jews that no other group in the world enjoys were passed, laws that are unconstitutional in each nation that passed them.

The real question is not whether everything said by some happened or if more were killed, perhaps under even more brutal circumstances than films and television depict. The threat against Jews was exclusively European, there were no Arabs, no Muslims involved in any way. Thus, the continual use of the phrase "never again" has to be aimed exclusively at Western Europe where all participants in the holocaust against the Jews originated, all Christians, all white.

No Spielberg movie ever showed a Jew being gassed by a Berber or Persian.

Then the danger Israel is said to be protecting its citizens and the Jews of the world it claims to speak for is a European danger, Britain, France, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Belgium. Poland was under German or German/Russian control. Czech no longer existed nor did Slovakia.

Thus, we are being told that the real threat is a general uprising in Western Europe or perhaps a political movement meant to imprison and murder the Jews of those countries. There could be no other rationale as there is absolutely no evidence of attacks on Jews in any other area of the world.

What facts provide the basis of these beliefs?

THE THEORY OF "TRANSFERENCE"

In psychology, a common symptom of a personality disorder is "transference." This is a "stimulus/response" cycle gone awry, with the subject responding to a stimulus from one party by responding to an unrelated third party.

"Jack hits John so John must hit Jim back. (and bulldoze Mary's house)"

We have just defined the State of Israel.

"Jack kills John's grandmother so John must murder Khalid's granddaughter."

We have just defined the conflict between Jews and Palestinians.

"Jack kills John's grandmother so John must have Uncle Sam go on a rampage of global slaughter. The best part is that Jack's grandson agrees to help, proving how "decent" he is."

Welcome to the War on Terror. Please send in your address so we know where to mail your PhD in "Zionist Studies."

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

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

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

"The American people are afraid, they see disaster coming. Everyone is waiting to see what city is chosen to be sacrificed. Will it be Phoenix or Sacramento or perhaps Atlanta? This is the real fear, the "not so secret" fear in the heart of every American."

For years, America's military has been divided, competent military professionals and patriots on one side and Christian Zionists, loyal to Israel and addicted to a propaganda "dreamworld" on the other. Americans sat, on 9/11, with their military "asleep at the switch," their president in a daze and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, perhaps out of confusion, we may never know, talking about airliners being shot down and the Pentagon being attacked by missiles. Yes, he said these things, things he couldn't "unsay" but things the press showed once and quickly buried. Something terribly wrong happened, something years in planning, but not planned in a cave in Afghanistan. Everywhere investigators look, one thing pops up, Israel. The moment that door is opened, it is slammed shut, often with threats, often with more than threats.

We may never know the full extent of the brutality used against those who have spoken up. We know that Arab leaders can be assassinated anywhere, any time. America will remain silent and the news will always support Israel. Israel owns the news.

What about the "suicided" British scientist Dr. David Kelly, the man responsible for moving the Israeli nukes out of South Africa? Reliable sources tell us he was ready to come forward with the facts about a massive political scandal, a cover-up of lost nuclear weapons, blackmail and bribery.

Do we really believe that there are so many unlucky United States senators? Crashes of small aircraft has done more to control the US Senate than any election, control used to set the stage for a generation of wars. With AIPAC capable of buying any election, capable, willing and doing it, not an American organization at all but a lobby for a foreign government, one that likes America "not so much" as we are lead to believe, is representative government in the United States dead? When someone swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is it meaningless when the government itself is no longer "American?"

Control of America, or, more appropriately, control of America's vast military, tired and worn as it is, represents the key to ruling the world. Fooling the people, buying the government and duping America's military through infiltrating every level of critical decision making and communications is a task, not only attempted but one long since accomplished. Problem is, even with, not only control of the press, but powerful news organizations directly under foreign control like Fox News, word is getting out.

The American people are afraid, they see disaster coming. Everyone is waiting to see what city is chosen to be sacrificed. Will it be Phoenix or Sacramento or perhaps Atlanta? This is the real fear, the "not so secret" fear in the heart of every American.

When and if it happens, Americans are not so willing to believe a few goat herds in a cave 8000 miles away planned it, not anymore.

Why do you think Senator Lieberman has demanded a "kill switch" on the internet? Why do you think "censorship czar" Cass Sunstein has asked to have accusations of Israeli complicity in 9/11 made a criminal act and openly advocated infiltration of groups pushing for an honest investigation. Who is the real "conspiracy theorist" now?

With thousands of of military and intelligence officials, retirees openly, others hiding their rage, aware of the decades of Israeli spying and the 9/11 cover-up, this divide has never been so strong. What we don't know is how many serving today have the personal courage to speak out openly. Now the threat is nuclear weapons, not just a "shoebox dirty bomb" but full sized nukes, the weapons we have been hunting for years, claiming Saddam was prepared to use them "at 45 minutes notice," the same nukes "sent to Syria by ambulance." They could be anywhere and anyone could be ready to use one. There is only one possible culprit capable of doing this, however, only one country with something to gain and the willingness to act.

"We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital... our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us." (Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld)

Morons or "Masters of the Universe"

Thus, the general basis for the public's ideas about who Israel is, what Zionism advocates and what Islam is really about will be unreliable. When you add control of universities, all academic publishing and even total disruption of free speech, the most extreme ideas can be accepted as fact. They have been.

A substantial evidentiary trail exists that places Israel's possible involvement in 9/11 on the table, with dozens of suspects questioned and more and more of the "facts" about 9/11 now proving, as with the Kennedy assassinations, to be lies.

Real theories, not "conspiracy" tell us that 9/11 was planned to get America to attack Iraq, part of Israel's long term strategy for the region, leaving them, not only the only nuclear power, but an armed aggressor afloat in a sea of broken nations occupied by American troops, troops who take orders from politicians who take orders from Israel. However, after the massive Bush administration blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan and the virtual destruction of a military incapable of sustaining a decade long war, the planned Israeli attack using American troops, again, isn't moving forward as we all know it was planned to.

This time, after America was so badly burned, pushed by the Bush security team, almost all Israeli citizens, many of them still around, running America for Obama, into two insane "Vietnams" it will take more than 3000 murders. With the "duping of America" over 9/11 coming unraveled, something horrendous is in the planning. There is an obvious next step and it has to be nuclear. Anything less would bring an outcry against Israel immediately. Only the "unthinkable" combined with a strong public relations campaign and a cover story with a "do it yourself" terrorist group, like so many of the "just add water" terrorist organizations the Mossad has organized for just such an occasion, will sell the lie, this and the press, not just in America but the other real voice of Israel, the BBC.

The stories about the mobile labs, the "yellow cake" uranium were lies, pap fed to a willing and complicit press. However, the threats are real but how does America protect herself when those tasked with that duty turn a blind eye to the biggest threat. In 1967, Israel was allowed to kill or wound 201 of 296 Americans on the USS Liberty. Surviving crewmen are still threatened by Israeli security for speaking up, as Philip Tourney and his wife will gladly tell you. Captain McGonagle, who won the Medal of Honor working to save his crew from hours of brutal attacks, cried out for justice to his dying day. The American military stood silent as it did on 9/11, as it did on that day in 1967 and as it may have done many times since.

Those among America's military in 1967, those willing to send the planes from the carriers America and Saratoga to bomb Egypt on behalf of Israel received the thanks of a grateful nation. Too bad that nation was not the United States of America. Only when Israel informed Washington that it had failed to both sink the USS Liberty and effect a takeover of the ship, killing the entire crew, did Admiral McCain order planes headed toward Egypt to return. It had been previously believed these planes were meant to help the USS Liberty.

We have since been reliably informed by sources within the Navy that the planes were armed for ground attack. Thus, as early as 1967, America was willing to see its own troops butchered "for the good of Greater Israel." Proof of this is incontrovertible and witnesses on both the Liberty and Saratoga have come forward.

We will never know for sure, what secrets are stolen, what weapons given, what enemies aided, what American interests betrayed. With dozens of organizations demanding 9/11 be investigated and the lowest estimate of those who no longer believe the cover story at 30%, not a single active duty military officer, not one member of congress nor a single member of the mainstream press has said a word about it. How can thousands of prominent Americans demand that their country begin defending itself and it be covered up? Who has that power?

America has lost at least 6 nuclear weapons since 1990, maybe more, not Russia or some "breakaway republic," once part of the Soviet Union. 3 were American hydrogen bombs off Somalia, no longer usable but with enough plutonium in them to build many fission weapons. 3 more were part of 9 produced by Israel in South Africa back in the 80s, all supposedly sent to America for dismantling. 3 of the containers were filled with concrete blocks. They had been consigned to "friends of Israel" for shipment and were stolen from an unguarded facility in Oman after having been abandoned for months. This would be a wild claim if we hadn't interviewed those involved in the project and been made privy to a well documented and detailed history of the operation.

These "unattributable" nukes have only one purpose, to be used in a terrorist attack on the United States, a "false flag" attack, to drive America to attack Iran and Pakistan.

How many loyal Americans, FBI, Homeland Security and other agencies are searching the nation, warehouses, ports, looking for the blue 20 foot shipping containers? How many "dual citizens" are tasked with some other purpose? Are our "protectors" really "ours" or do they work for the same pack that bought our congress? Will we find out when a mushroom cloud appears over one of our cities?

Today, America is facing the biggest threat since World War 2. Nothing will be in the news, nothing will ever be in the news, not the truth anyway. When it happens, the news will be ready, like on 9/11 when it was called on to talk Arabs and box cutters, a childish conspiracy theory millions still believe. It was ready to talk weapons of mass destruction and when that turned out to be a lie, it was ready to sit silent for its complicity in war crimes. "War crimes" seems like a harsh term but the definition fits. Invading Iraq on, not a whim, but a series of lies orchestrated by a criminal conspiracy is a war crime. Less obvious to many, the takeover of Afghanistan as a drug production facility or a base for destabilizing Pakistan or an operation center for gas pipelines, whichever reason you choose, was justified by lies as serious as those used to justify Iraq.

For those who follow such things, real leaks are proving two things:

1. Osama bin Laden never stopped working for the Central Intelligence Agency and their "regional affiliates."
2. Bin Laden was murdered to silence him after 9/11 just as Benzir Bhutto was murdered to silence her.

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

Real news never reaches America, news that shows terrorism, corporate banditry and the biggest drug cartel in history, tied to American allies, some Muslim but one worse than all combined, Israel. Even today, the mythology of "threatened" Israel and the rockets raining down on their cities, all imagination, is still believed by many in our military. When 9/11 came, be it radio controlled planes, missiles, controlled demolition, our military was on "stand down," ordered to let the attacks move forward and then roll across the Middle East, an Army hijacked by Israel to help them start their long planned world conquest. Today, America basks in defeat and humiliation and Israel laughs.

We have continual debates about religion in the military. Should Christian sects be able to force troops to prayer? Is America a Christian nation, is this what the founding fathers meant? What if, lets say, these sects were not loyal to the United States but rather constituted a national threat? Is an officer belonging to a Christian Zionist church likely to pass secrets on to Israel? Will they obey orders from the Mossad above their own commanders? Will an Christian Zionist with nuclear access follow his religious calling and cause a nuclear war to bring about Armageddon?

What if their power in the military was that great, part of a systematic infiltration of the military through an extremist take-over of the chaplain's services and eventually admissions and curriculum of the service academies themselves? What else could explain the total silence we have seen when torture, kidnapping, illegal invasions and "stand downs" to allow terrorist attacks are the norm. How many officers have violated the Geneva Convention, their oaths and the Uniform Code of Military Justice because they felt obliged to a "higher power" to exhibit extreme cruelty, cleansing the world of "infidels?"

Those in the military that feel, as Christians, they are tied to Israel, have lost their minds. Islam and Judaism are much closer than Christianity and Judaism. With the advent of the trinity, both Jews and Muslims see Christians as, not only polytheistic, worshiping 3 gods, not one, but idolaters as well. To both Jews and Muslims, these issues alone are enough to make Christianity an enemy. Islam, a religion totally based on Judaism, an Abrahamic faith, built on the foundation of the books of Moses, sees itself as a reform movement stressing moral values as outlined in the Koran and the teachings of the prophet, Mohammad (peace be on him).

To a Christian with a real education, the struggle between the Jews and Muslims is a "family matter." Jews are the beloved children of Islam who have yet to accept the reforms that defined the true religion. We must remember, without Judaism and g-d's covenant with Israel, there would be no Islam. Christianity is seen as a Hellenistic bastardization of biblical teachings watered down to sell to the pagan Roman empire. You won't hear it, not publicly, but it is exactly what is taught to every student, Jew, Muslim, this is their belief.

Muslims have "jihad" and Jews were chosen by g-d to rule the world. 90% of the most serious accusations each makes of the other are, actually, part of the religion of both, only Jews are much better at public relations. After all, they own 90% of the world's media, print, broadcast, even much of the internet. How do we trust military leaders who don't know that "goyim" means "cattle?" If you are "cattle" and you believe those who see you as such are your best friends, you are not dealing with reality. Perhaps we should teach The Scorpion and the Toad at West Point. This should be the start of the first day's lecture on America's Strategic Security in the 21st Century:

The scorpion, in the course of a long journey, encounters a river. The scorpion cannot swim and so he is momentarily stymied until he spies the toad, on the opposite river bank. "Toad!" the scorpion calls out, "will you please let me ride on your back to the other side of the river because, you see, I cannot swim." "No way," replied the toad, "if I let you ride on my back you will sting me!" To which the scorpion replied, "But if I am riding on your back and I sting you then we will both die because I cannot swim." After thinking on it for a moment or two the toad agrees, swims over to the opposite bank of the river where the scorpion jumps onto his back and he turns to swim to the other side. When the toad, with the scorpion riding on his back, gets to the middle of the river, the scorpion stings him. "Scorpion!" Exclaimed the toad, "Why did you sting me? Now we both die."

"Because it is in my nature." Was the scorpion's response.

Should we be sick of watching our troops walk through poppy fields, knowing the heroin being produced is destroying the United States, filling our prisons but, at the same time, filling the pockets of, well who? Who is getting a cut of the $65 billion dollars a year earned from the partnership in Afghanistan? Israel is the money end, the CIA does transportation, the Afghan government runs production, but who does distribution? Do the planes really land on military bases? We have already found bales of cash leaving Afghanistan heading for Dubai.

This is only a small part of the money involved. It is this money, combined with the billions we give Israel, the billions they take out of the American economy through control of the Federal Reserve System (a quasi-governmental scheme of banks with Rothschild lineage that control America) that makes it impossible to get honest news, elect honest politicians and even trust our own military.

In fact, a large majority of Americans openly admit, on every opinion poll, that they don't trust our congress, our president or any American institution. Nobody asks them why. Would they know? Is it because a foreign country controls our banks, our news, our congress, our military , our foreign policy? Is it because the only reason politics exist in America is so the greedy can line up at the trough, not caring who is pouring the slop, as long as they get theirs first.

No American has a clue where President Obama came from. Many believe he is foreign born, many more think he is Muslim and some believe he is a space alien. In 250 years, documents will be declassified that will either prove or disprove that former President Bush belonged in prison, not the White House, guilty of, not AWOL (absent without leave) but desertion during wartime. There is no reasonable doubt of his guilt, only that he used his power to prevent arrest and prosecution. After 9/11, no more questions were asked, and no more witness had to receive new homes, fat government jobs or have mysterious heart attacks.

For the Bush years, it was made clear that a military career had to be built on loyalty to Israel, even though their nuclear arsenal and their ethnic cleansing of Palestine are the root of every conflict confronting America today. There is no military alliance with Israel. America has no potential enemies. In fact, every nation in the region is either controlled by the United States, occupied or frightened to death. Iran trying to stand against America is the equivalent of Denmark standing against Hitler's blitzkrieg.

The view of the state of affairs taught our military is childishly stupid. How many of our military leaders are childishly stupid also?

READER SUPPLIED BACKGROUND:
Gordon,
I was reading your article today, and I thought about General Scratchley Brown. I wasn’t sure if you knew who he was. He caused some controversy a long time ago while Chairman of JCS. You can take a look at his remarks on his wikipedia entry. I smiled when I read it a few years ago. But….seems some things really haven’t changed. I cannot see a CJCS saying what he said now.
Take Care,
Tassi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Scratchley_Brown

Controversy During his term as CJCS, Brown commented on two occasions, to a Duke University audience in October, 1974, and to a French reporter in 1976, that Israel was becoming a burden to The Pentagon and believed that the reason for continual military aid was due to Jews having control over America’s banks, newspapers and elected officials. His exact words were:

It’s so strong you wouldn’t believe now. We have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We say we can’t possibly get the Congress to support that. They say, ‘Don’t worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress.’ Now this is somebody from another country, but they can do it. They own. you know, the banks in this country, the newspapers. Just look at where the Jewish money is.

Although he was reprimanded by President Gerald Ford to apologize and pressured to resign his post, Brown finished out his term under President Jimmy Carter. Brown’s comments at Duke and subsequent reprimand by President Ford were reported on the front page of The Washington Post on Nov. 13, 1974, and Nov. 14, 1974, respectively. Brown also predicted that Iran would soon become an important military power in the Middle East.

Brown was known for the directness of his speech, which sometimes offended those around him. Asked once to comment on his opinion of the British Armed Forces, Brown replied, “The British? All they have are generals, admirals and bands.”

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.