Archive | September 1st, 2010


1 September, 2010 

Make sure Avaaz alerts reach your inbox: click “Add to Contacts” to add to your address book, and click the “Not Spam” button if you found this email in your spam folder. If you prefer to leave the Avaaz list, just click here to unsubscribe.

Dear Friends,

Pakistan floods

Whilst tens of millions struggle to survive the flood devastation, 30% of Pakistan’s budget revenue will be sent abroad to foreign creditors for massive loans made to dictators years ago. Sign the petition to stop Pakistan’s crippling debt:

Sign the petition!

As Pakistan struggles to rescue families from flood waters and fend off disease and starvation before winter sets in, it is scrambling to pay out a shocking 30% of its annual budget revenues to foreign creditors on debt incurred by previous dictatorships.

If Pakistan is obliged to make these debt payments, rescue efforts for tens of millions of people whose lives have been devastated could be crippled. Earlier this year, we persuaded creditor governments to drop Haiti’s debt after it was devastated by an earthquake — and now we could do the same for Pakistan.

Right now international financial institutions and donor countries are assessing how to assist Pakistan. Let’s come together and call for life-saving debt relief for the people of Pakistan. Sign the petition below to stop these stifling debt payments and let Pakistan rebuild, and it will be delivered directly to ministers and senior officials attending the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Pakistan’s staggering $55 billion debt burden comes from decades of reckless spending by its autocratic ruling elites, matched by irresponsible lending on the part of Western creditors and banks.

But 60% of Pakistanis still live below the poverty line. It is a tragic irony that these tens of millions of Pakistanis whose lives have been destroyed in these floods and who have received little or no benefit from these massive loans, are the ones now footing the bill of such unjust debt.

In the aftermath of Haiti’s earthquake, Hurricane Mitch in Central America, and the Asian tsunami, the world responded by suspending and cancelling debt payments from affected countries. Pakistan’s debt is too vast to cancel in one swoop, but a two year moratorium with accountability mechanisms to ensure that the released funds are spent on relief is a first step and now is the moment to push for it.

Together we have donated a stunning $1 million which is already making a difference to desperate Pakistani flood victims. But if we win this debt campaign, we can make billions available for relief and reconstruction. Let’s make sure the international community does the right thing. Sign the urgent petition below and share this message with all your friends and family:

With hope and solidarity,

Luis, Iain, Paula, Ricken, Alice, Pascal and the entire Avaaz team

PS – Over the last 2 weeks, thousands of us have contributed US$1 million for relief and recovery from the Pakistan floods, which has been sent to support the Sungi Development Foundation, Hirrak Development Centre (HDC), Participatory Welfare Services (PWS) and other outstanding local organisations provide life-saving food, water, shelter and medical care across the country.


Race against winter in Pakistan’s north-west:

Reuters, IMF talks: all options being explored to help Pakistan:

“Fuelling Injustice: Debt and Muslim countries”, Report by Jubilee Debt Campaign and Islamic Relief UK:

Jubilee USA Network Calls for Immediate Debt Service Moratorium in Response to Disaster, Assistance in Grant Form:[backPid]=170&cHash=02e62f133f

EURODAD, “Pakistan needs debt cancellation, not new IMF loans”:

Posted in Pakistan & Kashmir, WorldComments Off on PAKISTAN: DEBT VS.LIVES




September 1, 2010

by Gordon Duff  

 By Mohammed Abdullah Gul, STAFF WRITER, Editor



History is about to take a monumental turn in the rugged, desolate hills and dales of Afghanistan where the world’s sole superpower leads an alliance facing defeat at the hands of the nameless resistance fighters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The impact of this enormous defeat will be felt across the globe.

The bloody conflict in Afghanistan has been going on for almost nine years, since October 2001. 

The Taliban, who appeared to have been defeated at the beginning of the war, have since grown from strength to strength, particularly after 2003 when the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the US army started recruiting more troops to bring the Afghan countryside under their sway.

From Operation Anaconda in March 2002 (when the US military, CIA paramilitary officers, and other NATO and non-NATO forces attempted to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Shahi-Kot) to Operation Khanjar in July 2009 – after US President Barack Obama’s first “surge” of 21,000 additional troops (when 4,000 US marines and 650 Afghan troops moved into the Helmand Valley), Taliban fighters have scored numerous victories in minor skirmishes and medium intensity encounters with the occupation forces.

Unbeaten and unbeatable

Today the Taliban stand unbeaten and seemingly unbeatable. Their ranks have swelled and their morale is high.

Obama’s speech of December 1, 2009, was a strong indicator of fatigue and exhaustion on the part of the US and, consequently, signalled an influx of young, enthusiastic Afghan recruits into Taliban ranks.

The political environment of the country, on the other hand, deteriorated further as a result of the heavily-manipulated victory of Hamid Karzai in recent presidential elections.

Karzai’s choice of cabinet is equally disastrous. He refilled ministries with the same corrupt and inefficient warlords who are simply unable to defend against a Taliban onslaught when it comes – possibly in the autumn of 2010.

An additional 30,000 American

Troops ordered to Afghanistan by Obama, in order to shore up the tottering puppet regime, are unlikely to be of any advantage. In all probability, the occupation forces will be confined to their garrisons and will seldom venture out to face the Taliban in the countryside.

This strategy will enhance the use of air power, whose collateral damage is likely to further annoy the Afghan people. The Afghan army still has fewer than 90,000 members and has reportedly been penetrated by pro-Taliban elements.

Requirements for a political solution

The Afghan narcotics trade proceeds unabated under the very noses of NATO and US forces. Last year’s raw opium production stood at 6,200 tonnes – which accounts for 92 per cent of the world’s consumption of the drug.

A substantial amount of the billions of dollars earned through this trade is funnelled to Taliban cadres whose support is required by the governors and warlords for them to maintain their positions.

The Taliban’s claims that it controls over 80 per cent of Afghan territory may be exaggerated, but Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has publicly conceded that 11 provinces out of 32 are under the control of opposition forces.

Given this scenario, one can conclude that a military solution to the Afghan imbroglio is out of the question. It now remains for the world community to find a political solution that will be able to meet the following requirements:

  1. A graceful withdrawal of the occupation forces from Afghanistan;
  2. A workable system of governance after the withdrawal; and
  3. Continued interest and engagement in Afghanistan’s rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Thus far, these objectives have not been crystallised. The countries which will be most severely affected as a result of the US defeat – i.e. other countries in the region and the countries of the Muslim world – are completely marginalised and seem not to be involved in any kind of peace process which must begin before matters run out of control.

Before we delve into the exercise of examining paths to peace, there are certain critical factors which must be considered: the role of external players; the ethnic make-up of Afghanistan and the role of al-Qaeda.

External players

On taking over the American administration, Obama outlined his Afghan policy and created a contact group of four countries: Russia, China, Iran and India.

He conveniently omitted Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, without whose participation peace in Afghanistan will remain illusory. China and Russia are important but peripheral to any serious attempt at Afghan reconciliation.

Iran’s influence is limited to the Shia communities who do not exercise any sizeable politico-cultural influence. India, in spite of its $1.2bn investment in Afghanistan, remains very much alien to the mainstream Afghan society. Its clout can work only with a few hundred influential individuals in the present regime but not with any of the social or political cadres.

The Taliban, in particular, would be averse to any kind of Indian involvement in the future of Afghanistan. The Afghan nation will not forget that India was an ally of the USSR when the latter invaded and wreaked havoc in Afghanistan. India is now piggy-backing on the US – against the will of the Afghan people.

Ethnic composition

Afghan society is comprised of 58 per cent Pashtuns (who are the main supporters of the Taliban), 22 per cent Tajiks, eight per cent Uzbeks, seven per cent Hazaras (mostly Shia) and five per cent of other ethnicities, including Kyrgyz, Baluch, Aimak and Arabs.

The Pashtuns, due to their numerical superiority, will hold a virtual veto in any future Afghan political setting. Presently, members of this ethnic group feel marginalised and discriminated against.

Even though the Afghan national sentiment is remarkably cohesive, ethnic divisions continue to vitiate the socio-political scene. Afghan history is testimony to the fact that a strong-willed ruler with a loose system of governance is the only recipe for a lasting peace.

The future therefore points to a dominant role for the Taliban who have, in the past, shown strength of character, sterling political will and adherence to legal justice in accordance with the Shariah.

Despite their several mistakes with regard to the treatment of women and the use of force in shaping cultural behaviour, the Taliban remain very relevant to Afghan society. According to one estimate, 70 per cent of the Afghan nation is waiting for Taliban to return to power – albeit with a reformed code of conduct.

Al-Qaeda is no longer a monolithic organisation; it has converted itself into a global franchise. Its cadres have been relocated, and there is currently only a small al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.

The Western claim that its leadership is hiding in parts of Pakistan is ridiculous and meant only to pressurise Pakistan into “doing more”.

Most al-Qaeda field operatives have moved out and found new battlegrounds in the Middle East and Africa as they have succeeded in bleeding and debilitating the American might in the Afghan theatre of war.

Possible way out

Obama has, at least, opened the door for negotiations by announcing a timeline for the commencement of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, other parties who are affected by the Afghan conflict need to rally to find a solution before time runs out.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) could be an effective forum if it were to close ranks and not be content only with taking the cue from America.

An independent OIC stance will open a vista of possibilities if its efforts were to be combined with a powerful delegation of ulama (religious scholars) from Muslim countries. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran will have to take the lead role in this regard.

A visible paradigm shift in US policy would be a basic prerequisite for initiation of any meaningful dialogue to resolve this conflict. Once a change of heart becomes evident and the US demonstrates irreversible movement towards allowing Afghans to control their own destiny, other matters will fall into place rather quickly. But if ambivalence continues to show in the US’ stance, the Afghan imbroglio could stretch out for years to come. Some of the imperatives that must be addressed to proceed with the beginning of meaningful dialogue in Afghanistan are:

  1. A US declaration of the final date of evacuation from Afghanistan;
  2. The removal of the “terrorist” label from the Afghan resistance movement; and
  3. The unconditional release of all Afghan prisoners inside and outside the country.

While searching for a solution, the following points must be kept in mind:

  1. Afghanistan is an ideological conflict, and any attempt to find a diversionary approach will not succeed;
  2. A coalition government brokered by outside forces will have a short lifespan;
  3. An imposed solution will be counter-productive – just as the Bonn dispensation turned out to be a disaster. The solution must be a purely Afghan solution arrived at on Afghan soil;
  4. Any effort to find accommodation for marginal interests or to create an American proxy will fail to achieve results; and
  5. Finally, it must be remembered that Afghans are a fiercely independent people, and they will never compromise on their freedom, faith and honour. But if a settlement takes place on fair and equitable terms, they can easily be assimilated into the global community. They are capable of progressing and developing rather quickly if left to their own devices.

Muhammad Abdullah Gul is a researcher whose work focuses on South Asia. 

 The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.



Posted in WorldComments Off on AFGHANISTAN, PATHS TON PEACE



September 1, 2010

by John Allen

Abbas and Netanyahu 

By Alan Hart — My Catbird Seat

I never thought a day could come when I would agree with anything stated by Moshe Arens (three times an Israeli minister of defense, a one-time foreign minister, a former ambassador to the U.S. and, in my opinion, Zionism’s in-Israel equivalent of Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle in America). But the day came.

On 31 August, in article for Ha’aretz with the headline Blame game on the horizon. Arens wrote the following about the nakedness of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as he was making his final preparations for the start of direct negotiations in Washington DC.

“He does not have the backing of all Palestinians, not even of most of them. As far as Hamas is concerned, he has no right to represent the Palestinians in the upcoming negotiations. Even in Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank to the rest of the world) the extent of the support he enjoys among Palestinians is questionable. But most important, he does not have the authority to carry out any agreement he might arrive at with Netanyahu. He is fully aware of this, and that is probably the explanation for his reluctance to enter the negotiations, to which he has been dragged, kicking and screaming every inch of the way, by the president of the United States… Abbas may or might not want to conclude a peace with Israel, but he cannot.”

That’s true but there’s much more to it. No Palestinian leader will ever to be able to make peace with Israel on terms which do not provide for an end to its occupation of the West Bank (now in its 44th year) plus, of course, the ending of the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

On 30 August, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he thought the most fundamental question of the moment was, “What kind of state does Mr. Netanyahu have in mind when he says ‘Palestinian state’?”

I assumed that was Fayyad’s way of saying, “We need to know the extent of withdrawal from our occupied land Netanyahu is prepared to make for peace.”

For me the most fundamental question of the coming days, weeks and months is what will President Obama do when it becomes clear that Netanyahu (or any likely successor) is not prepared to withdraw from all of the West Bank?

He, Obama, will have two options.

One will be to do what all American presidents with the exception of Eisenhower have always done and surrender to the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media. In this event we could expect a statement from him to the effect that America can’t want peace more than the parties themselves. (I would be surprised if Obama did a Clinton and blamed the Palestinian leadership). And that would be game over, leaving Israel free to go on imposing its iron will on the occupied and oppressed Palestinians. In this scenario I think it is more likely than not that Zionism would resort to a final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The other option for Obama?

With the mid-term elections out of the way, he could be the first president to put America’s own best interests first and use the leverage he has to cause, or try to cause, Israel to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.

Are there any reasons to believe that, at a point, Obama might repeat might be prepared to confront Zionism?

I can think of one in theory.

Obama himself and some of his top military commanders are aware and have said that peace in the Middle East is a “strategic priority” for America. Without peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept, there’ll be escalating conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds which America can no longer afford to finance. (In his address from the Oval Office announcing that the Iraq combat mission is over, President Obama seemed to be acknowledging that when he said: “We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas… Now it is time to turn to pressing problems at home… It will be difficult to get the economy rolling again but doing so is our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.”)

On 30 August, Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad also said, “We are approaching a moment of reckoning.”

The question is – reckoning for whom? Obama and America or Zionism?


In an op-ed article in today’s New York Times, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak writes: “For both sides trust can be built only on tangible security. Security, however, cannot be a justification for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian land, as it undermines the cardinal principle of land for peace.”

I agree but again there’s much more to it. Israel’s insistence that it must have guaranteed security before peace is a political ploy. You make peace in order to have security. If you get the security you demand before peace, you don’t need peace. (Dictionary definition of ploy: a procedure used to achieve a particular result. In Israel’s case the particular result is keeping occupied Arab land).



The State and Local Bases of Zionist Power in America

September 1, 2010

by John Allen 

By James Petras


Any serious effort to understand the extraordinary influence of the Zionist power configuration over US foreign policy must examine the presence of key operatives in strategic positions in the government andlocal Zionist organizations affiliated with mainstream Jewish organizations and religious orders.  

There are at least 52 major American Jewish-Zionist organizations actively engaged in promoting Israel’s foreign policy, economic and technological agenda in the US (see the appendix). 

The grassroots membership ranges from several hundred thousand militants in the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) to one hundred thousand wealthy contributors, activists and power brokers in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  In addition scores of propaganda mills, dubbed think tanks, have been established by million dollar grants from billionaire Zionists including the Brookings Institute (Haim Saban) and the Hudson Institute among others. 

Scores of Zionist funded political action committees (PAC) have intervened in all national and regional elections, controlling nominations and influencing election outcomes.  Publishing houses, including university presses have been literally taken over by Zionist zealots, the most egregious example being Yale University, which publishes the most unbalanced tracts parroting Zionist parodies of Jewish history (Financial Times book review section August 28/29 2010). 

New heavily funded Zionist projects designed to capture young Jews and turn them into instruments of Israeli foreign policy includes “Taglit-Birthright” which has spent over $250 million dollars over the past decade sending over a quarter-million Jews (between 18-26) to Israel for 10 days of intense brainwashing (Boston Globe August 26, 2010).  Jewish billionaires and the Israeli state foot the bill.  The students are subject to a heavy dose of Israeli style militarism as they are accompanied by Israeli soldiers as part of their indoctrination; at no point do they visit the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem (Boston Globe August 26, 2010).  They are urged to become dual citizens and even encouraged to serve in the Israeli armed forces. 

In summary the 52 member organizations of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations which we discuss are only the tip of the iceberg of the Zionist Power Configuration:  taken together with the PACs, the propaganda mills, the commercial and University presses and mass media we have a matrix of power for understanding the tremendous influence they have on US foreign and domestic policy as it affects Israel and US Zionism.While all their activity is dedicated first and foremost in ensuring that US Middle East policy serves Israel’s colonial expansion in Palestine and war aims in the Middle East, what B’nai B’rth euphemistically calls a “focus on Israel and its place in the world”, many groups ‘specialize’ in different spheres of activity. 

For example, the “Friends of the Israel Defense Force” is primarily concerned in their own words “to look after the IDF”, in other words provide financial resources and promote US volunteers for a foreign army (an illegal activity except when it involves Israel).  Hillel is the student arm of the Zionist power configuration claiming a presence in 500 colleges and universities, all affiliates defending each and every human rights abuse of the Israeli state and organizing all expenses paid junkets for Jewish student recruits to travel to Israel  where they are heavily propagandized and encouraged to ‘migrate’ or become ‘dual citizens’.

Method:  Studying Zionist Power:

There are several approaches for measuring the power of the combined Zionist organizations and influential occupants of strategic positions in government and the economy.  These include (a) reputational approach (b) self claims (c) decision-making analysis (d) structural inferences.  Most of these approaches provide some clues about Zionist potential power. 

For example, newspaper pundits and journalists frequently rely on Washington insiders, congressional staff and notables to conclude that  AIPAC has the reputation for being one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.  This approach points to the need to empirically examine the operations of AIPAC in influencing Congressional votes, nomination of candidates, defeating incumbents who do not unconditionally support the Israeli line.  In other words analyzing the Congressional and Executive decision- making process is one key to measuring Zionist power.

But it is not the only one. Zionist power is a product of a historical context, where media ownership and wealth concentration and other institutional levers of power come into play and shape the current decision-making framework.  Cumulative power over time and across institutions creates a heavy bias in the political outcomes favorable to Israel’s organized agents in America.  Once again the mere presence of Jews or Zionists in positions of economic, cultural and political power does not tell us how they will use their resources and whether they will have the desired effect.  Structural analysis, the location of Zionists in the class structure, is necessary but not sufficient for understanding Zionist power. 

One has to proceed and analyze the content of decisions made and not made regarding the agenda of Israel’s backers operating in the USA.  The 52 major Zionists organizations are very open about their claims to power, their pursuit of Israel’s agenda and their subservience to each and every Israeli regime.

Those who deny Zionist power over US Mid East foreign policy are left-Zionists namely Noam Chomsky and his acolytes.  They never analyze the legislative process, executive decision-making, the structures and activity of the million member Zionist grassroots and the appointments and background of key policy makers deciding strategic policies in the Middle East.  Instead they resort to superficial generalizations and political demagogy, imputing policy to “Big Oil” and the “military-industrial complex” or “US imperialism”.  Categories devoid of empirical content and historical context about real existing policy making regarding the Middle East.

The Making of Zionist Power in the US Government

 To understand US submission to Israeli war policies in the Middle East one has to look beyond the role of lobbies pressuring Congress and the role of political action committees and wealthy Zionist campaign contributions.  A much neglected but absolutely essential building block of Zionist power over US foreign economic, diplomatic and military policy is the Zionist presence in key policy positions, including the Departments of Treasury and State, the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the White House.

Operating within the top policymaking positions, Zionist officials have consistently pursued policies in line with Israel’s militarist policies, aimed at undermining and eliminating any country critical of the Jewish States’ colonial occupation of Palestine, its regional nuclear monopoly, its expansion of Jews only settlements and above all its strident efforts to remain the dominant power in the Arab East. 

The Zionist policymakers in Government are in constant consultation with the Israeli state, ensuring coordination with the Israeli military (IDF) command, its Foreign Office and secret police (MOSSAD) and compliance with the Jewish State’s political line.  Over the past 24 months not a single Zionist policymaker has voiced any criticism of Israel’s most heinous crimes, ranging from the savaging of Gaza to the massacre of the humanitarian flotilla and the expansion of new settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank.  A record of  loyalty to a foreign power which even exceeds the subservience of the Stalinist and Nazi fellow travelers in Washington during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Zionist policymakers in strategic positions depend on the political backing and work closely with their counterparts in the “lobbies” (AIPAC) in Congress and in the national and local Jewish Zionist organizations.  Many of the leading Zionist policymakers rose to power through a deliberate strategy of infiltrating the government to shape policy promoting Israel’s interest over and above the interests of the US populace.  While a degree of cohesion resulting from a common allegiance to Tel Aviv can account for suspected nepotism and selection, it is also the case that the powerful Jewish lobbies can play a role in creating key positions in Government and ensuring that one of their own will occupy that position and pursue Israel’s agenda.

Stuart Levey: Israel’s Foremost Operative in the US Government


Stuart Levey, Who is he? He is the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

In 2004, AIPAC successfully pressured the Bush Administration to create the office of Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (UTFI) and to name its protégé Princeton graduate Stuart Levey to that position.  Before, but especially after his appointment, Levey was in close collaboration with the Israeli state and was known as an over the top Zionist zealot with unbounded energy and blind worship of the Israeli state. Within the confines of his Zionist ideological blinders, Levey applied his intelligence to the singular task of turning his office into the major foreign policy venue for setting US policy toward Iran.  Levey more than any other appointed official in government or elected legislator, formulates and implements policies which profoundly influence US, European Union and UN economic relations with Iran.  Levey elaborated the sanctions policies, which Washington imposed on the EU and the Security Council.  Levey, organizes the entire staff under his control at Treasury to investigate trade and investment policies of all the world’s major manufacturing, banking, shipping, petroleum and trading corporations. 

He then criss-crosses the US and successfully pressures pension funds, investment houses, oil companies and economic institutions to disinvest from any companies dealing with Iran’s civilian economy.  He has gone global, threatening sanctions and blackballing dissident companies in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North America which refuse to surrender economic opportunities.  They all understood Levey operated at the behest of Israel, services Levey has proudly performed.

 Levey coordinates his campaign with Zionist leaders in Congress.  He secures sanctions legislation in line with his campaigns.  His policies clearly violate international law and national sovereignty, pressing the limits of extra territorial enforcement of his administrative fiats against a civilian economy.  His violation of economic sovereignty parallels Obama’s announcement that US Special Forces would operate in violation of political sovereignty on four continents.  For all intents and purposes, Levey makes US policy toward Iran.

At each point he designs the escalation of sanctions, and then passes it on to the White House, which shoves it down the throats of the Security Council.  Once new sanctions approved by Levey and staff are in place they are there to enforce them:  identifying violators and implementing penalties.  Treasury has become an outpost of Tel Aviv. Not a single leftist, liberal or social democratic publication highlights the role of Levey or even the terrible economic pain this Old Testament fanatic is inflicting on 75 million Iranian civilian workers and consumers. 

Indeed like Israel’s Judeo-fascist rabbis who preach a “final solution” for Israel’s enemies, Levey announces new and harsher “punishment” against the Iranian people (Stuart Levey, “Iran’s New Deceptions at Sea Must be Punished” FT 8/16/2010, p. 9).  Perhaps at the appropriate moment the Jewish State will name a major avenue through the West Bank for his extraordinary services to this most unholy racist state. 

The Strategic Role of Local PowerThe Israel Lobby Archive recently released declassified documents of the American Zionist Council (AZC) subpoenaed during a US Senate investigation between 1962-63.  The documents reveal how the Israeli state through its American Jewish conduits – the mainstream Zionist organizations – penetrated the US mass media and propagated its political line, unbeknownst to the American public. Stories written by a host of Jewish Zionist journalists and academics were solicited and planted in national media such as The Readers Digest, The Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post among others, including regional and local newspapers and radio stations (Israel Lobby Archive, August 18, 2010). 

While the national Zionist organizations procured the journalists and academic writers and editors, it was the local affiliates who carried the message and implemented the line. The level of infiltration the Senate subpoenaed Zionist documents in the 1960’s reveal has multiplied a hundred fold over the past 50 years in terms of financing, paid functionaries and committed militants and above all in structural power and coercive capability.

While the national leaders in close consultation with Israeli officials receive instructions on which issues are of high priority, the implementation follows a vertical route to regional and local leaders, politicians, and notables who in turn target the local media and religious, academic and other opinion leaders.  When national leaders ensure publication of pro Israeli propaganda, the locals reproduce and circulate it to local media and non-Zionist influentials on their “periphery”.  Letter campaigns orchestrated at the top are implemented by thousands of militant Zionist doctors, lawyers and businesspeople. 

They praise pro-Israel scribes and attack critics; they pressure newspapers , publishing houses and magazines not to publish dissidents.  The national and local leaders promote hostile reviews of books not promoting the Israeli line, influence library decisions to pack their shelves with pro Israeli books and censor and exclude more balanced or critical histories.  Local militants in co-ordination with Israeli consuls saturate the public with thousands of public meetings and speakers targeting Christian churches, academic audiences and civic groups; at the same time local Zionist militants and, especially millionaire influentials, pressure local venues (university administrators, church authorities and civic associations) to disinvite any critic of Israel and their supporters from speaking.  In the last resort, local Zionists demand that a pro-Israel propagandist be given equal time, something unheard of when an Israel apologist is scheduled to speak.

Local Zionist organizations make yeoman efforts to recruit mayors, governors, local celebraties, publishers, church people and promising young ethnic and minority leaders by offering them all expenses paid propaganda junkets to Israel and then to write or give interviews parroting what they were fed by Israeli officials.  Local leaders mobilize thousands of militant activist Zionists to attack anti-Zionist Jews in public and private.   They demand they be excluded from any media roundtables on the Middle East.

Local Zionist functionaries form rapid response committees to visit and threaten any local publisher and editorial staff publishing editorials or articles questioning the Israeli party line.  Local leaders police (“monitor”) all local meetings, speaker invitations, as well as the speeches of public commentators, religious leaders and academics to detect any “anti-Zionist overtones’ (which they label “covert anti-Semitism”).  Most of  the major Jewish religious orders are lined up as the clerical backbone of local Israeli fundraising, including the financing of new “Jews only” settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.

Local functionaries are in the forefront of campaigns to deny independent Middle East specialists and public policy academics, appointments, tenure or promotion, independently of the quality of their scholarship.  On the other hand, academic hacks who toe the pro-Israel line, by publishing books with blanket attacks on Israeli critics among Christians and Muslims and countries like Turkey, Iran or whoever is a target of Israeli policy, are promoted, lauded and put on the best seller list.  Any book or writer critical of Zionist Power or Israel is put on a local and national ‘index’ and subject to an inquisition by slander from a stable of Jewish Torquemadas.


The power of Israel in the US does not reside only in the influence and leadership of powerful Washington based “pro-Israel lobbies”, like AIPAC.  Without the hundreds of thousands of militant locally based dentists, podiatrists, stockbrokers, real estate brokers,profesors and others, the “lobby” would be unable to sustain and implement its policy among hundreds of millions of Americans outside the major metropolises.  As we have seen from the Senate declassified documents, over a half-century ago, local Zionist organizations began a systematic campaign of penetration, control and intimidation that has reached its pinnacle in the first decade of the 21st century.  It is no accident or mere coincidence that University officials in Northern Minnesota or upstate New York are targeted to exclude speakers or fire faculty members critical of Israel. 

Local Zionists have computerized databanks operating with an index of prohibited speakers, as the Zionists themselves admit and flaunt in contrast to “liberal” Zionists who are prone to label as “anti-Semitic” or “conspiracy theorists” writers who cite official Zionist documents demonstrating their systematic perversion of our democratic freedoms. 

Over the decades, the distinction between Zionist power exercised by a “lobby” outside the government and operatives “inside” the government has virtually vanished.  As we have seen, in our case study, AIPACsecured the undersecretary position in Treasury, dictated the appointment of a key Zionist operative (Stuart Levey) and accompanies his global crusade to sanction Iran into starvation and destitution. The planting of operatives within key Middle East positions in government is not the simple result of individual career choices. The ascent of so many pro-Israel Zionist to government posts is part of their mission to serve Israel’s interest at least for a few years of their careers. 

Their presence in government precludes any Senate or Congressional investigations of Zionists organizations acting as agents of a foreign power as took place in the 1960’s.As the major Zionist organizations and influentials have accumulated power and abused the exercise of power on behalf of an increasingly bloody racist state, which flaunts its dominance over US institutions, public opposition is growing.  The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign is gaining strength even in the US (see Harvard divestment in Israeli companies).  US public support for Israel, by all measures, has dropped below 50%, while polls in Western Europe show a marked increase in hostility to Israel’s ultra-rightist regime. 

Anti-Zionist Jews are growing in influence especially among young Jews who are appalled by the Israeli slaughter in Gaza and assault on the humanitarian flotilla. Equally important the presence of anti-Zionist Jews on panels and forums has given courage to many otherwise intimidated non-Jews who heretofore were fearful of being labeled “anti-Semitic”.

The Zionist power configuration rests on a declining population base: most young Jews marry outside the confines of the ethno-religious Jewish-Israeli nexus and many of them are not likely to form the bases for rabid campaigns on behalf of a racist state.  The Zionist leadership’s high intensity and heavily endowed effort to fence in young people of Jewish ancestry via private schools, subsidized “summer programs” in Israel etc. are as much out of fear and recognition of the drift away from clerical chauvinism as it is an attempt to recruit a new generation of Israel First militants.

The danger is that the US Zionist support for the ultra-rightist and racist regime in Israel is leading them to join forces with the far right in the US.  Today Jewish and Christian Manhattan rednecks are fermenting mass Islamic hatred (the so called “Mosque controversy”) as a distraction from the economic crises and rising unemployment.  Zionist promotion of mass Islamofobia, so near to Wall Street, where many of their fat cats who profit from plundering the assets of America operate, is a dangerous game.  If the same enraged masses turn their eyes upward toward the wealthy and powerful instead of downward to blacks and Muslims, some unpleasant and unanticipated surprises might rebound against, not only Israel’s operatives, but all those wrongly identified as related to a misconstrued Jewish Motherland.


Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

Member Organizations

JAMES PETRAS: Trends to Barbarism and Prospects for Socialism is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles.

  • Ameinu

  • American Friends of Likud

  • American Gathering/Federation of Jewish Holocaust Survivors

  • America-Israel Friendship League

  • American Israel Public Affairs Committee

  • American Jewish Committee

  • American Jewish Congress

  • American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee

  • American Sephardi Federation

  • American Zionist Movement

  • Americans for Peace Now

  • AMIT

  • Anti-Defamation League

  • Association of Reform Zionists of America

  • B’nai B’rith International

  • Bnai Zion

  • Central Conference of American Rabbis

  • Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

  • Development Corporation for Israel/State of Israel Bonds

  • Emunah of America

  • Friends of Israel Defense Forces

  • Hadassah, Women’s Zionist Organization of America

  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

  • Hillel:  The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

  • Jewish Community Centers Association

  • Jewish Council for Public Affairs

  • The Jewish Federations of North America

  • Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

  • Jewish Labor Committee

  • Jewish National Fund

  • Jewish Reconstructionist Federation

  • Jewish War Veterans of the USA

  • Jewish Women International

  • MERCAZ USA, Zionist Organization of the Conservative Movement


  • MCSK” Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia

  • National Council of Jewish Women

  • National Council of Young Israel

  • ORT America

  • Rabbinical Assembly

  • Rabbinical Council of America

  • Religious Zionists of America

  • Union for Reform Judaism

  • Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

  • United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism

  • WIZO

  • Women’s League for Conservative Judaism

  • Women of Reform Judaism

  • Workmen’s Circle

  • World ORT

  • World Zionist Executive, US

  • Zionist Organization of America

  • Also see: 

    JAMES PETRAS: War Crimes in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America

    James Petras





    September 1, 2010 

    by Robert L. Hanafin

    Yesterday prior to President Obama’s speech on the so-called End of U.S. Combat in Iraq (that remains to be seen when dead American troops stop returning home in flag draped caskets), I posted the views of several Military Family and Veteran Peace groups, plus one moderate young Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans group VoteVets.

    Now that the media pundits have had their shot at blessing Obama’s speech and take on re-branding the occupation of Iraq just in time for the November 2010 elections, the Obama administration and Democrats in general will find themselves in a damned if we don’t and damned if we do scenario come the mid-term Congressional elections. It is already a fact that Obama’s popularity in the polls is almost competing with that of the man he replaced on saluted last night for giving us the Iraq War – G.W. Bush.

    There is no better way for Obama to put himself, his party, and his wars in the Bush camp than to praise the man the Democrats did a pretty good job of demonizing or Obama would not be sitting in the White House.

    Our humble opinion here at Veterans Today is that too many people across the political spectrum (with the exception of maybe Blue Dog Democrats) have seen through Obama’s political message last night – at least the spin was a short presentation.

    Below is how Veterans of War, Veterans of PEACE would have presented Obama’s message without the SPIN.

    Robert L. Hanafin, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired, GS-14, U.S. Civil Service-Retired, Veterans Today News Network



    Rabbi Bruce Warshal: Shame on America, Jews and the ADL

    September 1, 2010

    by Michael Leon  


    – The last word was recently written by Daniel Luban, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago, in Tablet Magazine: “While activists like Pam Geller have led the anti-mosque campaign and the broader demonization of Muslims that has accompanied it, leaders like Abe Foxman have acquiesced in it.  In doing so they risk providing an ugly and ironic illustration of the extent of Jewish assimilation in 21st-century America.  We know that Jews can grow up to be senators and Supreme Court justices.  Let’s not also discover that they can grow up to incite a pogrom.” –

    Shame on America, Jews and the ADL

    by Rabbi Bruce Warshal
    The Florida Jewish Journal

    To begin, the mosque controversy does not involve a mosque.  It is planned as a 13-story community center encompassing a swimming pool, 500-seat performing arts center, gym,  culinary school, restaurant and, yes, a prayer space for Muslims, which already exists in the current building.  A formal mosque would forbid eating or the playing of music on the premises. I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

    There is also the controversy over the proposed name, Cordoba House.  The hate-mongers have described this as a reference to Muslim designs to attack western culture, hearkening back to the Muslim-Christian wars of domination in medieval Spain.  The name was chosen for precisely the opposite reason. In the tenth century Cordoba was the center of the most liberal and sophisticated Caliphate in the Islamic world.  All religions were not merely tolerated but respected.

    The caliph, Abd al-Rahman III, had a Jew as his foreign minister and a Greek bishop in his diplomatic corps.  He also had a library of 400,000 volumes at a time when the largest library in Christian Europe numbered merely 400 manuscripts.  There were also 70 other smaller libraries in Cordoba. The very reference to Cordoba reflects the sophistication and liberality of the Muslims behind this project.  They have changed the name of the center to the address of the building, Park 51, to deflect criticism.  This was unfortunate, since nothing will quiet a hate-monger.

    Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam behind the proposed community center, has been attacked as an Islamic terrorist, even though he is a practitioner of Sufi Islam, which reaches out to all other religions as manifestations of the Divine.  My God, the conservative Bush administration utilized Rauf as part of an outreach to the Muslim world.  You can bet your life that he was thoroughly vetted by our government.  He is currently being used by the Clinton State Department as well in the same capacity.  Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN succinctly put it, “His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.”

    And what is Rauf’s sin?  He will build a Muslim community center two blocks away from Ground Zero, variously described as a “hallowed battlefield,” “holy ground,” and a “war memorial.”  Even President Obama in his defense of religious freedom commented that, “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.”  I beg to differ.

    If Ground Zero is holy ground, then the railroad station in Madrid, the Underground in London, the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Pentagon (where there is presently a prayer space for Muslims – yes, patriotic, religious Muslim Americans work at the Pentagon) and every other physical location that has been the object of terrorism is holy ground.  If Ground Zero is holy space why plan for it to be developed with office buildings (in which the object will be to amass money – obviously a holy pursuit), a shopping center (in which consumer goods will be peddled to continue to gorge the American appetite for material possessions), and with a theater for modern dance (a project to which I personally look forward as a devotee of the Joyce, the modern dance Mecca of New York)?  I’m sorry, but someone has to tell America that this designation of holy space is merely part of a mass hysteria that really scares me.

    The question which must be asked is why this hysteria?  The impetus comes from a triumvirate of right-wing Christians, Jews and politicians. Fundamentalist Christians are still fighting the crusades, still vying to convert the world to their truths.  Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, to the distress of these Christian proselytizers.  What better way to win this battle than to brand all Muslims as terrorists?

    Right-wing Jews think that they are doing Israel a favor by painting Islam as a terrorist religion thereby proving that Israel need not negotiate with the Palestinians.  The idea is to project the concept that we are civilized and they are not.  This theme is picked up in the right-wing press of Israel.  Commenting on the New York proposed “mosque,” a columnist in the Jerusalem Post declares that “Islamism is a modern political tendency which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s.”  Ground Zero isn’t Israel’s “holy ground.”  Why would he be involved with this discussion?  Simply because right-wing Jews in Israel as well as the United States believe that demonizing the religion of 1.3 billion people is good for Israel.  God help us.

    Right-wing politicians join the fray.  On Fox News Newt Gingrich compares a mosque at Ground Zero to Nazis protesting at the United States Holocaust Memorial.  The Democrats are cowed by the American outpouring of hate and even Harry Reid voices disapproval of the Park 51 site.  It’s a perfect storm of hate.

    Periodically we go through this in America.  The anti-Catholic No-Nothing party ran ex-President Millard Fillmore in the presidential election of 1856 and garnered 27 percent of the votes.  We deported over 10,000 people during the First World War because they opposed our entry into that war and we incarcerated loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War.  Now during this “war on terror” I shudder to think where we are headed.

    The tool used in this hate campaign is the concept of collective guilt. Based on that, all Jews are traitors since Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sold out this country.  All Christians are terrorists since Timothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City.  Neither are all Muslims traitors nor terrorists.  Islam is not monolithic.  Its forms are as varied as Judaism or Christianity.  I do not practice Judaism the same as a Satmar Hasidic Jew.  A Catholic does not practice Christianity the same as a Jehovah Witness.  Imam Rauf does not share the same Islamic beliefs as bin Laden.

    Of all people Jews should beware of collective guilt since we have suffered from it for millennia.  Yet the organization that started this hysteria is headed by a right wing Jewish supporter of Israel by the name of Pam Geller. She is quoted in the mainstream media (including the Jewish Journal) as if she is a legitimate political voice.  Yet on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, she has declared that “Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcom X.”  She has written that we have “an American-hater for president.”  She has proposed that devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service.  She asks, “Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?”  To all of the rabbis quoted in the Jewish Journal urging that the “mosque” be moved, know who is pulling your strings.

    Finally, to the role of the Anti-Defamation League and its director, Abe Foxman.  The world was literally “shocked,” that’s the word used by the Associated Press, by ADL’s call for the mosque to be moved.  Fareed Zakaria called it a “bizarre decision.”  Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said, “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” Referring to loved ones of the September 11 victims, he continued: “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

    How dare Foxman use the Holocaust to justify prejudice.  He does blasphemy to the memory of Jews and other oppressed minorities whose lives were sacrificed on the altar of bigotry.   Zakaria responds: “Does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims?  Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?”

    Five years ago the ADL honored Zakaria with the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize.  Incensed over ADL’s succumbing to bigotry, he has returned the award with the $10,000 honorarium that came with it.

    The last word was recently written by Daniel Luban, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago, in Tablet Magazine: “While activists like Pam Geller have led the anti-mosque campaign and the broader demonization of Muslims that has accompanied it, leaders like Abe Foxman have acquiesced in it.  In doing so they risk providing an ugly and ironic illustration of the extent of Jewish assimilation in 21st-century America.  We know that Jews can grow up to be senators and Supreme Court justices.  Let’s not also discover that they can grow up to incite a pogrom.”

    Rabbi Bruce Warshal is publisher emeritus of the Jewish Journal of South Florida. 
    He can be contacted at




    September 1, 2010 

    by Jeff Gates

    Here’s a news flash for Tel Aviv: it’s not a sign of respect when the bulk of humanity views you as psychopathic.

    The concerns of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are misplaced. The legitimacy of Israel is no longer threatened. It’s already lost. Long gone. Kaput.

    Nation states are shared states of mind. The mindset in Iceland differs from India. Israel is the most unlike of all. Founded by extremists and terrorists, it’s been downhill ever since.

    Psychopaths want to be loved. That’s why they’re so charming, albeit only superficially. They’re also pathological liars, egocentric, callous and remorseless.

    Those qualities have long been familiar to Israel’s neighbors, particularly the Palestinians. After WWII, Harry Truman was charmed into treating this extremist enclave as an ally.

    That decision may well go down in history as America’s greatest mistake.

    Though we’ve served for 62 years as Israel’s patron, pocketbook and apologist, the respect and affection has flowed in only one direction.

    Psychopaths should not be confused with megalomaniacs. The mental states are quite different. Megalomaniacs seek to be feared, not loved. Control is the common trait.

    That not-so-subtle distinction matters, at least for those of us who are not dual citizens.

    For instance, it’s now known that Israel and its advocates fixed the intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. That fact is no longer in dispute.

    That fact alone confirms the split personality evident in the shared state of mind we call Israel. Those who share that state charmed us into committing our blood and treasure for goals long sought by Israel. That’s the psychopath component.

    The megalomaniac component felt they had a right to make us fearful. As Chosen (by a god of their own choosing), devotees of this shared mindset truly believe it’s their right to deceive. Those complicit see themselves as “of us but above us.”

    When we dispatched our military to pursue their goals, Americans were killed and maimed as we borrowed our way into a fiscal morass from which there’s no clear route to recovery.

    Score another victory for the U.S.-Israel special relationship.

    Why Don’t Americans Get It?

    Nothing about this “state” is legit. Never was. Its founding traces to a multi-decade reign of terror built on a phony historical foundation. Even the most dull-witted now question how Israel came into being. And why the U.S. ever deemed it special.

    Americans are learning to fear Israel—as they should. A few of us remain charmed—despite the facts. For the True Believer, facts are likely to remain irrelevant.

    Those familiar with the facts know better. Thus the fast-growing concern that troublesome behavior patterns are emerging once again.

    Those most knowledgeable are deeply concerned about recent events.

    On August 26th, a leaked memo from the Central Intelligence Agency cited American Jews as exporters of terrorism. Then came the news on August 30th from Sephardi chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who urged that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas “vanish from our world” and that “God strike (Palestinians) down with a plague.”

    Neither story gained traction in mainstream U.S. media. Instead, news coverage was reserved for August 31st when four Israelis were shot dead in the West Bank.

    The most lethal attack in four years—blamed on Hamas—occurred just hours before Netanyahu’s scheduled meeting with Hamas leaders and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    The timing revived memories of the many well-timed “incidents” during the reign of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. No one dares suggest that Tel Aviv may be the source of this latest incident. Yet consider just a few of the many precedents:

    • On April 12, 2002, at the same moment Secretary of State Colin Powell was meeting with Ariel Sharon, a suicide bombing occurred in Israel, killing 8 and injuring 22.

    • On May 10, 2002, at the same moment President Bush was meeting with Ariel Sharon, a suicide bombing occurred in Israel.

    • On June 11, 2003, on the same day Ariel Sharon visited the White House, a suicide bombing killed 17 and wounded 100 on a bus in Jerusalem.

    • On November 11, 2003, while the president of Italy was visiting the U.S., Italy suffered its greatest wartime casualties since WWII when 19 Italians were killed in Iraq.

    • On November 20, 2003, while President Bush was visiting Prime Minister Tony Blair in London, the British envoy to Istanbul was among 27 killed by a blast.

    • On November 30, 2003, while the president of Spain was visiting the U.S., seven Spanish intelligence officers were killed in Iraq.

    The Source of Terror

    What happens to Israel’s fast-fading legitimacy if the fear of terrorism—all of it—traces back to those long known for their expertise at waging war “by way of deception.” That’s the founding credo of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign operations directorate infamous for its worldwide expertise as an agent provocateur.

    Would a state founded by terrorists resort to terror to sustain a narrative essential to its survival? Would Tel Aviv again deceive the U.S. to pursue its expansionist goals?

    Zionist media mogul Haim Saban spoke candidly when, in the May 10th issue of The New Yorker, he boasted of “three ways to be influential in American politics:” make donations to political parties, establish think tanks and control media outlets.

    His only omission: terror.

    Was this dual citizen conceding how the U.S. was induced to war—for Israel?

    Was he describing how Zionists shape U.S. policy—in plain sight?

    Was he describing how psychopaths wage war on the U.S.—from within?

    Was he divulging how megalomaniacs influence U.S. decision-making—with fear?

    Americans have long been charmed by this “special” relationship. Now it’s time to be fearful. When a mental state of this malevolent sort becomes transparent and its operatives apparent, that’s when “psycho-megalomania” becomes its most dangerous.

    Will we see another terrorist attack? You can bet on it. The only question is: When?

    Special days are often chosen for special events. Will the next mass murder be on Rosh Hashanah (September 8th)? How about the ninth anniversary of September 11? Or Yom Kippur on September 17?

    Will the next incident be nuclear or conventional? Will it be staged in the U.S. or the E.U.?

    And most important of all: will it be blamed on Hezbollah or Hamas? Or will the “Pakistan Taliban” be portrayed as the requisite Evil Doer responsible for the next mass murder?

    Stay tuned.

    Posted in Middle EastComments Off on WHEN WILL WE SEE THE NEXT MASS MURDER?



    Israeli rabbi calls for Arabs to perish

    September 1, 2010 

    by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat 

    How could the people who encourage building shrines and museums for the Holocaust- established to bear witness to the Nazi crimes- turn so genocidal?

    By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

    Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

    Zio=Nazi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the current spiritual leader of the Shas political party in the Zionist Knesset, had said during his weekly Shabbat sermon that the Palestinians, namely Palestinian President Mahmoud Ab-A$$, should perish from the world. Nazi Yosef, also described Palestinians as evil, bitter enemies of ‘Israel’.

     ”All these evil people should perish from this world … God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians,” Nazi Yosef had said.

    Zio=Nazi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is highly revered in the religious ‘Israeli’ sphere, especially in the Sephardi and Mizrahi communities, for his erudition and Torah scholarship.

    But the way I see it, rabbi yosef could be revered for his Torah scholarship that might be agreeable. But we should never consider the Rabbi an erudite cleric. An erudite man should know and behave better; rude is the more likely description for any religious man with such explicit contempt and hate towards fellow men and neighbors whom the old Bible incites that he should love “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

    Leviticus 19:18

    This is not the first time for Rabbi yosef himself an iraqi Arab to slam Arabs and especially Palestinians in such inflammatory way. The Iraqi-born cleric has made similar remarks before, most notably in 2001, during a Palestinian uprising, when he called for Arabs’ annihilation and said “The Lord shall return their deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world. It is forbidden to be merciful to them. we must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”

    The Holocaust Industry

    It is easy to imagine these words being uttered by a Nazi leader in Germany some 60 years ago, not by one whose people escaped the Nazi Holocaust, not by one whose people adept at pressing charges of anti-Semitism against anyone dared to question the contradictory Jewish history or criticize their present political affairs. How could one of the people who mastered the art of assigning guilt and playing the all time victims turn suddenly racist?

    How could the people who encourage building shrines and museums for the Holocaust- established to bear witness to the Nazi crimes- turn so genocidal?

    With this paradox in mind, one find himself strongly inclined to recognize the thesis of THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY adopted by Norman Finkelstein in his book by the same title in which he suggests that the Holocaust had become a means by which certain factions of the Jewish policy makers create an aura of piety and victimization that is used to, ironically, push forward a militaristic and potentially fascistic agenda.

    The Holocaust industry book cover.

    Finkelstein has written an extremely controversial indictment of the way Jewish conservative leaders exploited the history of the holocaust to advance their political and financial goals.

    The Nazi Rabbi words leave no room for misinterpretation or “spin” by pro-Zionist apologists plus he is a man of 90 years old, the age of wisdom and reconciliation with adversaries. So there is no way we could give him the benefit of the doubt. The man meant every word he said.

    The time to act as raving mad puppet

    There are two points to be discussed here. First, the timing of the Nazi Rabbi anti-Arab hate speech. I mean the man’s raving remarks always has its ebb and flow but he often dishes them out in a time of political need and according to a preplan. His offensive and infuriating statements may sound outrageous and religiously inexplicable. But if we examined their political ramification, only then could we discern them as making more sense.

     Back in 2000 when the Palestinian uprising or what is better known in Arabic as Intifada erupted following Zio=Nazi Ariel Sharon‘s visit to the Temple Mount, an area known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif. The visit of former Zio=Nazi Prime Minister Sharon to the Muslim shrine was meant to send a message to the Palestinians and the Arabs that the Zionist regime of ‘Israel’ would go ahead with the hideous and ambitious plan to demolish the Al- Aqsa mosque and build in its place what is called the third temple. 

    And since this plan triggered feelings of intense bitterness and deep resentment amongst the Arabs and specially the Palestinians It eventually led to the uprising of the Palestinian “Intifada”. The Palestinian uprising was gaining momentum and the Palestinians high spirit needed to be confronted in every way possible, military, economically and morally.

     The Nazi Rabbi hate rhetoric was needed. It was time to unleash the pent- up paranoid inside the Rabbi in the same way it was unleashed this week in an attempt to sabotage the so called Palestinian -Israeli peace talks to be held in the United States this week. And since the Palestinians had only one precondition to the peace talks, namely freezing the illegal Zionist building of new illegal settlements in eastern Jerusalem.

    It wasn’t long before the Nazi puppet Rabbi was again making the headlines. Yesterday he tossed another jab at the Palestinian Authority and called for a total thaw of the building freeze in Judea and Samaria. The Nazi Rabbi new aggravating statements came as planned and before Zionist Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flew to the United States for the scheduled talks with puppet Ab-A$$.

     Having done his magic, the political scene was boiling again over the illegal settlements issue due to the Nazi Rabbi provoking statements. His hate speech – as expected – incited equally extreme reaction on the Hamas side. Four Zionist settlers were killed this morning near a West Bank settlement. The Nazi rabbi called for Palestinians to perish and asked God to strike them with a deadly plague. Seemingly, God was not listening to the rabbinical ravings but surely some of the rabbi- targeted audiences of fanatics were. His hate speech did not pass unrewarded.

    Too late now 

    The second point to be regarded is the fact that Nazi  Rabbi yosef is Mizrahi- born in Iraq- and he is the head of the Mizrahi Jewish community.

    The term Mizrahi is used in Israel in the language of politics, media and some social scientists for Jews from the Arab world and adjacent, primarily Muslim-majority countries.

    I mean the man has deep Arabic roots and he spent years(1947-1949) as head of the rabbinical court of the Jewish community in Egypt where he experienced the tolerance to Jews in Cairo prior to the surge of extremism to which he and men like him generously contributed.   

     With this history in mind and with more wisdom the rabbi could have been the perfect candidate for peace advocacy instead of promoting hatred. He could have utilized his influence among the Mizrahi and Sephardic communities to push forward the Middle East peace agenda.

    He could have used the message of love embedded in the old Bible to bring peoples closer to each other. He could have asked his God to bestow peace and understanding upon the region, not to ask him for the annihilation of fellow human beings…. He should have been a better Rabbi.


    Posted in Middle EastComments Off on ZIO=NAZI RABBI CALL FOR ARABS TO PERISH



    U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley condemns Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s ‘inflammatory’ statement that all Palestinians should perish.


    The United States on Sunday condemned remarks by the spiritual leader of Israel’s leading ultra-Orthodox party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who said the Palestinians should “perish”.

    “We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,” U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. “These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace.”

    “As we move forward to relaunch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.”

    Yosef had said during his weekly Shabbat sermon that the Palestinians, namely Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, should perish from the world. Yosef, a founder of the Shas Party, also described Palestinians as evil, bitter enemies of Israel.

    “All these evil people should perish from this world … God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians,” Yosef had said.

    Shas spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef Shas spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef
    Photo by: Daniel Bar-On

    The 89-year-old is a respected religious scholar but is also known for vitriolic comments about Arabs, secular Jews, liberals, women and gays, among others.

    Ovadia Yosef and leaders of Slonim Hasidim, Jerusalem. 27.6.10
    Ovadia Yosef and leaders of Slonim Hasidim, Jerusalem. 27.6.10Tomer Appelbaum

    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on Monday also condemned Rabbi Yosef’s comments as “offensive and incendiary,” cautioning that his words “contribute to a potentially dangerous environment of intolerance and hatred.”

    “Particularly on the eve of renewed peace talks, and on the eve of the Jewish New Year, one would have hoped that Rav Yosef could have inspired his students and followers with a message of hope, humility, repentance and forgiveness,” said a statement from ADL chief Abraham Foxman.

    “These comments do not exist in a vacuum – such incendiary expressions contribute to a potentially dangerous environment of intolerance and hatred.”‬

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday distanced himself from Yosef’s remarks, but stopped short of a condemnation.

    “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s remarks do not reflect Netanyahu’s views, nor do they reflect the stance of the Israeli government,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.

    “Israel plans to take part in peace negotiations out of a desire to advance toward a peace agreement with the Palestinians that will end the conflict and ensure peace, security and good neighborly relations between the two peoples,” the statement continued.

    Palestinian U.S. envoy Maen Rashid Aerekat slammed the Rabbi’s remarks, saying they were paramount to incitement to genocide.

    “We are very disappointed. It comes from the spiritual leader representing large party in the coalition, large segment of the Israeli society. When he makes such incitement against our leadership and the Palestinian people – he is actually telling thousands of his followers to harm the Palestinian people,” he said.

    “People in Israel whine about Palestinian incitement after sermon in some isolated mosque at the West Bank – and when someone like Ovadia Yossef says something – the Prime Minister doesn’t even have a decency to say: “I am opposed to it, I condemn it.”

    “Internal politics for the Israeli leaders today is more important than even their own principles. It‘s an example of the Israeli official incitement. Unfortunately, it didn’t get the condemnation from the Israeli leadership it deserved,” Aerekat added.

    Posted in Middle EastComments Off on U.S.: BABBI’S OFFENSIVE REMARKS HARM PEACE EFFORTS



    Zio=Nazi Army Radio reports racist Rabbi Ovadia Yosef denounces Palestinians as bitter enemies of ‘Israel’ ahead of upcoming direct ‘peace talks’. 

    Zio=Nazi Shas spiritual leader racist Rabbi Ovadia Yosef denounced upcoming ‘peace talks’ with the Palestinians, which are set to start September 2 in Washington, and called for Palestinian Puppet Mahmoud Ab-A$$ to “perish from this world,” Zio=Nazi Army Radio reported overnight Saturday.

    Shas spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef Shas Zio=Nazi leader Ovadia Yosef

    “Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this world,” Nazi Rabbi Ovadia was quoted as saying during his weekly sermon at a synagogue near his Jerusalem home. “God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians.”

    The Shas spiritual leader also called the Palestinians “evil, bitter enemies of Israel” during his speech, which is not the rabbi’s first sermon to spark controversy.

    In 2001, the Nazi spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox faction gave a speech in which he also called for Arabs’ annihilation.

    “It is forbidden to be merciful to them,” he was quoted as saying. “You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”

    The Palestinian Authority had condemned the speech as racist and inciteful.

    Meanwhile, Zionist Interior Minister Eli Yishai, also from Shas, earlier this week also remarked on the forthcoming peace talks with the Palestinians, saying that Shas would oppose extending the West Bank illegal Zionist settlement building freeze due to expire in late September.

    Yishai has suggested that his regime would continue construction in the main illegal settlement blocs likely to remain part of the Zionist regime of ‘Israel’ in the framework of a peace deal, but freeze construction in outposts or more remote settlements.

    Posted in Middle EastComments Off on NAZI RABBI: AB-ASS & PALESTINIANS SHOULD PERISH

    Shoah’s pages


    September 2010
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug   Oct »