Archive | February 26th, 2011







But to understand the financial crisis, 9/11 and so much more, it must be spokenconstantly. As we begin a new year, amid ever-gathering global tyranny, this information is vital for everyone to know.


By David Icke –


I have written and spoken extensively about the agenda behind the unfolding global financial crisis and here I will expose the coordinating force, or at least the prime one, behind that agenda and so much else, including 9/11.
Most conspiracy researchers either don’t realise the fundamental significance of this network or are too frightened to say so if they do. Sod that.
It is widely known as Zionism or, as I call it, more accurately, I suggest … RothschildZionism. I add the ‘Rothschild’ to constantly emphasise the true creators of Zionism and its controllers to this day (see Human Race Get Off Your Knees).
I’ll explain the connection later to the gathering economic catastrophe, but some background is necessary to put it all in the context that it needs to be seen.
Ask most people about Zionism and they will say ‘that’s the Jews’, but while this is the impression the Rothschild networks in politics and the media have sought very successfully to ‘sell’ as ‘common knowledge’, it is not true. It represents only a minority of them and many others who are not Jewish.



Rothschild Zionism in its public expression is a political ideology based on a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine and a belief that the Jews are God’s ‘chosen race’ with a God-given right to the ‘promised land’ of Israel (historically this is nonsense, as I show in my books)
They also believe that the real borders of Israel must encompass what is now Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank still officially owned by the Palestinians, plus Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan, or, as Genesis puts it: ‘… from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates’.
That’s the public expression of Zionism, but at its inner core it is a secret society created and controlled by the House of Rothschild.
They have sought to sell the ‘Zionism-means-all-Jewish-people’ lie so that they can condemn as ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘racists’ anyone who exposes the truth about Rothschild Zionism and its agents in government, banking, business, media, military etc.
This is why most researchers won’t go there even if they are aware enough to know that they should go there. To uncover and expose what is happening in the world we need all the ‘bees’ – brain, backbone, balls – and never more so than now.
Oh yeah, and add consciousness if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole really goes beyond five-sense reality.
Racism is the ultimate ignorance in that it relates ‘self’ to the body instead of the Consciousness – Awareness – animating and experiencing through the body. It is like judging a man by his spacesuit instead of the person inside it.
So racists are ridiculous, juvenile and silly, but no way is the threat of being branded as one (they have already tried and failed) going to stop me exposing what must be exposed if the Control System is to fall.
The world’s most extreme racists are, after all, the Rothschild Zionists, anyway. Israel is an apartheid state every bit as much as were apartheid South Africa and apartheid America.


And by that I don’t only mean the evil that is inflicted upon the Palestinian people minute-by-minute, day-by-day, but also the extraordinarily racist divisions within Jewish society with the black Jews from Ethiopia, for example, treated as little more than vermin.
So let us get past the calculated smokescreen that challenging Rothschild Zionism and the horrors of Israel means you are anti-Jewish and instead look at the simple facts that they don’t want you to know and acknowledge.
Firstly, you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Rothschild Zionist, as US Vice-President, Joe Biden, publicly said while arse-licking his masters in Tel Aviv (ultimately his masters at Chateau Rothschild).
Some of the most vehement Rothschild Zionists are the Christian Zionists in the United States and elsewhere, led most vocally by their ‘spiritual’ leader, John C. Hagee. Think of the worst kind of extreme Bible-bashing hypocrite and you’ve got him to a tee.
Hagee is the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel, he’s a regular visitor to Israel and has met every prime minister since Menachem Begin.


Hagee – the voice, though not brain, of the Christian Zionists.


His John Hagee Ministries has given more than $8.5 million to relocate Jews from the former Soviet Union to Israel and he is the founder and Executive Director of an event called ‘A Night to Honor Israel’, which pledges solidarity between Christians and the State of Israel.
See the story later in this exposé headed ‘GOD-TV Erase Israeli Bedouin Village to Bring Jesus’ Second Coming’ to appreciate the extreme and heartless way the non-Jewish Christian Zionists support the official Zionists – Rothschild Zionists. 
By contrast, a large number of Jewish people are not Zionists, some even vehemently oppose it and support the Palestinians in their battle for survival against the onslaught of genocide from the Israel government and military funded by the United States.


Jewish people organise protests and call for boycotts of Israel in response to the Rothschild Zionist agenda for the Palestinians and yet how many people know that who glean their ‘information’ from the mainstream media?




How many people know, as portrayed in this picture, that many religious Jews abhor the demands by the Rothschild Zionists for a US attack on Iran and have had warm meetings with Iran’s President Ahmedinejad to give their support?
No one who only gets their ‘news’ from the Rothschild-Zionist-controlled mainstream media would know any of this because they push only one line – Zionism means allJewish people, end of story.
But anyone who thinks that is true should read the article by Jewish musician and writer, Gilad Atzmon, later in this package, headed ‘How Israeli leaders kill for their people’s votes’.




The Rothschilds have a network of organisations, including B’nai B’rith and its offshoot, the Anti Defamation League (ADL), that work with other Rothschild- controlled groups to target anyone who gets close to seeing the elephant in the living room and exposing it for all to see.
They attack and undermine them in every way they can to stop the simple and devastating truth coming to light – that the Rothschild Zionists control the mainstream media; Hollywood and the movie industry; governments, not least in the United States; and crucially in the light of current events, they control global finance and commerce.


I am going to take you through the personnel of the Obama administration that ‘he’ appointed after his election in late 2008 to give you an idea of how the very few dictate to the very many via the Rothschild networks.
Remember as we go through the names that only 1.7% of the population of the United States is Jewish and significant numbers of those will not be Rothschild Zionists.


Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel (Rothschild Zionist) to be his White House Chief of Staff (handler). Emanuel, who has served in the Israeli army, is the son of a former operative with the Irgun terrorist group that helped to bomb Israel into existence in 1948 and cause some 800,000 Palestinians to flee their homeland in terror.
(Many Israelis connected to the Rothschild networks were sent to the United States after the State of Israel was established to specifically produce children who would be American-born citizens to infiltrate the US government system in the following generations.)


Obama’s White House Senior Advisor (handler) is David Axelrod (Rothschild Zionist), a close associate of Emanuel and the man who ran Obama’s ‘change you can believe in’ election campaigns against Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Axelrod now oversees the words on the teleprompter screens to which Obama is welded for even the most minor announcement. Axelrod, like Emanuel, is the product of the Rothschild Zionist ‘political’ Mafia that controls Chicago where Rahm Emanuel is now running for mayor.
One of Obama’s chief funders and controllers is the Rothschild Zionist agent, George Soros, the multi-billionaire financial speculator and manipulator of countries, not least in the former Soviet Union. 


Obama appointed a stream of Rothschild Zionist ‘advisors’ and ‘czars’ in various subject areas, including infamous Rothschild Zionist agent, Henry Kissinger, and one, Cass Sunstein, ‘Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’, has called for ‘conspiracy theories’ to either be banned or taxed.
This is another Rothschild goal – to ban any view or research that exposes the Rothschild agenda.
Sunstein (Rothschild Zionist) says the opinion that ‘global warming’ is a manipulated hoax could be an example of what should be banned or taxed (see banned), and so how appropriate that Obama appointed Carol Browner (Rothschild Zionist) and Todd Stern (Rothschild Zionist) to take charge of his ‘global warming’/’climate change’ policies.


Rothschild Zionists Browner and Stern – on message.


And so to the economy …
The key economic post in the United States is the head, or chairman, of the Federal Reserve, the privately-owned and Rothschild-controlled cartel of banks that hilariously call themselves collectively the ‘central bank of America’.
A national central bank should be answerable to the people, otherwise it’s just another private bank lending the government ‘money’ which the population has to repay, plus interest.
The latter describes the US Federal Reserve, which, as the saying goes, is no more Federal than the Rothschild-controlled Federal Express. The ‘Fed’ prints money for literally cents on the dollar and then ‘lends’ it to the government at interest and for profit.
What a great scam if you can get away with it and because the Rothschild networks control the government and media as well as the Federal Reserve banks – they have.


We can pick up the ‘Fed’ story with the appointment of Paul Adolph Volcker to head the Fed during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan (in truth George Bush senior).
Volcker was a former vice president and director of planning with the Rockefeller (Rothschild)-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and left the Fed in 1987 to become chairman of the New York investment banking firm, J. Rothschild, Wolfensohn & Co., run by James D. Wolfensohn (Rothschild Zionist), who later became president of the World Bank.
Next in line at the Federal Reserve was ‘Mr Big’, Alan Greenspan (Rothschild Zionist), a practising Satanist according to some who say they have attended rituals with him.


Greenspan was ‘appointed’ by President Reagan (presidents don’t ‘appoint’ Fed chiefs, they are told who it is going to be) and he remained head of the Fed and thus American economic policy through all the Clinton years and most of Boy Bush before stepping down in early 2006.
In that time he oversaw the systematic dismantling of financial regulation that allowed greed and corruption to run riot and in the same period that vicious and despicable duo, Tony Blair and his Chancellor and later successor, Gordon Brown, were doing the same in Britain.
Greenspan received unquestioning support for this policy from Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretaries, Robert E. Rubin (Rothschild Zionist), former co-chairman of the Rothschild-controlled Goldman Sachs, and Larry Summers (Rothschild Zionist), former Chief Economist at the World Bank.
Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in this same period and Senior Economist and Senior Adviser on the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration was Peter Orszag (Rothschild Zionist).
Another Greenspan supporter of deregulation was Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist), the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Federal Reserve cartel.
Without the collective demolition of financial checks and balances by this cabal of Rothschild Zionists there would not have been the crash of September 2008 with its catastrophic consequences for billions worldwide. 
But when Barack Obama became US President a few months later, who was in the ‘economic team’ that he ‘appointed’ to ‘sort out the mess’? Er, the very ones who created it and it was all done from a White House controlled by Rahm Emanuel (Rothschild Zionist) and David Axelrod (Rothschild Zionist).


Geithner speaks: ‘I don’t know where the money’s gone – who cares?’


Obama made Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist) his Treasury Secretary – Obama’s mother worked for Geithner’s father, Peter F. Geithner (Rothschild Zionist), the director of the Asia programme at the Ford Foundation in New York.
Larry Summers (Rothschild Zionist) was appointed director of the White House National Economic Council, and Paul Adolph Volcker, business partner of the Rothschilds, was made Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
The gang that trashed the town was now back in town to trash it even more and you’ll never guess … they decided that the only way to save an economy brought to its knees by their collective actions and the banking system they represent was to, well, no, surely not… hand trillions of taxpayer-borrowed dollars to the Rothschild-controlled banks and insurance companies like CitiGroup (advised to disaster by Rothschild Zionist Robert E. Rubin, see above), J. P. Morgan, AIG and a long list of others.
Overseeing this and all other American government spending was Obama’s Budget Director, the already-mentioned, Peter Orszag (Rothschild Zionist), who worked closely with Rahm Emanuel (Rothschild Zionist) to impose the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has devastated American industry in line with Rothschild policy.


Summers, Orszag and Geithner: used car anyone?

Summers resigned in late 2010 and at the time of writing the favourites to replace him are Roger Altman (Rothschild Zionist) and Gene Sperling (Rothschild Zionist).

Peter Orszag was the founder and president of the economic consultancy firm which advised the Central Bank of Iceland in the period before it went bankrupt and he advised the Russian Ministry of Finance when the country’s resource assets were being given to Rothschild Zionist oligarchs like Chelsea football club owner, Roman Abramovich, who became instant billionaires.
Orszag resigned as Budget Director in July this year with his job done, but, no matter, Obama announced that Jacob Lew (Rothschild Zionist), an under-secretary of state to Hillary Clinton, would take over and resume the same post he held under Bill Clinton.
By the time the brown stuff hit the spinning wheel in September 2008, Alan Greenspan (Rothschild Zionist) had stepped down from the Fed before the crash he knew was coming. But, once again, no matter. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Rothschild Zionist) who printed even more money (at interest to the taxpayer) to hand to his Rothschild Zionist mates in Wall Street.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist), who has been centrally involved in handing trillions of dollars of public money to his banking associates with no strings attached, asked the opinion of a private international Rothschild Zionist ‘law firm’ called Squire, Sanders & Dempsey to see if American states could, as some requested, legally use bail-out money or TARP – the Troubled Asset Relief Program – to support the legal bills of people trying to protect their homes from foreclosure by the bailed out banking system.
The privately-owned Rothschild Zionist Squire, Sanders & Dempsey said ‘no’ and so Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist) said the money could not be used to protect the public who had bailed out the banks from foreclosure by those same banks.


David Millstone, a very active Rothschild Zionist, partner at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and regional chairman of the Anti-Defamation League’s international affairs committee. His firm says that public money can go to the Rothschild Zionist banks, but not to the innocent victims of the banks.


And while all this has been going on, these have been the heads of the major international financial institutions with the power to impose global economic policies:




The President of the World Bank is Robert Zoellick (Rothschild Zionist), a big-time Boy Bush administration insider who was a fervent advocate of invading Iraq long before even 9/11. Zoellick took over at the World Bank from the disgraced Paul Wolfowitz (Rothschild Zionist), another orchestrator of the Iraq invasion as Deputy Defence Secretary.




The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Rothschild Zionist), the French politician who is expected to run to replace President Nicolas Sarkozy (Rothschild Zionist) at the next election.


The head of the European Central Bank (ECB) is Jean-Claude Trichet (Rothschild Zionist), another Frenchman who took over in 2003 following his acquittal in a trial over ‘financial irregularities’ at Crédit Lyonnais, one of France’s biggest banks.
Anyone think, given these facts, that the Rothschilds could control global finance and could possibly, oh just a little bit, have orchestrated the crash of 2008 and what has followed??
At the heart of the ‘bail out’ of Ireland (the bail out of Irish banks and the elite investors, like the Rothschilds, by the people of Ireland) were Jean-Claude Trichet (Rothschild Zionist) at the European Central Bank and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Rothschild Zionist) at the IMF.
And the banks that caused the crash to which the Rothschild Zionists in power are ‘responding’ for their benefit are also invariably controlled, directly or ultimately, by Rothschild Zionists.
These include Goldman Sachs headed by Lloyd Blankfein (Rothschild Zionist) and created by Rothschild Zionists Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs who came, like so many of these people, from families that settled in America from the country where the name Rothschild originated – Germany.
Even more specifically, the German region of Bavaria comes up again and again – the home of the infamous Bavarian Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt (who today I would be call a Rothschild Zionist). The Pope and Henry Kissinger are just two examples of ‘born in Bavaria’.
Goldman Sachs was fundamentally responsible for the crash of 2008, but by that time its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Henry ‘Hank’ Paulson, had been installed as US Treasury Secretary to begin the bank bail out policy, with enormous benefit to Goldman Sachs, in the closing weeks of the Bush administration.
Goldman Sachs was also instrumental in the collapse of the economy in Greece that started the ‘euro panic’ that later engulfed Ireland.


The symmetry is called Rothschild Zionism


They have the whole thing stitched up because the Rothschild Zionist secret society network have their agents in governments, the banking system, including the international institutions like the IMF, and control the reporting of their activities through ownership of the mainstream media.
As a result, if it is happening economically and politically, it’s because the Rothschildswant it that way – be it in banking, stock markets, commodity markets, currency valuation, the price of gold, the lot.
The world of finance is dictated by ‘investor confidence’ and who controls that? Those who have the power to control the media, government and central bank financial statements and have the financial resources to move trillions around the financial markets every day. In other words, the Rothschilds and their lackeys.
Rothschild Zionism is an elite secret society at its rotten core and the people I am naming here and so many more are not agents of Jewish people as a whole, but agents of the secret society that has mercilessly manipulated the Jewish population for centuries to advance its goals.


It is impossible to become President of the United States without support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a massive Rothschild Zionist lobby group currently headed by Obama friend and funder, Lee Rosenberg.
It is also very difficult to hold high office of any kind if AIPAC doesn’t approve and a real struggle to even become a member of Congress or the Senate if AIPAC is against you.
As former BBC and Independent Television News correspondent, Alan Hart, wrote inZionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: ‘Jewish people make up less than two per cent of the American population, but account for 50 per cent of the political campaign contributions.’
And that 50 percent is overwhelmingly made up of a few Rothschild Zionists and is not in the least representative of half the Jewish population.


American political leaders may disagree on this and that, here and there, but on one thing they are all agreed …

As I write, the Rothschild Zionist-owned New York Times and Washington Post have been urging people to reject the left and the right and support ‘centrist’ politicians – the alleged ‘centrists’ and ‘moderates’ are often the most extreme of  them all and need their ‘centre’ image to hide that. Barack Obama made claims to be a ‘centrist’ and so did Tony Blair. 

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman (Rothschild Zionist) endorsed two attempts he said were underway to create a new ‘centre party’ in the United States and the Washington Post reported that a new grouping, known as ‘No Labels’, had been formed to occupy the ‘centre ground’ of American politics (they did the same in Britain with the creation of the Liberal Democrats who are now in an extremist coalition government with the ‘right-wing’ Conservative Party).

It turns out that a major funder of ‘No Labels’ is the Rothschild Zionist billionaire, James Tisch, the founding chairman of the Jewish Leadership Forum, executive committee member of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and a president of the Jewish Communal Fund. 

He is also a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, headed until 2008 by Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist). Yes, how very ‘moderate’ and ‘centrist’ you must be, Mr. Tisch.

The Tisch family, one of the wealthiest in America, took control of the CBS empire in 1986 with the intention, they said, to promote the interests of Israel. 

Two founders of No Labels, the Washington Post revealed, were David Frum (Rothschild Zionist), the ‘Axis of Evil’ speechwriter for Boy George Bush, and William Galston, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, who is close to the Rothschild Zionist Zilkha family, founders of Mothercare. Galston holds the Ezra Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies at the Rothschild Zionist ‘think tank’, the Brookings Institution.

No Labels is also supported by one of its ‘Citizen Leaders’, Kenneth R. Weinstein, CEO of the Rothschild Zionist ‘think-tank’, the Hudson Institute, founded by Herman Kahn (Rothschild Zionist), one of the inspirations for Stanley Kubrick’s character, Dr. Strangelove. The Hudson Institute and the Brookings Institution are major strands in the Rothschild ‘think tank’ network worldwide. 

The aim of No Labels is to target anyone who is ‘partisan’ in their political views (challenges the manipulated ‘consensus’) and thus force them into the ‘centre ground’ – those who support the Rothschild agenda.  You can see this for yourself at

No Labels is just another Rothschild Zionist extremist organisation masquerading as the moderate, ‘sensible’ centre – the wolf in sheep’s clothing technique that the Rothschilds employ to great effect. 

In Britain and so many other countries around the world we have the same tail wagging the dog. The British version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the Friends of Israel network in every major party.

One investigation discovered that 80-per-cent of Members of Parliament in the now ruling Conservative Party are members of the Friends of Israel – which has the stated goal of supporting anything that is good for Israel (the Rothschilds who own Israel).


The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is a Rothschild Zionist and so is the leader of the Labour ‘opposition’, Ed Milliband, who got the job after a campaign in which his brother, David Miliband (Rothschild Zionist), was the other major candidate. This in a country where the Jewish population (with many not Rothschild Zionists) is around 280,000 in a national population of 62 million. 
The key manipulating force in the previous UK governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was Peter Mandelson (Rothschild Zionist), who flaunts his close connections to the Rothschilds with holidays at their mansion on the Greek island of Corfu.


Lap dog Mandelson, on the right, with his owner, Jacob Rothschild. Wuff, wuff, Peter.


The Rothschilds controlled Blair as they controlled Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and this was the connection that led to Blair going into wars in support of both presidents who were being urged on by Israel (the Rothschilds).
It was the Rothschild network that orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the War of Terror and its justification, September 11th.
9/11: The Rothschild Zionist Connection
The lease of the twin towers at the World Trade Center was bought just weeks before September 11th by businessmen, Larry Silverstein (Rothschild Zionist) and Frank Lowy (Rothschild Zionist), who both have very close links to Israeli leaders, including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said that what happened on 9/11 was ‘good for Israel’.
The World Trade Center deal was struck with Lewis Eisenberg (Rothschild Zionist), the head of the New York Port Authority, vice president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and a former partner at the Rothschild-controlled Goldman Sachs. Eisenberg is also close to the Israel leadership.


The man pictured here who lobbied heavily for the New York Port Authority to sell the lease into private hands was Ronald S. Lauder (Rothschild Zionist) from the Estée Lauder cosmetics family.
He is involved with a stream of Rothschild Zionist organisations, including the Jewish National Fund, World Jewish Congress, American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Anti-Defamation League.
Buying the World Trade Center lease was a terrible business deal for Silverstein and Lowy because the towers were known as the ‘white elephants’ given the state they were in and the fantastic amount of asbestos that needed to be dealt with. Asked why he had bought the lease Silverstein said: ‘I felt a compelling urge to own them’.
I bet he did.
When the deal was done Silverstein and co massively increased the insurance for a ‘terrorist attack’ and were awarded $4.55 billion after the towers were hit. The lease had cost $3.2 billion and Silverstein reportedly only invested $14 million of his own money.
The judge who oversaw the litigation between Silverstein and the insurance companies was Michael B. Mukasey (Rothschild Zionist) who later became US Attorney General.


‘Lucky Larry’.


Silverstein and Lowy had originally been outbid by $50 million for the World Trade Center lease by a company called Vornado, whose chief shareholder was the Jewish businessman, Bernard Mendik. He was Silverstein’s former brother-in-law and they had fallen out big time after his divorce from Silverstein’s sister.
Then Vornado, despite having the best bid, ‘suddenly changed their minds’ and ‘suddenly pulled out’ leaving the field free for Silverstein and Lowy. No wonder they call him ‘Lucky Larry’.
Weeks after Silverstein and Lowy presented their final bid for the WTC, Vornado’s Bernard Mendik died after becoming ‘suddenly ill’. So many ‘suddenlys’.
Silverstein had breakfast every morning with his children in the Windows on the World Restaurant, more than 100 floors up in the North Tower, but none of them showed on 9/11. Silverstein said he had a last minute ‘dermatologist appointment’ when in truth, as one his bodyguards has said privately, he had a phone call in his car telling him to stay away from the World Trade Center that morning. He then got on his car phone to tell his children.




‘Where’s Larry today?’


It was Silverstein who said in a television interview (which he now deeply regrets) that when another of his buildings in the World Trade Center complex, Building Seven or the Salomon Brothers Building, was on fire the decision was made to ‘pull it’ – the classic term for a controlled demolition.
Soon after this decision, the building, which had not been hit by a plane, did indeed come down in a controlled demolition. 
The problem with Silverstein’s story is that it can take weeks to place the charges in a building like the 47-storey Building Seven to make it collapse in on itself as it did. How could the decision be made to ‘pull it’ and then down it comes?



Building Seven collapsed perfectly onto the land on which it stood – and that could only happen with a controlled demolition.


The charges were planted long before the official decision was made to ‘pull it’ and the whole 9/11 scenario unfolded from a pre-planned script. The BBC announced on live television that Building Seven had collapsed half-an-hour before it actually did because the authorities released the ‘news’ too early.
Security at the World Trade Center was the responsibility of the Rothschild Zionist- owned Kroll Associates which has close links to the CIA and Mossad. Security at all three airports involved on 9/11 was run by ICTS International / Huntsleigh USA, companies owned by Rothschild Zionists, Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon, and dominated by ‘former’ agents of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service and counter-intelligence agency that handles security for the Israeli airline, EL AL.




Rothschild Zionist-owned ICTS was also responsible for security at the Paris airport where the alleged ‘shoe bomber’, Richard Reid, boarded his plane to the United States and ICTS was providing the ‘security’ at Amsterdam airport when the underpants bomber boarded his flight after paying cash for a high-priced last-minute ticket, boarded without checked baggage and, reportedly, even a passport. As a result, travellers are now being radiated in full-body scanners, of which more in a moment.


The CIA at the time of 9/11 was headed by George Tenet (Rothschild Zionist) and the ‘investigation’ into the attacks was overseen by Assistant Attorney General, Michael Chertoff (Rothschild Zionist), the son of an agent with the Israeli (Rothschild) enforcement agency, Mossad.


Chertoff co-authored the notorious Patriot Act which deleted basic rights and freedoms on the justification of 9/11 (Problem-Reaction-Solution) and then became the second head of Homeland Security, an organisation also created on the back of 9/11.
Chertoff now runs his own company, the Chertoff Group, a ‘risk management and security consulting firm’, which employs several senior colleagues from Homeland Security and also Michael Hayden, a former Director of the National Security Agency and the CIA.
Chertoff was all over the TV networks after the engineered ‘underpants bomber’ incident urging the government to introduce full body radiation scanners, which they then did. They are produced by one of the Chertoff Group clients, Rapiscan Systems.
The underpants bomber (well, more the burn-his-own-arse ‘bomber’) was, as I’ve said, allowed onto the plane despite a string of red flags, and apparently no passport, through a ‘security’ system operated by the Rothschild Zionist, ICTS.
The Pentagon at the time of 9/11 was controlled by people like Paul Wolfowitz (Rothschild Zionist), the Deputy Defence Secretary who went on to head the World Bank; and Dov Zakheim (Rothschild Zionist), a dual Israeli/American citizen and the Pentagon Comptroller who managed to ‘lose’ trillions from the Pentagon budget – a fact that was announced on September 10th, 2001.
Anyone wonder why this announcement was not widely reported? Did something happen the next day then? It had to be a coincidence, surely, they couldn’t have known what was coming, could they??


Zakheim also wrongly classified squads of US F16 and F15 fighters as military surplus so they could be sold to Israel at a knock-down price (and bought with American ‘aid’ money, anyway). This and other military sales (often gifts) means that Israel, with a population of just seven and a half million, has one of the biggest air forces on the planet.


With love from Dov.


The Bush administration was famously controlled at the time of the September 11th attacks by the so-called ‘neocons’ or neoconservatives. These were led by a cabal of Rothschild Zionists like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Robert Kagan, Douglas Feith, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, the disbarred American attorney and convicted felon who was former ‘advisor’ to Dick Cheney, and William Kristol, editor of the Rothschild Zionist neocon propaganda sheet, the Weekly Standard, owned at the time by Rupert Murdoch (Rothschild Zionist).
Oh yes, and this gang also included Robert Zoellick, now head of the World Bank, who took over in that post from his neocon and Rothschild Zionist colleague, Paul Wolfowitz.
I repeat – Jewish people make up only 1.7% of the American population and many of those are not Rothschild Zionists. The ratio to positions of power is simply fantastic and I am only highlighting here what you might call a ‘headline list’. It goes much, much deeper – see for instance this list of Rothschild Zionists controlling ostensibly non-Jewish organisations …

The neocon leadership wrote to Bill Clinton urging him to attack Iraq before 9/11 and they then went into overdrive to advocate the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after the World Trade Center attacks under Bush.


Interestingly, these same Rothschild Zionists, along with puppet Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney, both vehement supporters of Israel, launched a ‘think tank’ before Bush came to office called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
In September 2000, this organisation published a document called Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century in which they called for American forces to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars’ with emphasis on places like Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
But the document said that this ‘… process of transformation … is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor’ to justify it to the people.
One year to the month after that document was published and nine months after most of these Rothschild Zionists came to power in the Bush administration, America did indeed have ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ which was then used to justify the agenda laid out in the document.
Coincidence? Of course not.
The Bush State of the Union address in 2002 which called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the ‘axis of evil’ was written by the neocon, David Frum (Rothschild Zionist), now supporting the Rothschild Zionist front, No Labels, and was straight from the pages of the Project for the New American Century document.
The official 9/11 Commission ‘investigation’ into what happened that day was only forced upon Bush and Cheney kicking and screaming and the man they first appointed to head the Commission was Henry Kissinger (Rothschild Zionist).
This was so ludicrous and incredible that he resigned, citing ‘conflicts of interest’, which had never stopped him before.
But the ‘investigation’ and the final report was still overseen by Phillip Zelikow (Rothschild Zionist) and it decided that the official story was basically true after failing to interview or quote key witnesses that gave another version of events.




Phillip Zelikow: ‘You mean it was supposed to be open, thorough and tell the truth? Henry didn’t mention that.’


The federal judge assigned to deal with all wrongful death and personal injury cases filed by the families of those who died on September 11th was Alvin K. Hellerstein (Rothschild Zionist) who has major family ties to Israel.
Attorney Kenneth Feinberg (Rothschild Zionist) oversaw the 9/11 victim’s compensation fund and 97 per cent of the families were persuaded to take the money in exchange for not pressing for an independent investigation of the September 11th atrocities.
Those that did demand an investigation or rejected the limitations of the compensation fund were dealt with through a ‘special mediator’, Sheila Birnbaum (Rothschild Zionist).
Feinberg (Rothschild Zionist) went on to become the ‘Special Master’ for TARP Executive Compensation related to the bank bail outs, and is currently the government-appointed administrator of the compensation fund for victims of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.




Kenneth Feinberg (Rothschild Zionist) – busy life.


Then there is the story of the five ‘dancing Israelis’ who were arrested after police received several calls from New Jersey residents outraged that ‘middle-eastern’ men were high-fiveing, whooping and cheering as they videotaped the burning Twin Towers.
‘They were like happy, you know … They didn’t look shocked to me’, one witness said.
Police and FBI officers reportedly discovered maps of New York in the Israelis’ white van with locations highlighted, and also $4,700 in cash hidden in a sock, foreign passports, and box cutters of the type alleged to have been used by the ‘Arab hijackers’.
It was further reported that sniffer dogs found traces of explosives in the van, which belonged to a Mossad front company called Urban Moving Systems owned by Israeli Dominick Suter (Rothschild Zionist), who dropped everything (literally judging by the haste the office was evacuated) and fled back to Israel immediately after the attacks.
The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, said the FBI found that at least two of the five arrested Israelis were Mossad agents and that Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad front operation.
The five were held for 71 days, but then released without charge and allowed to return to Israel where three of them appeared on television to say that ‘our purpose was to document the event’.
Yes, an event they knew was going to happen.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, has said publicly says that US military leaders now know that Israel ‘and those traitors within our nation’ were responsible for the 9/11 attacks (see his interview after this article).




Three of the ‘dancing Israelis’ on Israel television.


Since September 11th we have been subjected to a series of ‘Bin Laden’ videos and other ‘information’ promoting fear of Arab terrorism from two organisations called IntelCenter and S.I.T.E., or the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute (so long as they are not from Israel).
IntelCenter is headed by Ben Venzke (Rothschild Zionist) and S.I.T.E was co- founded by Rita Katz (Rothschild Zionist). In an article headed, Is Israel Controlling Phony Terror News?, writers Gordon Duff and Brian Jobert ask some key questions:
‘Who says Al Qaeda takes credit for a bombing? Rita Katz. Who gets us bin Laden tapes? Rita Katz. Who gets us pretty much all information telling us Muslims are bad? Rita Katz? Rita Katz is the Director of Site Intelligence, primary source for intelligence used by news services, Homeland Security, the FBI and CIA.
What is her qualification? She served in the Israeli Defense Force. She has a college degree and most investigative journalists believe the Mossad “helps” her with her information. We find no evidence of any qualification whatsoever of any kind. A bartender has more intelligence gathering experience.
Nobody verifies her claims. SITE says Al Qaeda did it, it hits the papers. SITE says Israel didn’t do it, that hits the papers too. What does SITE really do? They check the internet for “information,” almost invariably information that Israel wants reported and it is sold as news, seen on American TV, reported in our papers and passed around the internet almost as though it were actually true. Amazing.’
But not quite so amazing if you have read this far and seen the extent to which the Rothschild Zionist secret society networks control and manipulate world events.



Rothschild Zionists Katz and Venzke provide ‘intelligence’ and Bin Laden videos for ‘security’ agencies and the media, and Adam Gadahn, pictured at the top here, is an alleged spokesman for ‘Al Qaeda’ who releases videos of himself supporting terrorism. His name is on the FBI ‘most wanted’ terrorist list.
How strange then that ‘Adam Gadahn’ turns out to be a Jewish man called Adam Pearlman, grandson of Carl Pearlman, who served on the Board of the rabid Rothschild Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The Chairman of the US Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is Senator Joseph Lieberman (Rothschild Zionist) who, like the Rothschild cesspit in general, is desperate to use the ‘threat of terrorism’ to censor the Internet to block the truth from coming out.


Rothschild Zionists have kept exposure from the door, up to now, through ownership of the mainstream media. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, wrote:
‘The Jews [Rothschild Zionists] do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge.’
Not only in America, either, and not only the ‘news’ media of Rothschild Zionist moguls like Rupert Murdoch. The Los Angeles Times columnist, Joel Stein (Rothschild Zionist), wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don’t think Jews (Rothschild Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain ‘dumb’:
‘I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! … As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.’




I emphasise again that we are not talking here about ‘the Jews’ owning the media, Hollywood, politics, banking and big business, but a tiny clique answering ultimately to the secret society that I call Rothschild Zionism.
The mass of Jewish people have been mercilessly used and abused by the Rothschild networks that don’t give a damn about them. They are not pursuing what is best for Jewish people as a whole, but what suits the Rothschild conspiracy for global domination on behalf of their hidden masters.
The Rothschilds and their Zionist secret society web control American government policy on Israel and everything else – and it’s the same in Britain and country after country, including France, Germany (of course), Italy, Belgium and the European Union, which was a Rothschild creation from the start.
Obama’s first major speech on the Middle East in 2008 was, according to the Wall Street Journal, written for him by James Steinberg (Rothschild Zionist), Daniel Kurtzer (Rothschild Zionist) and Dennis Ross (Rothschild Zionist). It was delivered to the Rothschild Zionist lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Any chance of it being biased against the Palestinians, do you think?

The man appointed to oversee the war in Afghanistan and the targeting of Pakistan was Richard Holbrooke (Rothschild Zionist), Obama’s ‘Special Representative’ for Afghanistan and Pakistan who died in December 2010.

Holbrooke served the Rothschild Zionist cabal in positions of ‘diplomacy’ from the Vietnam war to the conflict in Afghanistan, taking in posts as a special envoy to the Balkans before and during the war in the former Yugoslavia; as United Nations Ambassador; as the man given responsibility for selling the Aids agenda, and so much more. 

It is the Rothschilds’ duel control of America and Israel that has led to astonishing amounts of American tax dollars being transferred to Israel in military and financial ‘aid’. One arm of the Rothschilds is simply giving it to another.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt write in their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy:
‘Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America’s entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.
This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.’
The US House of Representatives recently approved another $205 million in military aid for Israel for an ‘anti-missile’ system. ‘When it comes to defense, military, and intelligence cooperation, the relationship between the US and Israel has never been stronger’, said Democrat Representative Steve Rothman (Rothschild Zionist), a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
As he spoke, the Israeli authorities were using their American-supplied military might to continue the blockade of the Gaza Strip which has been stopping supplies of food, fuel and basic needs for 1.5 million Palestinians since 2007.




I have set out here to reveal the true face of Zionism – the House of Rothschild and its networks – and how its agents in Big Government, Big Banking, Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Media and so on, are working as one unit to impose a global Orwellian dictatorship on the human population – including the mass of Jewish people.
Zionism is a subject that all but a few are either too ignorant or too frightened to tackle and expose, but it must be made public and the web dismantled if global tyranny is to be avoided in the very near future.
In fact, it’s not even about the ‘future’; the tyranny is already here and it is just a case of how deeply we are going to allow ourselves to be enslaved by it.
The Rothschilds have spent a century hiding the true and ever-gathering extent of their global control and that veil must be lifted for the mass of the people to see.
I should also stress that when I say ‘Rothschild’, I don’t only mean those called ‘Rothschild’, nor even all of the people who are known by that name. There are many in the Rothschild family and its offshoots who have no idea what the hierarchy is doing and there are many ‘Rothschilds’ who don’t carry the name itself.
When I say ‘Rothschild’, I am referring to the Rothschild bloodline because, as I have detailed in my books, they have long had breeding programmes that produce offspring that are brought up under other names.
So when these people come to power, they carry the Rothschild genetics and answer to their control system, but they are not officially called ‘Rothschild’, and in this way the scale of the Rothschild infiltration of government, finance and so on remains hidden behind an army of offspring known by different names.
It is time to put the Rothschilds on public display because that’s the last place they want to be. They have operated from the shadows for long enough and we must urgently ensure that those days are over.



Fear of the Masses


There is one thing that unites Israel, Hamas and Fatah, writes Tony Greenstein – opposition to the Egyptian revolution

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the wave of unrest sweeping the Arab world lie in the contortions and discomfort of imperialism’s mouthpieces. No longer do we hear the US rhetoric about spreading democracy in the Middle East. Even the word ‘freedom’ has been laid to one side. Instead the buzz word is ‘stability’, that favourite excuse for fascism through the ages.

No sooner had Tunisian dictator Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali been driven into exile by his people than the Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, was facing the wrath of his people. But whereas the Tunisian dictator was a minor imperialist client, Mubarak was the lynchpin of US interests in the Middle East after Israel itself.

Egypt has the largest population and working class in the region. It receives the highest amount of US aid after Israel itself, approximately $2.5 billion a year. Egypt is situated in a critically important strategic position, astride the Suez Canal. In former years, its importance lay in its situation on the route to India, now it is its proximity to the oil fields of Arabia.

It is therefore understandable that Obama and the US regime should appear like rabbits trapped in the headlights of a car. What was originally a localised disturbance in a small North African country has rapidly spread to Egypt and further afield to Jordan and Yemen. It is instructive is to witness the contortions and obfuscation of imperialism and its allies.

One of the main arguments of its propagandists is that Israel is the Middle East’s ‘only democracy’. You could have been excused for thinking that the revolts against Mubarak would have caused the ‘democrats’ of Tel Aviv uncontained pleasure. After all they have repeatedly contrasted their own ‘Jewish’ democracy with the reign of terror of Arab tyrants. Someone who was unacquainted with Israel and Zionism, other than via its rhetoric, would have been forgiven for thinking that the least Israel’s Knesset could do was to pass by acclamation a resolution supporting the Egyptian demonstrators.

Of course the reaction of the Israeli government was nothing of the kind. As Prime Minister Netanyahu explained: ‘Our efforts have been intended to continue to preserve stability and security in our region… the peace between Israel and Egypt has lasted for over three decades.
Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had issued a directive to embassies telling them to stress to their host countries the importance of Egypt’s stability. But the reality has been that the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978 allowed Israel to turn its attention to the northern border with Lebanon and to concentrate on settlement on the West Bank and repressing the Palestinians.

Shimon Peres, President and former Labour Prime Minister and ‘dove’ was even more fulsome in support of Mubarak. ‘Egypt’s embattled leader, Hosni Mubarak, will always be remembered for preserving three decades of peace between the two nations… Peres delivered an impassioned defense of Mubarak, crediting him with saving both Arab and Israeli lives by preventing war in the Middle East.’

Indeed the stance of Netanyahu and the Zionist leadership and its failure to offer so much as word of support to the Egyptian protesters has become positively embarrassing. Even the Jerusalem Post, a paper of the Zionist right, and its columnist Shmuley Boteach bemoaned how ‘Israel is missing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support Arab freedom. While others cheer Hosni Mubarak’s fall, Israel grows apprehensive.’ According to the aforementioned logic ‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and it ought be the region’s foremost champion of human rights. .. To now see Israel squander an historic opportunity to publicly champion Arab freedom out of fear for radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood or a repeat of Hamas’s election in Gaza is deeply regrettable and counterproductive’

This of course is the official pretext. If Mubarak and his torture chambers and murderous police state go, then the Muslim Brotherhood may come to power and the peace treaty will be in jeopardy. In other words, because democracy means that most Arabs reject the abject humiliation of the Camp David Accords, in which Egyptian regained the Sinai desert, conquered in 1967, in return for a carte blanche in dealing with the Palestinians, it is essential to form an alliance with the brutal dictatorship of Mubarak. This the price of a peace agreement based on an acceptance of the dispossession and confiscation of Palestinian land.

But the gap between Israel’s self-justificatory prose and the reality have never been so marked. Because IF Israel really was the Middle East’s only democracy then it would have welcomed the Egyptian revolution. Instead there are rumours that Israel has offered to help the Egyptian police in their task of repression, no doubt using some of the chemical weapons that Israel has tested to perfection on the Palestinians. For the first time in 30 years Israel has allowed Egyptian troops into the Sinai.

But Israel is not the only power to face such dilemmas. This true of the West’s reaction as a whole. This is no Orange Revolution nor is it an East European uprising against a Stalinist tyrant. As the Observer’s Parliamentary Correspondent, Andrew Rawnsley, (6.2.11) noted ‘The west should cheer, not fear, this cry for freedom in Egypt .’ But Rawnsley is not a man not versed in the subtleties of imperial foreign policy.

The position of the US has been particularly interesting. Caught on the horns of a dilemma, it could hardly condemn the protesters openly but nor could it dissociate itself from a regime that has faithfully done its bidding. So Obama has been forced to support Mubarak remaining for the transition, whilst making it clear to him privately that it was necessary to replace him in order to guarantee a continuation of his regime. Vice President Biden couldn’t understand what Egyptians were protesting about! Hilary Clinton was left flustering. So the US policy has been to back Omar Suleiman, Mubarak’s appointed deputy and the lynchpin of the relationship with the CIA. A man with responsibility for the secret police and torture.

But for all its fake outrage over Political Islam it is interesting to see how Israeli leaders are at one with Hamas and the quisling Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. In Gaza and Ramallah, both regimes are united in their hostility to protests against Mubarak. Hamas leaders have long reached a tacit understanding on the tunnels under the border with Egypt, with all the resulting corruption involved. The Palestinian Authority and Abbas have had a strong relationship with Mubarak who has been their partner, with Israel, in enforcing the blockade on Gaza and attempting to replace Hamas with their own quisling brand of politics. Whereas Hamas has been unable to prevent demonstrations against Mubarak, the Palestinian Authority has gone out of its way to prevent demonstrations, threatening its organisers with torture (95% of those arrested by PA Security Services are tortured).

The reaction of the Palestinian bourgeoisie, in both its secular and Islamic guise, Hamas and Fateh, is instructive. Both fear the Arab masses more than imperialism and Zionism. Whilst Abbas is an open collaborator and quisling, his forces trained by the US General Dayton in Jordan, Hamas too seeks a place in the sun. Hamas wants to come to come in from the cold and reach a deal with imperialism. Unfortunately imperialism has no use for Hamas at present. It is noteworthy in this context how the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has also been lukewarm over the protests.

Socialists and anti-Zionists by contrast are clear. Without the liberation of the Arab East from the local allies of imperialism, without taking the oil resources of the region under democratic workers’ control, there is no hope for the Palestinian masses in their struggle with Zionism. Both Hamas and Fateh fear this above all, which is why they fear the loss of Mubarak.

But we also have to cut through the ‘people power’ phraseology. The protesters in Egypt include both bourgeois elements opposed to Mubarak but not Mubarakism and working class forces. The present stalemate in Egypt can go either of two ways. It can lead to a reinforcement of the regime under Suleiman or its destruction. What cannot happen is for the present position to continue. If the latter, which is the only way to achieve liberation and freedom regionally, then the power of the Egyptian state needs to be broken and with it illusions in the Egyptian army. The leaders of the Army are part of the problem not the solution. They are the corrupt supporters of the Mubarak regime and its alliance with Israel, being funded by US aid. They have every interest in preserving the regime. Their hesitation to set the army on the masses is not due to their ‘patriotic’ role but because they fear that the rank and file soldier will not obey orders.

The key element today is the organisation of working class forces and the creation of working class and opposition militias plus an open call on the army to join the revolution and turn its guns on its officers. There is no other way to ensure the liberation of the Arab masses than the destruction of the Egyptian regime. This is the fear of Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas and Hamas. As the 30 year old political stalemate in the Arab world, under the pressure of the world economic crisis, begins to unfreeze, the determination of imperialism to replace one tyrant with another should be firmly resisted.

It is little wonder that Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel’s Chief of Staff, warns today that as a results of the protests Israel must be prepared for a new war.

Tony Greenstein

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Fear of the Masses

Support of the Israeli Peace Camp for the Autocratic Palestinian Regime



Tikva Honig-Parnass

The Zionist left has always supported US imperialism and its autocratic Arab allies, claiming that US policy seeks to enforce peace and democracy in the Middle East. This claim has likewise been the pretext for their support of the PA police state in the making. However, Uri Avnery’s embrace of Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad’s oppressive regime lays bare an appalling fact: the genuine Palestinian national movement has no partner, even within the most radical wing of Israel’s so-called “peace camp.”


Academics and publicists from the Zionist left have persistently distorted the notion of democracy when insisting on applying it to the political regime in Israel. Despite the fact that some admit the “stains in Israel’s democracy,” they support the definition of Israel as a “Jewish state,” which implies the structural discrimination and marginalization of the indigenous Palestinian population. They usually cling to the misleading argument that the preference of Jews does not violate the equality of individual citizenship rights held by the Palestinians in Israel. This hypocritical stance of the self-proclaimed “liberals” has been largely sustained by the prevailing political culture, which they themselves actively helped create: namely, the state-centered culture portrayed by the late sociologist Baruch Kimmerling as “semi-fascist”. Accordingly, the values of individual human rights, the essence of democracy, are perceived as subservient to state security.

Shlomo Avineri, professor of political science has well represented the role of the intellectual on the Zionist left in granting “scientific” confirmation to the definition of the Zionist settler state as “democracy.” For example, he depicts the Law of Return – which is central to the Apartheid nature of the Israeli legal infrastructure as just an “immigration law,” no different from immigration laws in other democratic states such as the US and Norway’ 1.

Now, in wake of the popular uprising in Egypt that threatens the other dictatorial regimes across the Middle East, Shlomo Avinery has come up with a new insight on the imperative commitment of democrats to fight against an autocratic regime. He expressly argues that a peace treaty – which ensures the “security” of Israel – is a top “moral” value that justifies the past support of Mubarak’s totalitarian “internal” regime:

“Recently, we here were presented with a rather problematic choice: Do we support democracy, or do we support the Israeli interest in maintaining security and stability? When a moral value (democracy ) is thus posited against realpolitik (stability and security), it is easy to lapse into the argument that Peace is not only a political, military and security arrangement; it is also a moral value. The fact that for 30 years not a single Israeli or Egyptian soldier was killed in hostile activities on our common border, […] is not only a strategic achievement, but a moral achievement of the highest order, credit for which goes to political leaders on both sides.”

In his effort to justify the alliance with Mubarak and belittle his brutal oppression of the Egyptian people, Avineri makes a most bizarre comparison:

“Just as it is permissible to praise former Prime Minister Menachem Begin for achieving peace with Egypt, without agreeing with many of his views it is permissible to praise former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for his determination, sometimes under great pressure, to preserve the peace initiated by his predecessor Anwar Sadat. That is not support for a despot; it’s support for the moral content of peace.”

The lip service paid to “Israel’s interest in democracy in Egypt” is soon wiped out by the summary of his main message to Israelis – and, indirectly, to Egyptians as well: “But Egypt’s internal regime is the business of its own citizens, and we would do well not to try to advise them whom to elect and whom not to elect. In any event, the moral aspect of peace, which is based on the principle of preserving human life and its quality of life, must be a guide to us, as to Egyptian society that has now embarked on a new path”.

Avineri’s indifference toward Mubarak’s despotic regime (and any regime that would replace his) because of Israel’s interests in peace with Egypt, is merely the expression of US imperial strategy in the Middle East (and elsewhere), to which Israel is a lesser partner. This strategy consists of supporting even the most brutal oppressive regimes as long as they sustain their submission to US interests. A recent article by Noam Chomsky deals with, among other things, US concerns about the “shock wave throughout the region set in motion by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that drove out western-backed dictators.” He reminds us of what he has been emphasizing for a long time: “Washington and its allies keep to the well established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives [..]The nature of any regime it backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains.” 2

This is the true meaning of the “morality” that Prof. Avineri attributes to “maintaining security and stability” through peace with Egypt. He should know better the role of this “peace” in sustaining US and Israeli interests by fortifying the “moderate block” of the despotic Arab states. Their joint aim is to eliminate “secular nationalism,” including the national rights of the Palestinian people. Mubarak’s Egypt fully complied with Israel and the US in blocking a peace agreement that would recognize these rights, as has long since been known.

Shlomo Avineri’s doctrine of privileging Israel’s “security” over “internal” democracy, in the case of Egypt, has usually been adopted by leftist Zionists in regard to the Palestinian Authority, albeit without admitting it explicitly. It was Labor PM Ytzhak Rabin who justified Israeli “concessions” in the Oslo Accords on the grounds that the Accords would bring about a collaborative Palestinian Authority that would repress resistance “without [the shackles] of [Israel’s] Supreme Court and [the human rights organization] B’tselem.” And indeed, the Zionist left has embraced the autocratic regime that has developed under the PA, which thus granted the PA recognition as an “appropriate” partner for peace. This support for the oppressive and collaborationist PA has been shared by even the most militant wing of the Israeli peace camp. The release of the Al Jazeera documents, and Uri Avineri’s response to them, have contributed the ultimate proof of this shameful support. These documents revealed the full compliance of the Palestinian leadership with US-Israeli demands, as well as their collaboration with the latter’s schemes to do away with the national Palestinian movement. 3

Gush Shalom, founded and led by Uri Avnery, responded to the Al Jazeera papers in its weekly statement in Haaretz of January 28, 2011, saying: “The Al Jazeera Disclosures prove: The Palestinians have no partner for peace.”

Indeed, the “Palestine Papers” confirm in every detail that, during the last decade, Israeli governments have objected to any potential plan for peace settlement, while simultaneously entrenching the occupation regime in the ’67 conquered territories. The papers disclose what was known to anyone who refused to take part in welcoming the charade of the peace process or to believe that it would lead to a peace settlement that would fulfill the Palestinians’ national aspirations. Uri Avney has played a significant role in creating and sustaining this baseless belief, which he shared with the intellectual elite and activists among the Zionist left. However, Avnery’s positions have had a significant influence on genuine peace-seekers in Israel and abroad, due to his determined and persistent struggle against the ’67 occupation and the atrocities committed in the occupied territories by Israeli authorities.

Avnery’s optimistic message has relied on what he calls the “realism” of Arafat and the Palestinian leadership that ascended to power after his death; namely, their readiness for partial concessions to Israeli demands in the framework of the two-state solution which, however, don’t violate the basic national rights of the Palestinian people. Moreover, Avnery has constantly assured the public, both in Israel and abroad, that the concessions made by Abu Mazen are accepted by the majority of the Palestinians who recognize the Oslo-created Palestinian Authority as their representative. He never challenged the legitimacy of the PA leadership even after the victory of Hamas in the 2006 democratic elections, which the PA ignored and which brought about the separation from the Gaza Strip.

The revelations of the Al Jazeera papers, as well as Avnery’s long response to them, highlight his the absolute loyalty to the the PA, whose betrayal of the Palestinian cause was well documented. I’ll first briefly discuss a number of Al Jazeera revelations that prove the strong collaboration between the Palestinian leadership and Israel-US dictates, both in regards to the negotiations process and the Palestinian authocratic regime. After reporting on the dismayed reactions of Palestinians in response to these revelations, I’ll present Avnery’slong response to the Al Jazeera papers in his January 29 article. In this article, he emphasizes his continued support of the collaborative Palestinian leadership and their “twostate solution” as disclosed in the papers. A review of his November 2010 article, in which he exprsses his admiration for the PA police regime, confirms the betrayal committed by both the PA and the leader of Israel’s peace camp.

A Selective Summary of Al Jazeera Documents

Al Jazeera’s revelations point to the total capitulation of the Palestinian leaders, both those who led the negotiations (Abu Mazen and Saeb Erekat) and those who orchestrated the construction of a “police state” under Salam Fayyad’s government. These detailed accounts narrate the secretly negotiated surrender of every one of Palestinians’ core rights under international law – including, among others, the PA’s willingness to concede all of East Jerusalem, the settlements around Jerusalem except Har Homa, and the blocks of settlements that cut the West bank into encircled enclaves.

The PA’s betrayal, however, extends far beyond the realm of territorial concessions. The Palestinian leadership has explicitly compromised on the two fundamental principles adopted and upheld by the Palestinian national movement: first, the Right of Return of the approximately five million refugees to their homeland; and second, the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state – the central premise of Zionism as embodied in the settler colonial state of Israel. 4

In explicitly recognizing the Jewish state, the current Palestinian leadership has turned their backs on the very perception that guided the Palestinian national struggle for entire decades: namely, that Zionism and the settler colonial state of Israel sought to abolish the Palestinian national movement; to commit the “sociocide” of the Palestinian people in all of historic Palestine; and, when possible, to drive their expulsion.

The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state also signifies the official abandonment of the Palestinians within Israel to their systematic discrimination and oppression as individuals and as a national collective. Moreover, it delegitimizes the democratic struggle undertaken to turn Israel into a state for all its citizens, allowing it to be continually defined as the state of the Jewish people alone.

The PA’s compromises on the Right of Return and the Jewish State are fully in accordance with Israel-US’s persistent attempts to fragment the Palestinian people. By the same token, the PA has been actively plotting with them against the legitimately constituted unity government with Hamas in Gaza. Senior PA officials deliberately suppressed Palestinian popular resistance in Gaza, and even called for Israel to once again “occupy” the border crossing between Gaza and Egypt after the border wall was blown up by Hamas activists in January 2008. 5

Revelations from the Wikileaks cables already underlined the US, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian “cooperation” with Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, both before and during the “Operation Cast Lead” massacre (and, in the case of the US, a pre-knowledge of the humanitarian crisis that would develop before the attack even commenced). As shown by the Al Jazeera papers, the PA continued their collaboration with their three partners in their attempts to push the United Nations Human Rights Council to delay a vote on the Goldstone Report, the fact-finding probe of these war crimes. The documents reveal the PA-Israel collaboration in targeting resistance and in the repressive actions of the PA security forces, trained under General Dayton in the service of the occupation. 6

Angry Palestinian Reactions

The shock and anger expressed by Palestinian public figures was not late to appear. An article by Karma Nabulsi in the Guardian of 23/1/11 conveyed the growing disgust at the “outrageous role of the PA and US and Britain in creating a security Bantustan, and the ruin of our civic and political space … [Moreover], the claim they were acting in good faith is absolutely shattered by the publication of these documents […] Whatever one’s political leanings, no one, not the Americans, the British, the UN, and especially not these Palestinian officials, can claim that the whole racket is anything other than a brutal process of subjugating an entire people.” 7

Mahdi Abdul Hadi, the director of the Jerusalem think-tank Passia says, “It is now much clearer to Palestinians that they are living in a prison and that the PA leaders are there only to negotiate the terms of our imprisonment.” 8

Palestinian public opinion leaders call to put an end to the Oslo leadership and to renew the Palestinian Liberation movement – which would encompass the entire Palestinian people, including the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Asad Ghanem, a professor of politics at Haifa University, says: “With politics stifled inside the occupied territories, it is crucial that outside Palestinian leaders step in to redefine the Palestinian national movement, including Palestinians such as himself who live inside Israel and groups in Diaspora.” 9

Uri Avnery, however, was deaf to these voices. As said, he remained loyal to his traditional absolute support of the collaborative Oslo leadership and disregarded the Palestinians’ call for its downfall.

Uri Avnery’s Support for the PA Police Regime

A week after the release of the Palestinian Papers, Uri Avnery responded to their revelations in an article called “The Al Jazeera Scandal.” 10

Avnery ignores the rage expressed by Palestinians at the PA’s betrayal of their people and their oppression carried out in collaboration with Israel and the US. Instead, he concentrates only on the concessions made in the “peace negotiations.” These, according to him, “caused furious reactions and stirred up an intense controversy in the Arab world” (my italics).

However, he misleadingly claims that this controversy was only about trivial topics: “But what was the clash about? Not about the position of the Palestinian negotiators, not about the strategy of Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues, its basic assumptions, its pros and cons.” Ignoring or belittling the Palestinian public reactions permits Avnery to direct his main attack on the Al Jazeera network, which he presumes was shared by the Palestinian masses in the West Bank: “On Al Jazeera the Palestinian leaders were wrongly accused “of treason and worse” Hence ” in Ramallah, the Aljazeera offices were attacked by pro-Abbas crowds.” On the other hand, he claims, the reaction of the Palestinian leaders themselves to Al Jazeera’s accusations lacked any bravery: “Saeb Erakat, the Palestinian chief negotiator and others did not have the courage to admit publicly that they indeed agreed ‘in secret’ to the concessions disclosed by Al Jazeera. They seemed to be saying in public that such concessions would amount to betrayal.”

Depicting these concessions as betrayal “is nonsense,” says Avnery. Moreover, “For anyone involved in any way with Israeli-Palestinian peace-making, there was nothing really surprising in these disclosures. ” They confirmed that the Palestinian negotiators were following the very concessions made by Arafat himself in Oslo in order to achieve a peace agreement with Israel. Avnery proudly mentions his visit to Tunisia (before the PLO leadership was allowed to return to the ’67 occupied territories and form the Palestinian Authority) when he heard from Arafat himself the details of the peace agreement which he would accept. A few years later, says Avnery, Gush Shalom published a draft peace agreement based on Arafat’s positions: “As anyone can see on our website, it was very similar to the recent proposals of the Palestinian side as disclosed in the Aljazeera papers” (my italics). These proposals, says Avnery, “should be at the center of the public discussion”.

Avnery’s call for a debate that would focus on the negotiators’ positions alone, while ignoring Al Jazeera’s revelations regarding the PA’s totalitarian regime, is rather futile. It is precisely this regime and its brutal repression of its people that enabled its leaders to make such capitulations to Israel-US demands. Moreover, the “new” discussion suggested by Avnery has been taking place for many years. Hundreds if not thousands of critical works have been published on the Palestinian surrender in Oslo and thereafter, as well as on Avnery’s own political positions, which supported them.11 Unlike Avnery’s own analyses, these critical publications did realize the connection between the Israel/US version of a twostates solution and the kind of a Palestinian regime that would support such a “peace solution” at all.

No doubt Avnery is familiar with the plentiful information on the oppressive PA regime that has been published in recent years by senior political analysts and research centers. A study by Aisling Byrne of the Conflicts Forum in Beirut. based on this information, lays bare the disastrous dimensions of the “police state in the making” enforced by US and Israel: 12 Says Byrne:

“[General] Dayton is a political actor who essentially is overseeing and facilitating a process of political cleansing in the West Bank, the consequences of which for the Palestinian national project, for political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and for political engagement and prospects for peace are damaging, if not disastrous…. “

Dayton has been clear about his aim: to reduce the ‘IDF footprint’ in the West Bank by developing Palestinian capabilities and ‘proven abilities’; that is, capacity-building and training of the Palestinian security forces (“paramilitaries”, as the Wall Street Journal describes them); turning them, as he explained, into the “new men of Palestine” 13

Dayton’s ‘capacity-building’ initiatives are facilitating the creation of an autocratic and totalitarian ‘state’ led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad: political debate is almost nonexistent, criticism not allowed, and the extent of collusion between the Abu Mazen/Salam Fayyad government and their security forces with Israel is so extensive that both the Palestinian public and members of the security forces themselves are beginning to question and criticize “what they see as the PNA’s attempt to increase repression and curtail freedoms.” 14

A recent report in the British newspaper, the Mail on Sunday, exposed “the horrific torture of hundreds of people by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank [which] is being funded by British taxpayers”.15 The report documents how ‘not only are PA forces carrying out torture … but that the authority [also] ignores judges’ orders to release political detainees’ 16

‘ …. One Palestinian commentator described the new recruits as being ‘saturated with ideological ideas against the resistance’. ‘This is how’, he explains, the PLO army has been molded to be the security forces that … protect Israeli settlements … and protect the Israeli army from Palestinians and all forms of resistance.’

“This process of creating ‘new Palestinians,’” says Byrne, “has complimented the political metamorphosis of the Palestinian Authority.’ A high-ranking Israeli defense officer explained to leading Israeli journalist, Nahum Barnea [of Yediot Ahronot] in early October 2009 : ‘the Palestinian Authority changed right in front of our eyes … The Fayyad government was formed [and] it was clear that they wanted to give Hamas a fight. We began to meet with the heads of the [Palestinian] security organizations”. …. At the top of our agenda we put law and order in the cities and the war on Hamas… We were surprised by the intensity of their willingness to cooperate.” 17
[..]’A key turning point’, the Officer explained, ‘was the intensification of American involvement. … We learned the lessons that the Americans learned from the fighting in Iraq. You take one place, Jenin for example, you crush terror there, you put a strong police force there and move on. We started with Jenin… At first, it failed. Fayyad said, let’s try again. We tried again, and it caught. We needed a lot of patience … The greatest achievement was that the moderates defeated the extremists”.

‘The extent of collusion’, explains Palestinian analyst Ramzy Baroud, ‘illustrates how the Palestinian Authority functions more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration’18

Avnery’s hair-raising and utterly misleading portrayal of his allies in the PA is presented in his article of 4 November 2010, a year after the horrid facts were published in foreign and Israeli newspapers. 19

Avnery glorifies Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian government that runs the autocratic regime in the West Bank:

“It is impossible not to like Fayyad. He radiates decency, seriousness and a sense of responsibility. He invites trust…In the confrontation between Fatah and Hamas, he does not belong to either of the two rival blocs…. Fayyad believes, so it seems, that the Palestinians’ only chance to achieve their national goals is by non-violent means, in close cooperation with the US.”

Avnery depicts this belief as a version of Zionist labor “pragmatism” led by Ben Gurion: “This is reminiscent of the classic Zionist strategy under David Ben-Gurion. In Zionist parlance, this was called ‘creating facts on the ground’. He plans to build the Palestinian national institutions and create a robust economic base, and by the end of 2011, to declare the State of Palestine.’
Avnery is thrilled at the sight of “statehood” which takes the form of Palestinian security forces, trained by General Keith Dayton, the US Security Coordinator for the Palestinians since 2005. “Anyone who has seen them knows that this is for all practical purposes a regular army. On Land Day demonstration, the Palestinian soldiers, with their helmets and khaki uniforms, were deployed on the hill, while the Israeli soldiers, similarly attired, were deployed below. That was in Area C, [60 % of the West bank] which according to the Oslo Accords is under Israeli military control. Both armies used the same American jeeps, just differently colored.”
What a cynical scene! A staged gesture by the Occupier allows a military unit of the occupied to parade in an area that is under Israel’s full control on the day the Palestinian people commemorate the unabashed ongoing robbery of Palestinian lands both in Israel proper and the West Bank. And a famous Israeli peace struggler watches on with admiration?

The Zionist left has always supported US imperialism and its autocratic Arab allies, claiming that US policy seeks to enforce peace and democracy in the Middle East. This claim has likewise been the pretext for their support of the PA police state in the making. However, Uri Avnery’s embrace of Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad’s oppressive regime lays bare an appalling fact: the genuine Palestinian national movement has no partner, even within the most radical wing of Israel’s so-called “peace camp.”

1 See Avineri’s support of the law which requires all newly naturalized citizens to take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish state Shlomo Avinery: A Substantive Oath of Allegiance, Haaretz 25.07.2010

2 Noam Comsky, “It’s not radical Islam that worries the US –it’s independenc”, Friday 4 February 2011

3 The entire Palestine Papers archive is being made available online on the Al Jazeera English website:


5 Ali Abunimah” Cutting off a vital connection, Electronic Intifada ” 25 January 2011

6 The Electronic Intifada, 26 January 2011


8 see Jonathan Cook: Can the Palestinian Authority survive? 31/jonathan-cook-can-the-palestinian-authority-survive.

9 Jonatan Cook, Ibid

10 Avnery columns’ archive ,29 January 2011

11 See for example Steven Friedman and Virginia Tilley, Taken for a Ride by the Israeli Left., In Electronic Intifada, 27 January 2007m( A Response to Uri Avnery”What Makes Sammy Run, 30, Decenber, 2006 12 Aisling Byrne,”Businessmen Posing as Revolutionaries :General Dayton and the “New Palestinian Breed” ,A Conflict Forum Monograph at Beirut , November 2009 In a paper presented in a Conference named “The Development of neo-colonial structures under the guise of ‘state-building’ , the Centre for Development Studies, Bir Zeit University and Ghent University, September 2010, Aisling Byrne added both update information and analysis to the 2009 monograph. The final version of her paper- “Building a Police State in Palestine” was published in Foreign Policy,January18, 2011

13 Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2009. See also Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, Michael Stein Address on US Middle East Policy, Program of the SOREF Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 7 May 2009;

14 Palestinian Security Sector Governance: The View of Civil Society in Nablus, Spotlight No. 1, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, May 2009 and Palestinian Support Wanes for American-Trained Forces, Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, 15 October 2009

15 Financed by the British taxpayer, brutal torturers of the West Bank, David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 31 January 2009 ( West-Bank.html#

16 The new political and security job for the duo – Fayyad-Dayton, Yousef Shali, Al Aser On-line Magazine, 6 July 2009

17 Anatomy of a Victory, Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth, 9 October 2009

18 Abbas and the Goldstone Report: Our Shame is Complete, Ramzy Baroud, The Palestine Chronicle, 15 October 2009

19 “Fayyad’s Big Gamble”, November 4 2010

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Support of the Israeli Peace Camp for the Autocratic Palestinian Regime

Uri avnery-Support of ‘ Peace’ and the Palestinian Police Statelet



Why the Zionist ‘Left’ Are the Most Dedicated Supporters of Arab Dictatorships?

In most countries, the Left of the political spectrum is normally opposed to dictatorships and the apparatus of the police state. Of course exceptions need to be made for the lingering fondness of Stalinism for autocracy, but in general the Left stands for democracy, workers’ rights and internationalism and the Right will invade anything and kill anyone to preserve the rights of capital to exploit wherever and whenever it wants.

The Zionist ‘peace movement’, including the doyen of the fight against Occupation, Uri Avnery, are an exception. This is a ‘left’ that supported co-operative structures in order to fulfill the goals of colonialism more efficiently. As I wrote 2 years ago the Zionist left has fulfilled its historical mission, which was to divert Jewish workers away from socialism and towards Zionism. Today it is a fossil, a relic left on the shore for the sake of old times.

When the Zionist left protests the loyalty oath of the Netanyahu/ Lieberman coalition, it does so because it fears that in the developing witch-hunt it too may be caught out for not being loyal enough. Loyalty oaths, military rule, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, land confiscation – you name it and there’s nothing the Zionist Right has done that the Zionist Left didn’t do better.

For the Zionist left ‘peace’ was a primary goal. Not the peace of international co-operation and the free movement of workers in the Middle East, as even the European Union has managed to achieve. The common struggle against imperialism was the last thing they had on their minds. Instead the desired goal was the peace of the graveyard, the peace of a Mubarak which freed them to attack the north of Israel and colonise the West Bank.

Internationalism was never a principle for the Zionist left. On the contrary, founded on the basis of a Jewish only racist state, where being Jewish was the most important characteristic, internationalism and solidarity between workers was secondary to the needs of the Israeli state. And if workers in the Arab countries saw Zionism as a hostile colonial entity then those workers were merely deluded, and being Arabs or Moslems, were the products of a backward culture. This was the response, incidentally, of the Zionist left, who led the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency in Palestine up till 1948. The opposition of the Palestinian Arab workers to Zionism was attributed to their leaders, the feudal effendis. It had nothing to do with being driven off the land by Kibbutzim under the watchful eye of British bayonets. It had nothing to do with the open alliance between British imperialism and Zionism. It was merely the product of the Arabs’ backward and ‘anti-semitic’ nature.

It is because the Zionist left never believed in joint work with the Arab workers, whom they derided as simpletons, that Histadrut and the Israeli Labour Party Mapai coined the term ‘from class to nation’. Because they vigorously opposed joint work with the Arab workers, they redefined the very concept of class. Indeed they had superceded and transcended it. Class struggle was merely a milestone on the road to national unity. The Arabs were defined as the enemy class, the mere representatives of feudal Arabs who were united only by their anti-Semitism.

It was thus natural that the Zionist left sought, from the very start an alliance with Arab despots. Gold Meir in 1947 made the journey to see King Abdullah in Transjordan (see Avi Shlaim’s ‘Collusion Across the Jordan’). Shimon Peres, who was described as an ‘indefatigable intriguer’ by Yitzhak Rabin and who at one time was seen as to the ‘left’ of Rabin, was also the instigator of the Oslo Accords. He it was who was responsible for the process whereby Arabs were turned into their own policemen, better to enforce the Occupation.

No more devout supporters of Arab repression were there than the Labour Zionists and no more ardent supporters of the link with US imperialism were there than these ‘left’ Zionists. Indeed the main complaint against Begin and Sharon was that they were endangering the ‘special relationship’ that Israel and the USA have. Whereas Netanyahu told Obama to back off from ideas of a settlement freeze, and with the support of Congress and the neo-Cons won that battle, Labour might have backed down. This has resulted in the obscenity that not only the ‘Right’ of Zionism – the Lieberman’s and Netanyahu’s supporting Mubarak, but Peres going out of his way to praise this mass murderer and torturer.

It is natural if one is to insert oneself in the Middle East as the United State’s surrogate that the masses are going to oppose you. It is therefore also natural that Arab dictatorships were seen as the only way of cementing the rule of imperialism in the region. Despite its laughable claims to be the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ (despite not giving half those under its rule a vote) it is Israel which has, as the Jewish Chronicle puts it, trembled at the thought of all those nice, friendly, pro-US Arab dictators, falling one by one. And this is true not just of the hypocrites of the Israeli Labour Party and Meretz, but also of even the most consistent sections of the Zionist peace camp, Gush Shalom led by Uri Avneri.

Below is an excellent article by Tikva Honig-Parnass, an Israeli anti-Zionist, laying bare much of the above. In particular her article demonstrates that Uri Avnery, for long the one remaining Zionist who was consistent in his opposition to settlement and occupation, could not defy the logic of his own position. There is no greater supporter of the Palestinian Police State than Uri Avnery.

Tony Greenstein

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Uri avnery-Support of ‘ Peace’ and the Palestinian Police Statelet

No Imperialist Intervention in Libya



As the regime of the reactionary clown, Muamar Ghadaffi, goes through its death agonies, whilst taking many many lives with it, the voices of liberal interventionism raise their ugly heads.

Let us be clear. Any western intervention will be aimed not at saving lives but preserving oil for use by the invaders. Who can honestly say that the million plus lives lost in Iraq created anything other than another dictatorship, albeit one friendly to the USA?

Those who talk of intervening in Libya are not moved by the plight of those Ghadaffi is killing. Their only concern is what may come after him. It is not the death of people but death to their interests in the country that concern them. That is why Tony Blair, the archetypal liberal interventionist and war criminal, made his famous visit to Tripoli in 2003 and a rapprochment with the West’s favourite bogeyman.

We have seen a consolidation of the old elites in Egypt and Tunisia. The revolution has only been half completed and if there is no completion then it will go back to the beginning. In Libya, because of the different nature of the response, there is the danger (for imperialism) that popular and armed committees will form which put the use of Libya’s oil under the spotlight. Our demands are clear. Any intervention by the West will destroy not safeguard lives and liberty.

Tony Greenstein

Libya – Dreams of Western Intervention

Susil Gupta

The crisis in Libya is quickly becoming an international embarrassment. Not, this time, because of Gadhafi’s clowinsh antics, but because it provides a spectacular opportunity for the world to see just how much Western power has declined during the last decade.

Despite being the most powerful nation on earth, and having a military apparatus on a scale greater than the sum of every other country, the US has patently failed to impose its solutions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Far from America being able to force the Ayatollahs into submission, Iran gains strategic ground every day. The financial crisis has paralysed the power of Western finance. Western central bankers have had to go begging to China and the oil rich countries for loans. The Arab revolt of 2011 has now destroyed the exclusive grip Anglo-American rule once had in the region.

And now Libya promises to make explicit the powerlessness of the West. As Laurence Pope, ex-political advisor to the US “Central Command” and ex-ambassador to Tripoli recently told Le Monde today (24 February), “Washington finds itself in a situation where there are only bad options and others that are worse.”

What has been the response in Europe? The European Left and the liberal bourgeoisie remain very ‘interventionist’ and are firm believers in ‘humanitarian bombing’. They are clamouring for a muscular Nato intervention along Balkan lines. An editorial in today’s Left-leaning Guardian supports the call by liberal Lord Owen that “military preparations should be made and the necessary diplomatic approaches, above all to the Russians and the Chinese, set in train to secure UN authority for such action.” Should the crisis continue, the Guardian argues, “intervention on the ground would have to be considered. The Egyptian army has the means, other Arab countries could contribute, and western forces could help.” Yes, and it would all be over by Christmas.

It is obvious that these war-enthusiasts have not thought this through – but then they would not be doing any of the fighting. The plain fact is that there are no feasible military interventions even if the major powers could agree on an intervention plan, which is very far from being the case. Consider the options.

Imposing a no fly zone. This would require extensive air patrols by foreign air forces. They would have little effect since air power is not key to Gadhafi’s strategy. It would, however, create an atmosphere of major war and give Gadhafi a propaganda boost.

Creating a military barrier or cordon sanitaire around eastern Libya to protect rebel positions. Likewise this would crystallise the situation into a two-sided war, which could only play into Gadhafi’s hands. It is to the advantage of those that want to topple Gadhafi to avoid a war of entrenchment fixed positions, preventing them from permeating every level of society and undermine further his crumbing power base. In any case such Western intervention would be impossible to implement. No Western commander is going to deploy troops at short notice into a theatre unknown to his troops but well-known to an enemy who, in any case, cannot be easily distinguished from friendly forces. It is a recipe for disaster.

Sending in a ‘peace keeping’ African Union force to separate the parties. One way to unite every Libyan behind Gadhafi, given the reputation of such forces in the past.

Sending in a ‘peace keeping’ force made up of troops from Arab countries as The Guardian recommends. One way to unite every Libyan behind Gadhafi and infect and inflame the whole of the Middle East with the vicissitudes of a Libyan civil war.

Bomb. But where? Tripoli ? Gadhafi’s hideout? In addition to the lack of any meaningful target, Western bombing might give others the idea of bombing targets that are indeed of great strategic value: oil wells and pipe lines.

Sanctions. Libya’s massively long borders are totally porous and populated by peoples and countries keen to do business and who don’t give a damn about UN Security Council resolutions. On the contrary, given the strategic importance of Libyan oil and gas to several European nations, Libya is the only country in a position to apply effective sanctions against anyone else. The price of oil has already shot up to $110. Watch how the Italians start screaming in the next couple of weeks if the crisis goes on much longer.

Unsurprisingly, Cameron and Sarkozy are making angry statements but otherwise are just looking at their shoes.

Susil Gupta

Posted in AfricaComments Off on No Imperialist Intervention in Libya

Afghanistan-Obama’s Dangerous Faux Pas



Afghanistan: Obama’s Dangerous Faux Pas

By Mohammad Abdullah Gul

CEO Think Tank MEASAC (Covenant for Peace & Unity)

Tall, lanky, easy of manner and articulate, Obama exuded hope and confidence across the globe as he entered the White House. The world was yearning for a paradigm shift and he held out the promise of change from the former President Bush’s disastrous policies of aggression and unilateralism. So palpable was his message that he was conferred the Noble Peace Prize in anticipation of his future performance. Two year down the lane of history however the dream stands almost shattered. The promise of change essentially presaged external disengagement to focus on the domestic travails.

Breaking away from Afghanistan should have been a sine qua non for such a scheme of things. Yet, the third review of Obama’s Af-Pak strategy has failed to come out with a clear cut solution. The withdrawal plan is confusing and ambivalent. There is the same old rhetoric of ‘do more’ demands on Pakistan, ad nauseum. Reversing of the ‘ Taliban momentum’ too is very much in place. Glimpses from Bob Woodward’s book “ Obama’s War” clearly portray a beleaguered Obama unable to overcome the military obduracy with political will and sagacity.

He plucked the first acid test of his presidency to the great disillusionment of the world.   With 62% of Americans wanting to end the war and 85% Afghans hankering for vacation of occupation, Obama could have easily upturned the incompetent and ambitions generals, especially, General David Petraeus, who is intoxicated by his partial success in Iraq and is eying the office of the President of the US. His hare-brained strategy to create local warlords to confront and contain the ‘National Resistance’- for that is exactly what Taliban Movement has morphed into-is a recipe for an abiding misery for Afghanistan. For one thing, Afghans are not Iraqis. Their history is a testimony enough; for another, the conflict here has ideological underpinnings and the Afghan nation has an an unmistakable tendency to gravitate towards ‘faith’. It could only prolong the conflict and create room for faith-fighters from all over the world to rally in the post withdrawal Afghanistan. The proxies and remotely operated fire power will not be able to change the results.

The  answer to such daunting problems would be to beat a quick retreat albeit a negotiated one. There would entail direct US talks with the Taliban leadership instead of going about in circles and using puppets to pull off the magic where might has failed. Sadly, the lesson has not been learnt from the two fruitless surges, 21,000 additional troops first time Afghanistan and 40,000 the second time since Obama’s entry into the Oval Office. More troops only produced more casualties for the allies, almost 2 dead and 4 wounded for each day of the year 2010. In fact, the 9 years history of Afghan war shows that every time the NATO tried to wrest the initiative from the Taliban the latter grew in strength. The patron is unerring through the operation ‘Anaconda’ in eastern Afghanistan in 2003 to operations ‘Khanjar’ and ‘Mushtarak’ in the south. General Petraeus’ claim that he has had significant success in Kandhar is spurious and misguiding. In reality, the much flaunted operation ‘Kandhar’ never took off. And now the insidious plan of creating local militias is doomed to fail. Taliban are almost certain to penetrate and control these militias and earn dollars at the same time to finance resistance against occupation and the puppet government. Such are the ways of wily Afghans. Already the flourishing narco-trade, of which Taliban get a handsome share, and in addition, the ‘protection money’ doled out to the Taliban commanders for safe passage of NATO’s supply columns, is filling the coffers of the opposition.

So outlandish to the reality are the plans being hatched by the American generals running the show in Afghanistan, that one wonders whether they have ever being groomed in the ‘art of war’. Take for instance the factors that govern the outcome of an armed conflict. A secure line of supply and reliable intelligence input are absolute imperatives to success on the battle field. In case of Afghanistan both these elements are highly unreliable. Long overland supply routes from the entrepot (Karachi) to Afghan border are ambush prone and expensive. 200 NATO tankers and containers were torched  in the year 2010 alone. The 10 days blockade of one of the two routes by the Pakistan Military following NATO helicopters attack on a border check post which killed 3 Pakistani soldiers, brought the NATO command to its knees. With growing anger in Pakistan over drone attacks, the spectre of blockade will continue to haunt the NATO operations. To top it all the US policy of allowing India to destabilize Pakistan internally by fomenting unrest in Balochistan by harbouring, training and arming the Baloch separatists is patently self destructive. It tantamounts to cutting the very branch on which they are precariously perched. The US policy makers seem to be oblivious that Pakistan’s socio-political and financial vows could lead to a big disaster as the NATO troops would be stuck in  Afghanistan’s ‘mouse trap’ in the event of any turmoil in Pakistan. There is no adjacent Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam) where troops and equipment could be ferried in a hurry.

Search for alternative route through Central Asia and Russia is unlikely to come to fruition as:

a) its very long and exorbitantly expensive (more than ten times the present cost)

b) Russians have a long memory. They would want to see the US humiliated in Afghanistan; beside, extracting unacceptable strategic concessions. Alternative supply line would remain a pipe dream. The burden of maintaining visualized troop levels till the end of 2014 and beyond would break the economic back of the flagging US economy as well as create uneasiness among the NATO allies  .

US Intelligence failures in Afghanistan have been monumental. Over reliance on FAS (Afghan State Intelligence) for field intelligence and unrealistic dependence on Pakistan’s ISI led to intelligence fiascoes. Afghan Intelligence is amateurish, hence, more a source of disinformation than genuine intelligence. ISI’s support was bound to be tentative and reluctant given the circumstances under which it was press-ganged into service following 9/11. Despite spending billions of dollars on intelligence gathering the sixteen intelligence agencies of the US did little more than chasing shadows of Al Qaeda. Ostensibly, only 20 valuable targets of Al Qaeda have been eliminated so far by drone strikes in FATA area of Pakistan. Whereas, over 2,200 innocent Pakistani civilians have been devoured by these senseless attacks. All this barbarity has had little effect on the war itself, least of all on the Afghan battlefield. On the contrary, the frontline Pakistan has been ravaged by revenge attacks of suicide bombers . As a corollary, Pakistan in no more willing to embark on a potentially disastrous adventure in North Waziristan.

Drone attacks are illegal, immoral and counter-productive. One day there might be retribution for this vile undertaking a la ‘Lockerbie’ in cash or in kind. After all, its a long war and Al Qaeda, the chief adversary has already relocated to softer sports closer to their ‘Center of Gravity’, the Red Sea area. CIA chief, Leon Panetta had admitted that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operators are now present in the Af-Pak zone. As many or more, may be cooling their heels in any one of the European countries.

NATO’s entire intelligence apparatus is rusty, incompetent and corrupt. Only the  impostor Mulla Akhtar Mansoor’s case is enough to put them to shame. Somebody ought to investigate to find out about the secret and unaccountable funds embezzled by the intelligence operators in this fruitless war. Private security contractors are enjoying the bonanza of free flow of money like never before. They have awarded lucrative contracts to retired CIA/FBI officers on the basis of ‘old buddy’ relationship. Privatization of intelligence gathering (David Furlong’s case is in point) is a novel way to squander money for negative returns. While the adversaries are engaged in an ideological conflict with high degree of motivation. They cannot be countered by greedy, tired and morally depraved legions of intelligence midgets.

Now come to the combat zone. Historically, there are three decisive determinants of victory or defeat; time, space and relative strength. Evaluation of each of these is illuminating in the context of Afghanistan. Taliban are reportedly saying that, ‘Americans have the watch but we have the time.’ And how true! Anyone with the rudimentary insight into Afghan traits would vouch that they cannot be tired out in a war of attrition. As for space, resistance controls 85% of Afghanistan territory and hold sway over government functionaries where they lack direct authority. On the scales of relative strength the guerrilla fighter has always enjoyed superior orientation due to freedom of movement and ability to surprise. Remember, guerrilla does not have to win, he has only to deny victory to the adversary. Beside, it’s not the numbers game in the conventional sense. Even then no one can say that resistance is short of manpower. And now with the scent of victory in the air, who would not rally behind the victors.

Only in the department of fire power the allies have an absolute supremacy, but if fire power alone could win the wars, General Westmoreland would not have had to ‘cut and run’ out of Vietnam.

Obama’s feet-dragging withdrawal strategy defies all military logic. The time tested doctrine of achieving ‘clean break’ to avoid a ‘ running battle’  would be a wise course to follow.  Whimsical formulations such as dividing Afghanistan or establishing ‘stay behind fortresses’ to maintain a life line for the moribund puppet regime in pursuit  of illusive objectives would only prolong the agonizing Afghan imbroglio. Worse still, it will destabilize Pakistan, the only ‘relief zone’ available to NATO for an hounourable withdrawal. Pakistan  would likely be driven into a revolution or a civil war, which could ignite an inferno that would consume the entire southasian region.

In conclusion, President Obama must trust and follow his instinct which showed amply in his Cairo speech, 4th June, 2009. “Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.” It was a legitimate and realistic objective and behold … attainable with dignity intact, if occupation were to end sooner rather than later. Sadly, he seems to have changed his premise since. President Obama needs to stand upto his general’s as they will never except their failure and shall continue to ‘invest in the error’. This is an established psychology of military commanders vividly analyzed by Norman F. Dixon in his book “On The Psychology of Military Incompetence”. If President Obama fails to measure up even in the forth review of Af-Pak strategy due in April 2011, his folly would be recorded by history as a ‘Monumental Blunder.’

Obama faces another challenge which is no less daunting. If he fails to deliver on his promise of change he runs the risk of closing the doors of the White House to a coloured man for a long time. His finesse depends on addressing the dark impulse and imperial hubris  in the American policy making.

Posted in World1 Comment

MARCH on MARCH 4th to Lift Gaza Blockade




“Whereever you oppress people…wherever you deny them their basic human rights… people will eventually rise up.” 

by Ken O’ Keefe

 Building on the momentum of the Egyptian revolution and the growing push for freedom and democracy by citizens throughout the region, a coalition of organizations and individuals from around the world are preparing for a march to Gaza on 26 February 2011. The coalition will gather in the Egyptian port city of Al Arish and form a caravan to make the 32 km journey to the Rafah Border Crossing, disembarking to march the final kilometer to the border of the Gaza Strip. The objective of the march is to enter the strip with the full cooperation of Egyptian military officials and peacefully demand the permanent end of the Egyptian blockade of goods, services and building materials to the territory.

In recent years, a number of Egyptian professional syndicates/unions have attempted to cross the Rafah border into Gaza but were stopped en route and turned back by Egyptian state security forces. However, following the recent revolutionary violence in Egypt — which claimed the lives of more than 350 people — there has been a severe backlash against the state and central security apparatuses. The Egyptian military has played a crucial role in maintaining domestic stability and has stepped in to fill the security vacuum following the collapse of the Egyptian Ministry of Interior, which commands the country’s state and central security forces.

“If the marchers are blocked, attacked or arrested, we will do as the people of Egypt have done,” explained Tahrir4Gaza spokesperson Ken O’Keefe. “We will create a Tahrir-style camp as close to Rafah Crossing as possible and call for people of conscience, supporters of Palestine and Egypt, wherever you come from, to join us in Egypt to peacefully demand an end to the illegal siege of Gaza.”

Capitalizing on the important role social media played in coordinating and mobilizing supporters during the Egyptian revolution, Tahrir4Gaza is fully utilizing tools such as Facebook and Twitter to garner mass support and maximize exposure of the march.

“No Egyptian wants to be seen as complicit in the besiegement of our brethren,” said Ahmed Elassy,  the Spokesperson for  Tahrir4Gaza for “We feel it’s the responsibility of every Egyptian to wash the shame from our hands for allowing the Mubarak regime to deny the Palestinians their basic human rights in the name of Egypt.”

The Gaza Strip (also known as Gaza) is a coastal strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea, 45 km (25 miles) long and at most 10 km (6 miles) wide. It borders Egypt to its southwest and Israel to its northeast. Nearly 1.5 million Palestinians live in Gaza, many of them concentrated in one-half of the territory. In this area, the population density is nearly 20,000 people per square mile, one of the highest in the world. Over one-half of its residents are children.

“To everybody who knows injustice and everybody who knows tyranny; we are all brothers and sisters with the people of Palestine,” said O’Keefe. “So let’s act like it and bring Tahrir for Gaza on 26 February 2011.  Let us assemble in the greatest numbers possible, and let us march — week after week if necessary — to keep the Rafah Crossing open permanently.”

Click here for more information.


KEN O’ KEEFE : Egyptian Blockade of Gaza — The March for Liberation Coming March 4th

Posted in GazaComments Off on MARCH on MARCH 4th to Lift Gaza Blockade

Egyptian intifada: Notes on the Revolution



CAIRO, Feb 23, 2011 (Veterans Today) — On February 11, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak delegated executive power to Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), bringing an end to his 30-year rule. The handover followed 18 days of popular demonstrations countrywide — unprecedented in both scope and intensity — in which more than 350 people were killed and thousands injured.

The SCAF currently consists of 17 members, including longstanding Defense Minister Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. In the president’s absence, the defense minister is considered commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

In a series of official communiqués released in the following days, the SCAF endorsed protesters’ “legitimate demands,” stressing that those demands would be carried out “according to a specified timetable.” The council also promised a “peaceful transition of power” to an elected civilian authority within six month’s time.

Notably, in a February 12 communiqué, the SCAF asserted that Egypt remained “committed to all regional and international obligations and treaties,” in reference to, among other things, Egypt’s 32-year-old Camp David peace treaty with Israel.

Military makes good, almost

On February 13, the military council formally suspended the Egyptian Constitution and dissolved both houses of Egypt’s bicameral parliament, meeting longstanding demands of the opposition. It also declared its intention to run the nation’s affairs for a six-month transitional period until parliamentary and presidential elections could be held.

On February 14, the council appointed an eight-member “panel of experts” mandated with amending certain articles of the national charter to allow free parliamentary and presidential polls. The constitutional amendments, the council stated, would be hammered out within ten days before being put before a national referendum within two months’ time.

The constitutional panel is headed by moderate Islamist thinker and former judge Tarek al-Bishry, who earlier served as vice president of Egypt’s State Council. Other panel members include prominent judges and law professors and one member of the Muslim Brotherhood opposition movement, which had been officially banned under the Mubarak regime.

Several key opposition demands, however, remain unfulfilled by the SCAF, including the termination of Egypt’s longstanding Emergency Law — which grants the state sweeping powers of arrest — and the release of all political prisoners.

What’s more, to the disappointment of many critics, the military council has also decreed that Egypt’s incumbent government, led by Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, would “continue as a caretaker administration until a new government is formed.” The Shafiq government had initially consisted of both new ministers and longstanding ones, all of whom had been appointed by Mubarak.

On February 13, two SCAF members met with eight prominent young protest leaders. In an online statement issued after the meeting, two of the latter — Amr Salaama and Wail Ghoneim — reassured the public that the armed forces council was committed to instituting “a democratically-elected civilian ruling system in Egypt.”

“The council informed us that it would work quickly to replace the Shafiq government and reiterated its commitment to prosecute all corrupt regime figures, both current and former,” the statement noted. “The council also said that it planned to draw up a list of those arrested or disappeared [during the recent uprising] and vowed to begin looking for them.”

Who speaks for the Revolution?

Meanwhile, in the absence of parliamentary representation and a working national charter, several groups — most of them youth-oriented — have emerged under the banner of what has come to be known as Egypt’s “25 January Revolution.” The most widely recognized of these is the “25 January Youth Coalition,” formally established on the first day of the uprising.

The coalition is comprised of several political youth movements, including Freedom and Justice, 6 April, the Youth Campaign for Mohamed ElBaradei, and Young People for Change, among others. It also includes the youth wings of several opposition groups and parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Karama Party, the Wafd Party, the Ghad Party, the Tagammu Party and the Democratic Front Party.

“Legitimate authority does not derive from [Egypt’s] 1971 constitution,” the coalition declared in a statement issued shortly after Mubarak’s ouster. “Legitimate authority now derives from the 25 January Revolution.”

In its statement, the coalition went on to lay down several demands, chief among which were the formulation of a new constitution, the termination of the Emergency Law and the dissolution of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP). The coalition also asserted its intention “to monitor all measures taken by the SCAF to ensure the realization of the people’s demands.”

While the coalition was established relatively early on, several other groups, also bearing the “25 January” moniker, have emerged in the wake of Mubarak’s February 11 departure.

On February 16, a gaggle of prominent intellectuals, writers and media personalities, along with a handful of young protest leaders, announced the formation of the “Council of Leaders of the 25 January Revolution.” Not unlike the 25 January Youth Coalition, the council’s stated mission is “to follow up on the revolution’s achievements.”

Even certain members of the former president’s ruling NDP have jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon, announcing their intention to found their own youth-based “25 January Party.” Not surprisingly, the move has been met with derision on the part of most protest groups and political observers.

Cabinet reshuffle doesn’t cut it

On Tuesday, February 22, Egypt’s new rulers — in an effort to satisfy opposition demands for a government free of Mubarak-era holdovers — announced a major cabinet reshuffle. The following figures were selected for the following ministerial portfolios:

Yehia al-Gamal as deputy prime minister; Ashraf Hatem as health minister; Amr Ezzat Salama as scientific research minister; Ahmed Gamal Eddin Mousa as education minister; Mahmoud Latif as petroleum minister; Mounir Fakhry Abdel Nour as tourism minister; Gouda Abdel Khaleq as social solidarity minister; Ismail Fahmy as manpower minister; Maged Othman as communications minister; Safwat al-Nahas as human development minister; Georgette Qilliny as immigration minister; and Samir Sayad as higher education minister.

Several ministers from the previous cabinet were maintained, however, including Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq; Industry and Trade Minister Samiha Fawzy; Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit; Justice Minister Mamdouh Marei; and Interior Minister Mahmoud Wagdy. The new minister of trade and investment, meanwhile, has yet to be announced.

On the same day, some 4000 demonstrators assembled in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to demand that the armed forces meet their outstanding demands. Rejecting the ministerial reshuffle, they called for the removal of the entire cabinet, including the current, Mubarak-appointed prime minister.

They also reiterated demands for an end of the Emergency Law, the release of all political prisoners, the dismantlement of the state’s Central Security (CS) apparatus, and the prosecution of all former officials found guilty of ordering violence against protesters during the uprising. Protest leaders, meanwhile, have called for a million-man demonstration in Tahrir Square on Friday, February 25, to restate their demands.

Also on Tuesday, February 22, an official source at the SCAF was quoted as saying that high-ranking CS officers would be replaced, but that the CS apparatus — which operates under the auspices of the interior ministry — would remain intact. Under Mubarak and dismissed interior minister Habib al-Adli, the main function of the CS apparatus had been to protect the regime by infiltrating and weaken opposition parties and movements.

The CS apparatus had also been used to purge state institutions, trade unions, and universities of elements seen as potentially hostile to the regime. CS forces are also accused by critics of the widespread use of torture in Egyptian prisons. Several protest movements have specifically demanded that the CS apparatus be abolished and its powers transferred to Egypt’s intelligence services.

Military dispositions

The profound shock to Egypt’s political status quo, along with the eruption of similar uprisings in other states of the region — including Bahrain and Libya — has been followed by significant military deployments in the region.

On February 17, the Associated Press quoted security officials as saying that Egyptian soldiers had been dispatched to protect a pipeline that runs across the northern Sinai Peninsula used to transport Egyptian natural gas to Israel. On February 5, at the height of the uprising, unknown assailants bombed a gas terminal in the area, briefly disrupting the flow of gas to Israel and Jordan.

On Tuesday, February 22, Egypt beefed up its military presence on its western border with Libya — especially around the Soloum border crossing — following the eruption of a massive popular uprising in that country. The Muammar Qaddafi regime has reportedly met the challenge to its authority with extreme ferocity, using African mercenaries and helicopter gun-ships to put down the rebellion.

Perhaps most significantly, also on Tuesday, February 22, two Iranian warships passed through Egypt’s Suez Canal from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean. The two ships, a naval frigate and a supply ship, reportedly entered the canal at 5:45am after receiving permission from Egypt’s military government.

The move represents the first time for Iranian naval vessels to pass through the Suez Canal since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, the same year in which Tehran severed official relations with Cairo. The ships are reportedly expected to pass along the Israeli coast on their way to take part in a planned training exercise with Syria, an Iranian ally. Israeli officials, meanwhile, have described the move as “a provocation.”

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Egyptian intifada: Notes on the Revolution

AIPAC Vetos U.N. Resolution on IsraHell Settlements-U.S. Casts the Actual Ballot



The 1600 Pound Gorilla

For those who have been asleep a la Rip van Winkle for the past twenty years, let us recap what has been going on in this country.


By Philip Giraldi

Last Friday’s American veto of the United Nations Security Council resolution that would have called Israeli settlement activity on the West Bank illegal was not only shameful, it was possibly the low point of the already foundering Obama presidency.  To be sure, United States UN Ambassador Susan Rice accompanied the veto with a stirring rendition of “I’ll cry tomorrow” as she described how the Obama White House really is opposed to the settlements.


It’s just that supporting or even abstaining on a resolution criticizing Israel, however mildly framed, might setback the peace process, which, as Rice well knows, died completely over six months ago.  But let’s not get hung up on the details.  Rice should have said instead that her boss in the White House is so afraid of the Israel Lobby that he has to ask permission when he goes to the bathroom.  At least that would have been completely credible, something you can believe in from an Administration that has otherwise delivered squat to the many voters who supported Obama in hopes that he might actually be interested in peace in our times.

And Obama has a lot to be afraid of, mostly from the old knife in the back trick from the Israel boosters in his own party.  “This is too clever by half,” said Representative Anthony Weiner.  “Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the UN.”  Representative Nita Lowey agreed, “Compromising our support for Israel at the UN is not an option.”

And over at the GOP side of the House, shortly before the veto, the new Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen criticized the resolution: “Support for this anti-Israel statement is a major concession to enemies of the Jewish State and other free democracies.  Offering to criticize our closest ally at the UN isn’t leadership, it’s unacceptable.”  Last Wednesday sixty-seven freshmen Republican House members sent a letter to their party’s leadership supporting full funding of aid to Israel.  The letter cited the lawmakers’ “recognition that the national security of the United States is directly tied to the strength and security of the State of Israel.”

Nice one, Anthony, Nita, Ileana and all those new congressmen who were elected because they promised to do some budget cutting, but I don’t detect anything about what the American national interest might be,

just a bit of nonsense about “support for Israel,” “our closest ally” and even more ridiculous bleating about how arming Israel makes America safer.  In fact, none of you even mentioned the United States.

Excuse me, I thought you dudes were serving in the US Congress, not the Knesset, but I might be wrong about that.

And lest anyone go wobbly on support of Israel there was the usual media claque screaming outrage because Rice had dared to criticize the settlements policy even though she was casting the veto.  Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post put it nicely “The US representative, while reluctantly casting a veto, joined the pack of jackals that seek to make Israel the culprit for all that ills (sic) the Middle East.”

The 1600 Pound Gorilla

For those who have been asleep a la Rip van Winkle for the past twenty years, let us recap what has been going on in this country.

There is an extremely dangerous domestic enemy out there, and it isn’t the naturalized Muslims that the redoubtable Congressman Peter King is investigating.  It is an organization that calls itself the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC.

AIPAC is the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington, by far.  It was founded in the 1950s with the support of the Israeli Foreign Ministry to create an organization that would lobby for sustained American financial, diplomatic, and military support of Israel, but, curiously, it has never been required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARA, which would require full public disclosure of finances – details of income and expenditures – as well as periodic reports on the nature of the relationship between the organization and the foreign government in question.

AIPAC is the focal point of the Israel Lobby in the United States.

On its website it describes itself as “America’s pro-Israel lobby.”  It is located in Washington DC but has branches nationwide, has a budget of $70 million a year, and has several hundred full time employees.  It hosts an annual conference, this year in May, which attracts 6000 supporters and is a required stop for politicians and civic leaders from both parties, all attending to pledge their support for Israel.  Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, and congressional leaders all have spoken at the AIPAC conference.  Hundreds of congressmen regularly attend its sessions.  During the past two years the conference was focused on the issue of Iran as a threat to Israel and the world.

AIPAC wants the United States to have only one true friend in the world and that friend will be Israel.  That means that uncritically supporting Israeli interests has sidelined American foreign policy objectives and led to at least one war, against Iraq, in which thousands of Americans and some hundreds of thousands of foreigners have died.

If AIPAC is successful in its desire to convince Washington to solve the Iran nuclear problem by force if necessary, it could lead to another war that almost certainly would have catastrophic global consequences.

The point of all this is that AIPAC is why the UN veto took place.  AIPAC and its friends (including the powerful Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which also pressured Obama to veto the resolution, own congress, the White House,and the mainstream media in its reporting on the Middle East. They are also powerful enough to set policy or overturn initiatives that they disapprove of.

AIPAC takes the Hill

AIPAC operates by forcing all American politicians at a national level to respond to various positions supported by the Israel Lobby.  Congressional candidates are carefully screened for their views on the Middle East and are coached to modify positions that are regarded as unacceptable.  Those who pass the test are then vetted on their degree of reliability and, if approved, become recipients of good press from AIPAC’s friends in the media and cash contributions from the numerous PACs that have been set up to support the pro-Israel agenda.

Once in office, the politicians are bombarded with AIPAC position papers, with visits from AIPAC representatives, and are expected to conform completely to the positions taken by the organization.  That is why resolutions in congress relating to Israel generally receive nearly unanimous approval no matter how frivolous or injurious to the US national interest.  AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen once bragged that he could get the signatures of seventy senators on a napkin if he chose to do so.

AIPAC’s influence over congress and the White House is such that the centerpiece policy of successive US administrations, the so-called peace process with the Palestinians, has been essentially fraudulent.  Even though it is undeniably in the US national interest to broker some kind of peace agreement, Washington has instead never failed to lean heavily towards the Israeli point of view.  The recent discussion of developments in Egypt has frequently been framed in terms of what it means for Israel even though the proper line of inquiry for the US media and politicians should be what does it mean for the United States.

Other instances of AIPAC supported policies that have damaged US interests have been the acceptance of occupations of and attacks on Lebanon, the acquiescence in the January 2009 bombing of Gaza, opposition to the Goldstone Report, and silence over last year’s Mavi Marmara incident in which a US citizen was killed.

By taking positions that are lopsided and ultimately untenable, Washington’s hypocrisy has been visible to the entire world and has rightfully done much to fuel mistrust of American policies in general.

Why do office seekers and congressmen put up with the pressure?  It is because they know that crossing AIPAC frequently means that the media will turn sour, funding will dry up, and a well resourced candidate will suddenly appear in opposition at the next election.  Ask congressmen Paul Findley and Pete McCloskey or Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy, all of whom were perceived as critics of Israel and all of whom were forced from office in exactly that fashion.

Opposing AIPAC can be a political death wish.

Even the appointment of senior government officials to positions that in any way deal with the Middle East is subject to the AIPAC veto.  The blackballing of the highly qualified and outspoken Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council was orchestrated by AIPAC and its friends in congress because Freeman had been critical of Israeli policies.  Candidates for Director of Central Intelligence and Director of National Intelligence regularly have their resumes examined to determine how they stand on the Middle East.

So if we Americans are ever to regain control over our destinies we have to start by removing the poison from our body politic.  A good start would be by first registering and then marginalizing AIPAC and any other organizations like it that represent pernicious foreign interests.

It would also be nice to send Weiner, Lowey, Ros-Lehtinen and the 67 GOP freshmen representatives who want to keep shoveling money to Israel packing in the next election.

And also Obama and Susan Rice since they don’t appear to know what country they live in.  We really don’t need their kind of hyphenated patriotism anymore and we certainly don’t need vetoes at the UN that demonstrate to everyone that we are a nation of amoral hypocrites.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 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, and his frequent media appearances include 60 Minutes, al-Jazeera TV, National Public Radio, and the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Related article

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on AIPAC Vetos U.N. Resolution on IsraHell Settlements-U.S. Casts the Actual Ballot

Zionist Interests


The Piper Report Feb 25, 2011



MCP returns to discuss the present pitfalls in the so-called ‘white nationalist’ movement and its apparent inability to recognize how it is being used to promote Zionist interests.



Download Here

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Interests

Shoah’s pages


February 2011
« Jan   Mar »