Archive | March 1st, 2012

IsraHelli Officials: Let’s Starve Iranian Civilians


Officials Figure Starving Iranians Would Probably Impose Regime Change

by Jason Ditz

Hot on the heels of the US “food for nukes” deal with North Korea, officials in the Israeli government are calling for mass starvation to be imposed on Iran as a way of forcing regime change and abandonment of the nation’s civilian nuclear program.

“Suffocating sanctions could lead to a grave economic situation in Iran and to a shortage of food,” one of the officials claimed. Though thanks to inflation the price of food is rising and causing hardships for average Iranians, it isn’t clear how officials propose to force a famine on the nation.

Unlike North Korea, with its backwards, state-run agricultural industry, Iran is actually a net food exporter, and while more sanctions could make the industry less efficient and perhaps curb exports, it would not make the food Iran does grow disappear into thin air.

The comments suggest that Israel is growing impatient with the ongoing sanctions against Iran, and is looking for something that will be a “game changer” that finally forces regime change or at least spawns an international objection that can be used as an excuse for a unilateral attack. The idea that a suddenly starving populace is going to overthrow its government on behalf of those that are starving them, however, seems to fly in the face of the history of sanctions.

Posted in IranComments Off on IsraHelli Officials: Let’s Starve Iranian Civilians

Anti-Iranian Sanctions Backfire


When Western Nations Begin To Believe Their Own Propaganda Elementary Principles of Supply and Demand Get Overlooked.

by Joshua Blakeney



A Canadian journalist, addressing the latest threats of sanctions against Iran’s oil sector, says that the United States and some European nations seem to be ‘ignorant of the basic principles of supply and demand.’

Press TV has interviewed writer and journalist, Joshua Blakeney, on his view on the recent hike in fuel prices.

Below is an approximate transcription of the interview:


Brent Budowsky, a columnist at The Hill Newspaper in Washington, Manouchehr Takin, with the Centre for Global Energy Studies from London and Joshua Blakeney, graduate student at the University of Lethbridge from Calgary, Alberta Discuss the Sanctions on Iran in Relation to the Politics and Economics of Big Oil on Press TV

Press TV: The US has said that in order to stop the possibility of Iran militarizing its nuclear program, sanctions need to be imposed and hence has asked both Europe and China to readjust their oil purchases, amongst some of the countries. Is that logical asking them in essence to embargo themselves?

Blakeney: No, it’s ridiculous and ludicrous. I mean these nations [the US and EU] are constantly championing and extolling the virtues of free-market capitalist economics. These governments in Europe and the United States seem astoundedly ignorant of the basic principles of supply and demand.

There’s a huge demand for Iranian oil and when the US and Europe decide to act in such a hostile way against their national interests and impose sanctions against Iran, Iran will just circumvent them and sell their oil to other consumers on the market.

China is still trading with Iran. India is willing to purchase Iranian oil and even more peripheral countries like Tajikistan are now purchasing Iranian oil. The days where the United States and European countries can push around the indigenous people of Middle East are over.

As I have said on your show previously, we’re living in a multi-polar world, not a uni-polar world now, which I think is really a good thing. We are seeing this expressing itself in Iran’s ability to weather the sanctions being imposed on it.

Vitol, the world’s most significant oil trader has warned of the negative impartations for Western oil companies over these crazed Middle East policies which, as we know, is emerging from the Israeli hard-right. In the 1980’s the Likud Party in Israel formulated the Sharon Doctrine of destabilizing the Middle East, which was a tectonic shift from the traditional U.S. Middle East policy of propping up Middle East leaders and purchasing their oil.

So this destabilization policy, that we are seeing in Syria, is not working with Iran, because Iran is able to defend itself, and is able to stand up to those global hegemons and trade with other countries.

Indeed the EU sanctions were only supposed to be instigated or initiated from July 1, 2012. Yet, Iran says it is not going to trade with 6 EU nation states, so if anything, it’s Iran who is upping the ante, because Iran knows that actually they don’t need to be bossed around anymore by the European states and the US.

It’s interesting that you should mention the quality of oil, because I’m here in Calgary where there’s very dirty Tar Sands Oil, and we’re beginning to see the US shift from purchasing cleaner crude oil to these dirty Tar Sands. Interestingly, in Canada many pro-Israel lobbyists are highly supportive of this project which is environmentally detrimental, because they want to see the US not be reliant on Middle East oil, and Europeans not to be reliant on Middle East oil, and instead purchase this dirty oil from Canada. So this is the reality of the day and I am quite pleased to see that Iran is able to weather this storm.

Ezra Levant has been portraying Canadian Tar Sands oil as “Ethical Oil”, arguing that Middle Eastern crude oil is less ethical to purchase. Levant is a staunch supporter of Israel, a nation that would benefit considerably if the U.S. were to import less Middle East oil and more environmentally unsafe Canadian oil

Press TV: Mr. Takin talked about how the market should be the one to be dictating the amount of oil that each country needs. So when I asked him about the winners and losers, he said it was the average people, the consumers, whether in the US or the European countries that are the losers, because they are the ones that are paying the high prices.

Why is it then that the US led the sanctions, which started this leading to Iran’s decision? Do you think that that was a right move in a sense, or as a political tool in order for them to have this exerted on Iran in terms of what they deem the militarization of its nuclear program?

Blakeney: It’s completely irrational. If the US government or British government or European governments were actually interested in their people, they would obviously want to do commercial dealings with Iran. They would have no interest in being hostile towards a prominent country in the world like Iran. But I think it’s important what the other guest mentioned, about the OPEC oil embargo in 1973. This was an important historical event that we have to understand in order to understand what is going on today.

In 1973, the Arab states and the Persian state were able to show the world that they were able to actually have some sway over the US government and this was of course in relation to Israel and the Yom Kippur war at that time. I think that what happened in 1973, was a rude awakening for the Israeli government, and I think since then we’ve seen a policy where Israel has tried to do their very best to de-fund Middle East regimes and weaken and take funds away from Middle East governments so they don’t have the ability to be emboldened and stand up for themselves.

This is highly ironic

So I think, as your guest suggested, this is actually jeopardizing US oil interests significantly, and US oil companies are increasingly upset with what their government is doing which does lead us to the Israeli elephant in the room. The pro-Israeli lobby has been lobbying for a policy for the last 20 or 30 years, which actually runs against the traditional US-Middle East interests. Suncor, a prominent oil company based here in Calgary just withdrew from Syria. How is this destabilization of the Middle East benefiting oil companies? Clearly, it is not.

Norway’s state-owned oil company offers an example of a rational approach to distributing oil revenues. Norway’s state interventionism differs considerably from the imperialist state interventionism of the U.S. and E.U. towards Iranian oil markets

So I think that we can’t really understand what’s going on in terms of the oil market, unless we understand that this is not actually being motivated by oil companies primarily. This is primarily being motivated by crazed ethnic-nationalist state in the Middle East that is acting like any nationalist ethnic state in a highly irrational and unenlightened manner and I think that’s where politics meets economics. I am not myself a champion of free-market economics, I am for state-owned oil companies. But certainly, this is running against the traditional policy that these governments nominally support, which is free-market economics. This is state intervention in the market, which is quite ironic when we have the whole Cold War of the US telling us that the government is the problem and free-market capitalism is the most optimum way to run economic affairs in the world. This is highly ironic.

Posted in IranComments Off on Anti-Iranian Sanctions Backfire

The Pharisees of the Vatican


When asked by His disciples why He had grave concerns about the Pharisees, Jesus said,  “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.  And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”


by  Paul V. Sheridan

No experience creates more emotional, social, political and cultural scars than the moment that betrayal is manifest and realized by the trusting. 

Betrayal has implications that range from the individual to the whole of humanity; from the past through the present and well into our future. 

Here the betrayal is of a scope and source that some least expect: the Vatican.  It is said that this anguish reaches Heaven itself. 

Personally I am convinced that the brethren that darkened the skies over Golgotha are the same source of the ongoing betrayal against the Mother of God.

By virtue of denying Her simple request of 1917, the human world is falling into a dark ditch.

The Children of Fatima

Picture the following: It’s 1917 in the grassy countryside of Portugal, a perfect place to herd sheep.  In this location there are no telephones or televisions.  Al Gore has not yet invented the internet. His Penn State colleague Michael Mann has not deleted the Middle Ages.  New York Governor Martin Glynn has not yet writtenhis 1919 propaganda about “six million” and the “holocaust.”

The world media has not blatantly lied about who committed the massacre at Katyn.  Google has not yet decided what singly constitutes an “Offensive Search.”  Wikipedia is not dictating what is “true” for “free.” George W. Bush has not announced a “New World Order” to the United Nations.   Instead, we are viewing the rustic life of a simple people; physically and socially disconnected from the world scene.

The Children of Fatima

While the world was enjoying the “war to end all wars,” three children are herding sheep in the middle of proverbial nowhere; an area typified by bare feet and muddy roads.

To truly grasp what occurred at Fatima, it is essential that we not project our current state of affairs or our instant access realm onto this 1917 scene.

Nor should we project the current alleged “morality” onto children who came into the world through families of minimal means and simple knowing.

Avoiding projectionism will allow us to accurately fathom how three sub-teenage children announced details that spanned both earthly distance and earthly time; details that spanned 3000 miles away to the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics, and to the nightmares of a Pope in our time frame.

It is documented that these details came to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia during repeated apparitional visitations by Our Lady, the Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.  The visitations occurred at a small holm oak tree, on the thirteenth of each month, beginning in May and continuing until October 1917.

The sixth visit of October 13 included the “Miracle of the Sun,” an event that was promised to the children, announced by them in-advance, but derided by the elders of Fatima.  Ignoring official censorship and threats, the sleepy enclave of Cova da Iria became the scene of a pilgrimage of 70,000 people on that cold rainy October day.

Diabolical Disorientation

The phrase “diabolical disorientation” is not one you expect from the minds and lips of children.  Although censored by the Vatican until the 1960s, this phrase was discussed by Mary as part of “The Third Part of the Secret.”

But what is diabolical disorientation? And how is it relevant to betrayal against the Mother of God and denial of Her simple request?  Father Nicholas Gruner states:

“Diabolical disorientation is when a person is disoriented by various tricks of the devil. These diabolical tricks are not simply a kind of possession portrayed on television and in the movies. The devil, the purveyor of diabolical disorientation, manages often to give the targeted person a perception quite different from reality and yet the person so diabolically disoriented is convinced what he thinks is the truth when it is actually a lie. 

The devil disorients individuals by making them think that because of their wealth and successes, they are being blessed by God, when, at the same time, they are committing sin, cheating and lying, and are hurling themselves headlong into hell. Even worse than diabolical disorientation of an individual, is the disorientation of a whole society, which insults and ignores God and His Mother . . .

The diabolical disorientation we are talking about here is the disorientation of Catholics who think they are serving God, but embrace beliefs and practices which are gravely contrary to what the Church always taught and practiced. This disorientation has been produced in individuals and in large segments of the Catholic population, by the devil.”


Father Gruner was being very specific when he referred to “God and his Mother.”  That specificity properly orients us to the events of 1917 and the lives of three Portuguese children at Fatima: Jacinta Marto (age 7), Lucia dos Santos (age 10), and Francisco Marto (age 9):

Pragmatically, it is essential to recognize the earthly manifestation and everyday routine of diabolical disorientation, and how it led to a betrayal by the Vatican against the faith of its people.  It is imperative that we expose the human origin of this routine.

We should also assess if forewarnings of consequences existed but have gone unheeded.  We must know if the forewarning identified who would execute a plot to cause “the disorientation of Catholics who think they are serving God.”

The Diabolical Disorientation of the Church

If we speak of moral decay, ethical breaches, unbridled crime, and open defiance and sin against Heaven; would it be unreasonable to assume that we are speaking about selected whackos that comprise global leadership?  Those who share tents in the nude during the Cremation of Care at the Bohemian Grove?

Alternatively, based merely on what we can prove, would it be unreasonable to assume, but with deep forlorn, that we are also speaking of the Vatican?  Enter Ms. Bella Dodd.

In the 1930’s the Soviet Union had concluded that the only real threat to their plan for global governance, their ‘New World Order,’ was not the Church per se, but the faith of those who belong to the Church.  Destruction of the Church was the route chosen by the Bolsheviks to destroy the essence of their opponent: The faith of people in God and his Mother. You must keep this satanic operational distinction foremost.

Dodd served as a high ranking official and as legal counsel to the Communist Party of the United States.  She testified at the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s:

“In the 1930′s we (Communists) put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within . . . Right now they are in the highest places in the Church . . . you will not recognize the Catholic Church.”

Later Ms. Dodd began lecturing on university campuses regarding the details of the Bolshevik disorientation of the Church.  A Christian monk recounts her lecture in the November 2000 Christian Order magazine:

The Infamous Bella Dodd

“I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet.

She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.

The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.

Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries.

This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.”

But the term ‘diabolical disorientation’ defined above by Father Gruner, a term that originated in 1917 Fatima, focused on a crucial issue: Russia.

From Russia with Love

To grasp our current situation in the so-called West, we must go east to the 1917 era of Russia.  We must go back to the deeds of Jacob Schiff, Theodor Herzl and their many protégé.

Time catches up with Trotsky

A psycho named Leyba Davidovich Bronstein (aka Leon Trotsky) is quoted in The Nature of Zionism by Vladimir Stepin:

“We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of.  

The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny.  It will be a red tyranny and not a white one.

We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars quake and pale by comparison.

The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us.  

If we win the revolution, we shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution’s funeral, and we shall become a power before which the whole world will sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is.  By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence!”

Evidence of the source of diabolical disorientation is also witnessed in the godless life of another psycho. Vladimir Ulyanov (aka Vladimir Lenin) was brethren-to and a full-collaborator with Bronstein.  The genuine holocaust exacted by Lenin correlates to forewarning provided by the Virgin Mary to the children of Fatima; a forewarning about “Russia spreading her errors.”

As we shall see, the ponerology of Lenin also connects to the truth about the nightmare of Pope Pius X (but not to Pharisaic diversions about “assassination attempts”).


The Simple Request: A Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart

The downfall of Christian Czarist Russia, its destruction-by and conversion-to an atheistic globalist, elitist, communist sewer was the focus of a simple request made by the Mother of God.  This happened decades before the testimony of Bella Dodd.  According to Lucia, Our Lady declared on July 13, 1917:

“You have seen Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wants to establish throughout the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If people will do what I tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace.

The war is going to end. But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse war will break out in the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God gives you, that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.

To forestall this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If they heed My requests, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace.

If not, she shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecutions of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated; in the end, My Immaculate Heart shall triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and some time of peace will be given to the world.”

Not only has the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s immaculate heart NOT occurred, per Her specific instruction, but the Church has fallen into a “torrent of lies” about their defiance.  In the following video we also find a truthful discussion regarding the nightmares of Pope Pius X:



The Nightmare of a Pope Made-Manifest

The explanation of the Vatican refusal to discuss the whole truth of the Third Secret correlates to its defiance of the Holy Mother: Her request to openly, officially and specifically consecrate Russia to Her immaculate heart.  Again, it is essential to recognize the earthly manifestation and expose the human origins of diabolical disorientation.  Specifically, is there plain evidence that the Church has been infiltrated and corrupted by modern-day Pharisees?

Characteristically, there is overwhelming evidence that the Vatican has consecrated everything BUT Russia!  A few examples:

1.  Man-Made Global Warming:   Or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) per their misnomer. Despite overwhelming evidence that there is no connection whatsoever between the atmospheric fertilizer carbon dioxide and global climate, the Vatican openly declared that human activity is the cause of a coming climate holocaust.  In their worship of the Green Dragon, Church sycophants now espouse an all-powerful global entity to police your “carbon footprint.”  Brethren such as Stanford University Professor Stephen Schneider,Cornell University President David Skorton, Dr. Peter Gleick of ClimateGLEICK, and NASA psycho James “Death Train” Hansen, among many others, would be proud.

2.  The New World Order:   Asserting the dogma of Marx, Bronstein and Lenin, the Vatican has openly endorsed a one-world government; a Bolshevik-styled New World Order.  The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), The Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bohemian Grove and many others would be proud.

3.  The “Big Bang” Theory:   In the movie The Usual Suspects, the lead role of Verbal Kint (aka Keyser Söze) declares,

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

In this instance we have the reverse!  The spiritual weakness of the Vatican has allowed the controlled media to ostensibly declare that the Church agrees with the conclusion of the Big Bangers: Now God doesn’t exist!  (For review see the Big Media and The Long March Through the Vatican section of my earlier piece “The New March to a New Cosmology.”)  The brethren of Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Phil Pleit and many others are rejoicing in the conversion of the Church to atheism.

4.  The World Bank:   This proclamation, that the world must grovel at the feet of a World Bank confirms, beyond any other evidence, that the Vatican is in deep crisis.  Noting the quote above from the Bolshevik psycho Bronstein:

The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us.”

Bronstein was correct.  But the Vatican proclamation supporting global financial terrorism; that is, the global scheme of the Moneychangers, goes far beyond merely capitulating to its avowed Bolshevik enemy.  This goes straight to the Man of Sorrows, directly to the Son of Our Lady, to Jesus Christ Himself.

The modern day Pharisees who have “destroy(ed) the Church from within,” the Pharisees who have now overrun America and the West have exacted revenge against His cleansing at the Pharisaic Temple of the Moneychangers.  The Rothschilds, Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, Lloyd Blankfein, Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulsen, and assorted zombies of the Federal Reserve System are celebrating the reduction of the Vatican to the equivalent of  “Area C.”

During the time that Mary spoke to the children of Fatima, a Godless horde funded by moneychangers fulfilled the dreams of Trotsky to “reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence!”  It is clear that the genuine holocaust that befell Russia is the template for what may overtake that Vatican itself.  It was this true possibility that was depicted in the nightmare of Pope Pius X.

Personal Observation #1: Germany NOT the Issue

In my reading of de Marchi’s “The True Story of Fatima” and much more, I am confronted with a blatant historical fact.  Nations such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, and of course Russia are continually stressed by Our Lady.  Even the “annihilation of entire nations” is discussed.

But never, by direct naming or otherwise, is Germany an issue for the Lady; let-alone an issue of foreboding.  Apparently even the self-absorbed, overly confident General George Patton arrived at a similar confrontation:

I have a personal but highly studied opinion regarding why Our Lady of Fatima never forewarns the world regarding Germany; and I can assure you this opinion is not based on “education.”  The reason becomes obvious to those who understand that Germany was anything but atheistic.  A comparative review of the prevailing attitudes, can be found in the artwork of  “The Two Austrians.”

Personal Observation #2: Was Our Lady Late?

Most people think they know what time it is.  But similar to the officials of Fatima, that thought is superficial.

The day and time in-question is what Bishop Sheen referred to as “the birthday of the modern world.”  October 13, 1917 comprised the sixth apparition, and the Miracle of the Sun.  The children of Fatima had declared prior that Our Lady would arrive at “twelve noon.”  But when “twelve noon” appeared on the time pieces of the officials, Our Lady had not yet arrived.  Immediately the officials pounced, accusing the children of fraud and hoax.  Acts of violence were even attempted against the children.

But as history and eye witnesses prove, the Lady did in-fact arrive at Fatima on that fateful day.  And despite the knuckle-dragging ignorance of Portuguese officialdom, She was right on time.

The study of astronomy, cosmology and astrology provide perspective of physical planetary orientation that is not stuck in a “time zone.”  The timepieces, in possession of the well-off on October 13, 1917, read approximately 12:33 PM when the children of Fatima announced Her arrival.

Consistent with the previous five visits, Our Lady was only visible to the children.  So, was She late?  Not a chance.  As She had previously promised, Our Lady arrived at exactly twelve-noon.  But it was not “twelve noon” based on a pragmatic and arbitrary stake-in-the-ground in Greenwich, England.  She arrived at twelve-noon solar time.

Personal Observation #3: Diabolical Disorientation and 9/11

In 1917, Islam had not yet invented paper passports that are virtually indestructible.  But that lunacy has been promoted by the highest levels of Western government, the controlled media and, the most grotesque of all, big academia.   The fairy tales of 9/11 is further confirmation that the world has been overrun by diabolical disorientation.

What else can explain humanity swallowing the psychopathic sputum from former White House mythmakerPhilip Zelikow and his lacky Susan Ginsburg, regarding the crash of  “American Airlines Flight 11” and a 10,000 gallon fireball on the morning of 9/11?

What else can explain their notion that somehow, despite the fact that hundreds-of-thousands of tons of concrete and steel (that comprised one of the strongest buildings ever constructed) collapsed into pulverized dust, a measly paper passport of “Islamic hijacker” Satam al Suqami survived?!

Not only have ‘the whackos that comprise global leadership’ affirmed this sputum, but their Department of Justice lawyers entered this passport as evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20thhijacker.  Not only did the DOJ lawyers, the trial judge and defense attorneys swallow this sputum, so did the convicting jury in Chicago!

The following is sworn testimonial dribble that was accepted as truth by the commisioners at the 9/11 Commission hearing of Monday, January 26, 2004:

Philip Zelikow: “Members of the Commission, working with you we (Zelikow’s staff) have developed initial findings on how the individuals who carried out the 9/11 attacks entered the US . . . terrorists of certain nationalities must obtain a document permitting them to visit, a visa.  Finally, the terrorist must actually enter the country and keep from getting detained or deported by immigration or other law enforcement officials.  Susan Ginsburg, senior counsel to the Commission will begin by examining how the hijackers navigated these stages.”

Susan Ginsburg: “Beginning with passports. Four of the hijacker’s passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed . . . ”

Further Reading/Review

For a comprehensive read on Our Lady of Fatima I recommend, The True Story of Fatima by Father John de Marchi.  I am enamored with Chapters IX and X which discuss The Miracle of the Sun, especially the media coverage.  I also recommend complete viewing of the 1954 television program by Bishop Fulton Sheen: Part 1Part 2,  and Part 3 .

Personal Conclusion

On his 1954 television program, “Our Lady of Fatima,” Bishop Sheen admonishes with forlorn:

“The Second World War need not have come.  It was unnecessary.  Wars are not just made by politics.  Wars are crisis in judgments that come upon us because of the way we live!

In reality, “the way we live,” and the wars it has caused, has been dictated by the modern-day Moneychanger.  Just about everything we were told about World War I were lies.  Just about all of the details and gross facts about World War II were lies.

Even the revisionist promotion that Germany was godless and declared war on the world is rubbish.  Just about everything we were told about September 11, 2001, and the subsequent murdering of innocent human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan, were lies.

Currently we cannot find any truth supporting the war drums beaten by the modern-day Pharisees who promote the madness that millions of innocent people now need to be murdered in “Persia.”

But all of this is merely symptomatic to what was presented by the Lady of Peace to three sheep herding children in the hills of 1917 Fatima, Portugal.

We cannot overestimate the crisis at hand.  We must not be misdirected from its true source.  The brethren to those that darkened the skies over Golgotha, those that declared “Give us Barrabus!” are with us today.

Characteristic of Hell’s gala, the modern-day Pharisees openly declare that they are the source of the diabolical disorientation afflicted upon the Vatican.  This affliction has caused the Church to abandon and betray the faith of the people and, as a result, abdicate its influence with the Heavenly Father.

Our Lady of Fatima is the only one that can and will halt “Russia spreading her errors.”   The true source of defiance against Her simple request, that Russia be openly consecrated to Her immaculate heart, are the Pharisees of the Vatican.


Posted in EducationComments Off on The Pharisees of the Vatican

Pakistan Frees US Embassy Employee After Bullets Found in Luggage


Is US Foreign Policy that hard to sell that their “diplomats” need weapons to persuade or enforce it?

by Debbie Menon

Consulate car leaves a Peshawar police station carrying the US embassy employee. Photograph: Mohammmad Sajjad/AP

The CIA has a multitude of Ray Davises on the books and in the closets, and as long as they are not caught with smoking guns in hand and dead Pakistanis at their feet, they are impervious to and immune from Law of any sort except their own.

“A US embassy employee was released after being held for questioning in Pakistan on Tuesday when airport security officials discovered bullets in his luggage. The American was about to fly from the city of Peshawar to the capital Islamabad when he was taken into police custody, Tahir Ayub, a senior police superintendent, said.

There is a subtle question here which rises when you ponder, just what kind of “diplomacy” it is that the USA is engaging in which requires that US Diplomatic Officers, those who qualify for “Diplomatic Immunity,”  to carry arms such as this man and Ray Davis did?

Is US Foreign Policy that hard to sell that their “diplomats” need weapons to persuade or enforce it?

I would think that this might be something which the American public might not know about, and perhaps ought to know about.

Things like this used to be regarded as “News.”

Pakistan would do well to take a lesson from Egypt and apply Pakistani law to lawbreakers in Pakistan and clean house.

Either that, or refuse to grant “Diplomatic Immunity” to men who carry guns. “A true Diplomat” has no need or use for a gun, by definition of the term.

They might ask themselves what would happen to a Pakistani “Diplomat” or a Pakistani hit man, if he were discovered with a pistol and ammunition in New York or Washington, DC?

It is not wise to grant legal immunity to assassins and allow them to run rampant and unimpeded in your own country.  They tend to blow up things!

There is little doubt that Seal Team Six could not have done the bin Laden hit (or whomever it was who took those bullets) without the Intel and oversight of men like Ray who were on the ground, feeding information and setting the scene…. I do not necessarily mean to imply that it was they who have actually been dong it (they have to maintain deniability in the actual hands on operations… that is where Ray screwed up and had to shoot his way out of a situation which got beyond his control and went bad), but who provides the logistic, motivation and support, as well as the target lists… those who arrange, plan, pay and make things happen behind the BANG of these “suicide and car bombs”  throughout Pakistan and the Middle East. .

That is the business of Ray Davis and those “diplomats” who carry guns, money and explosive materials.

Pakistan frees US Embassy employee after bullets found in luggage

American released in Peshawar after being questioned following discovery of bullets by airport security staff.

A police officer gestures toward a vehicle carrying an American national who was held for questioning in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Tuesday.


PESHAWAR, Pakistan  — A U.S. Embassy employee was released after being held for questioning in Pakistan on Tuesday when airport security officials discovered bullets in his luggage, police said.

The American was about to to fly from the northwestern city of Peshawar to the capital Islamabad when he was taken into custody, said Tahir Ayub, a senior police superintendent.

He was released after four hours when officials from the U.S. consulate in Peshawar produced documents to show the man worked at the consulate.

“We have been directed to release him as he had diplomatic immunity,” Ayub told NBC News.

“He’s been released to the consulate,” a U.S. official in Islamabad said. “He’s at the consulate now.”

The American is an embassy employee usually based in Islamabad but was temporarily assigned to the Peshawar consulate, the official said.

‘Diplomatic status’

Police officers had earlier said they would hold the man until his identity had been verified by the foreign office in Islamabad and a U.S. official in the capital had said the embassy was looking into the details of the reports.

“He has diplomatic status,” the official said. “We’re in contact with Pakistani authorities on the details on the case.”

Ayub said a pistol and 12 magazine rounds had been recovered from the man’s luggage.

However, police officer Dost Mohammad Khan told The Associated Press that 13 bullets were found in the man’s luggage ahead of a flight to Islamabad. It was not clear why the bullets were there.

Raymond Davis CIA Contractor held in custody for murder and later released after a “blood money” deal was made with the families of the two victims.

The detention was likely to revive memories of Raymond Davis, an American CIA contractor who shot and killed two Pakistanis in the eastern city of Lahore in January 2011.

A third Pakistani died when he was hit by an embassy vehicle racing to extract Davis from the scene where an angry mob had gathered.

Compensation payment

After initial confusion, the U.S. embassy in Islamabad said Davis had diplomatic immunity, which Pakistan refused to recognize. Davis spent almost two months in jail before being released after the payment of compensation to the families of the two men killed.

The incident was a major blow to the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror.

Ties were just beginning to thaw when U.S. commandos killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town on May 2 in a secret raid which infuriated Islamabad.

The unilateral American raid that killed bin Laden led to a fresh wave of suspicion against Western diplomats by the Pakistani security establishment, which was apparently stung by the realization that the CIA agents were operating in the country without its knowledge.

NBC News’ Mushtaq Yusufzai, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Other sources:

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan Frees US Embassy Employee After Bullets Found in Luggage

It’s All About Crushing Egypt’s Revolution, Mr. Friedman


“On the Egyptian military’s priority list, nothing comes before crushing the revolution, not even the USA and its $1.3 billion annual aid.

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

 “Egypt’s Step Backward is Mr. Thomas Friedman’s latest pieces on post-Mubarak Egypt.  Published in the New York Times on Feb. 21, Mr. Friedman gives his precise perspective on the current political scene in Egypt, but I wished he had scratched the surface harder and digged deeper.

Mubarak’s era, as brutal and autocratic as it has been, was much easier to read and predict than this foggy and volatile transitional period the Egyptians are currently enduring through. Therefore, I would like to throw in few clarifications on the discussed issue, as a native observer of Egypt’s political street.

This whole soap opera about Egypt NGOs and the crackdown on pro-democracy workers, including American and European staffers is but a clever move in a long series of actions in a cunning scheme to counteract the revolutionary tide on the Egyptian street and save the day for a faltering regime.

It has nothing to do with the absurd allegations of a foreign agenda playing out in Tahrir square“Mossad & CIA steering the Egyptian revolution” that the Egyptian state media and regrettably some of the foreign media have been raving about.

Those allegations, while being carelessly peddled and obscenely detached from reality, are so insulting to the struggle of pro-democracy activists and to the lives that were sacrificed during the past year.

What Mr. Friedman didn’t mention, though I’m sure he is aware of, is the fact that Egypt was, and still is, a police state.

Over the last 4 decades the infamous state police apparatus has swelled and mushroomed, due to an exceedingly overdose of totalitarianism and corruption, into something more powerful than politicians, the judiciary system and even the army.

The mighty security apparatus had the power to oversee all of the country’s internal affairs except, of course, for the military’s economic empire.

Any enterprise, local or foreign, once flagged by the apparatus for any fake security concerns, which was often the case, its operations were immediately put to a halt and the people behind it somehow pursued with well knit legal traps.

Maybe Mubarak has been ousted but the president was not the regime, the state military/police apparatus is.

Fayza Abul Naga, Egypt’s minister of planning and international cooperation

As much as I can understand why Mr. Friedman is picking on Egypt’s minister of planning and international cooperation, Fayza Abul Naga, whose testimony against democracy workers has bolstered the fake case before the Supreme Court, but I’m afraid there’s a lot more to this than the buried grudge of this old Mubarak’s loyalist.

Abul Naga is just a pawn in this post-Mubarak political game, she didn’t file the case against democracy workers on her own account. She was told to frame the US for the illegal funding of pro-democracy organizations and for sustaining the state of chaos in the country as well. she was told to stick Israel and the US in the testimony to make it look like a case of foreign meddling in the Egyptian sovereignty.

After a year of endless and deadly confrontations with  pro-democracy protesters the police have reached this conclusion “ the only way to stop protesters from going back to Tahrir square is to do away, once and for all, with the pro-democracy activists, no matter who they are, Egyptians or even foreigners, and no matter what kind of strings are attached”

With Mohamed El-Baradei out of the way, the presidential race has narrowed down to a number of candidates/puppets who are likely to do business with the military behind closed doors. And those who remain loyal to the revolution and defiant to the military/police authority are currently being bullied by the state security thugs (not the CIA/Mossad agents)

As the military/state security commanders are bracing for the final battle of reinstating and securing the old regime nothing comes, on their priority list, before crushing the revolution, not even the USA and its $1.3 billion annual aid which the top brass know damn well that it is nothing more than a concealed bribe for playing friends with Tel Aviv. And therefore they are not really worried over the American threats to withhold aid payment.

This is not about national Egyptian dignity nor the American/Egyptian relations, this is all about saving the sinking ship of Egypt’s oligarchs, Mr. Friedman.

Egypt’s Step Backward
By Thomas L. Friedman

SADLY, the transitional government in Egypt today appears determined to shoot itself in both feet. On Sunday, it will put on trial 43 people, including at least 16 American citizens, for allegedly bringing unregistered funds into Egypt to promote democracy without a license.

Egypt has every right to control international organizations operating within its borders.

But the truth is that when these democracy groups filed their registration papers years ago under the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak, they were informed that the papers were in order and that approval was pending.

The fact that now — after Mubarak has been deposed by a revolution — these groups are being threatened with jail terms for promoting democracy without a license is a disturbing sign. It tells you how incomplete the “revolution” in Egypt has been and how vigorously the counter-revolutionary forces are fighting back.

This sordid business makes one weep and wonder how Egypt will ever turn the corner. Egypt is running out of foreign reserves, its currency is falling, inflation is rising and unemployment is rampant.

Yet the priority of a few retrograde Mubarak holdovers is to put on trial staffers from the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which are allied with the two main United States political parties, as well as from Freedom House and some European groups.

Their crime was trying to teach Egypt’s young democrats how to monitor elections and start parties to engage in the democratic processes that the Egyptian army set up after Mubarak’s fall. Thousands of Egyptians had participated in their seminars in recent years.

What is this really about? This case has been trumped up by Egypt’s Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Fayza Abul Naga, an old Mubarak crony.

Abul Naga personifies the worst tendency in Egypt over the last 50 years — the tendency that helps to explain why Egypt has fallen so far behind its peers: South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, India and China.

It is the tendency to look for dignity in all the wrong places — to look for dignity not by building up the capacity of Egypt’s talented young people so they can thrive in the 21st century — with better schools, better institutions, export industries and more accountable government.

No, it is the tendency to go for dignity on the cheap “by standing up to the foreigners”.  That is Fayza’s game.

As a former Mubarak adviser put it to me: “Abul Naga is where she is today because for six years she was resisting the economic and political reforms” in alliance with the military. “Both she and the military were against opening up the Egyptian economy.”

Both she and the military, having opposed the revolution, are now looking to save themselves by playing the nationalist card.

Egypt today has only two predators: poverty and illiteracy. After 30 years of Mubarak rule and some US$50 billion (RM300 billion) in US aid, 33 per cent of men and 56 per cent of women in Egypt still can’t read or write.

That is a travesty. But that apparently does not keep Fayza up at night.

What is her priority? Is it to end illiteracy? Is it to articulate a new vision about how Egypt can engage with the world and thrive in the 21st century? Is it to create a positive climate for foreign investors to create jobs desperately needed by young Egyptians?

No, it’s to fall back on that golden oldie — that all of Egypt’s problems are the fault of outsiders who want to destabilise Egypt.

So let’s jail some Western democracy consultants. That will restore Egypt’s dignity.

The New York Times reported from Cairo that the prosecutor’s dossier assembled against the democracy workers — bolstered by Fayza’s testimony — accused these democracy groups of working “in coordination with the CIA,” serving “US and Israeli interests” and inciting “religious tensions between Muslims and Copts”.

Their goal, according to the dossier, was: “Bringing down the ruling regime in Egypt, no matter what it is”, while “pandering to the US Congress, Jewish lobbyists and American public opinion”.

Amazing. What Fayza is saying to all those young Egyptians who marched, protested and died in Tahrir Square in order to gain a voice in their own future is: “You were just the instruments of the CIA, the US Congress, Israel and the Jewish lobby. They are the real forces behind the Egyptian revolution — not brave Egyptians with a will of their own.”

Not surprisingly, some members of the US Congress are talking about cutting off the US$1.3 billion in aid the US gives Egypt’s army if these Americans are thrown in prison. Hold off on that.

We have to be patient and see this for what, one hopes, it really is: Fayza’s last dance.

It is elements of the old regime playing the last cards they have to both undermine the true democratic forces in Egypt and to save themselves by posing as protectors of Egypt’s honour.

Egyptians deserve better than this crowd, which is squandering Egypt’s dwindling resources at a critical time and diverting attention from the real challenge facing the country: giving Egypt’s young people what they so clearly hunger for — a real voice in their own future and the educational tools they need to succeed in the modern world.

That’s where lasting dignity comes from. NYT

Posted in EgyptComments Off on It’s All About Crushing Egypt’s Revolution, Mr. Friedman

Americans Changing Attitude Toward Guns


Many First Time Buyers are Women

By Michael Chester

While gun ownership continues to be a political hot button issue, one trend is clear. The number of Americans who own guns has continued to rise. 2011 saw a dramatic rise in gun sales and, so far, 2012 appears to be an even better year for the manufacturers.

In January 2012, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) numbers showed an increase of 17.3 percent in gun purchase related checks compared to the same time period the previous year. January marks 20 straight months of increased NICS report requests. While background checks don’t automatically turn into purchases, it is unlikely that many people would go through the trouble and expense of getting a background check and then not make a purchase.

The Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) held in Las Vegas in January, reached a new record with more than 61,000 in attendance, including over 36,000 buyers and 1,600 exhibitors.  Much inventory was ordered and sales are expected to remain strong.

With money currently tight, why are people increasingly choosing to purchase relatively expensive guns and ammunition?

Research now shows that, in general, people in the United States seem to have a more favorable  attitude towards gun ownership today than in the past. A recent Gallup poll shows that among those surveyed, the number in favor of banning handguns has dropped to a record low of 26% compared to 60% in 1959. When asked if so called “assault rifles” should be banned, 53% said no. Those in favor of enforcing the gun laws on the books are up to 60%, while those who want additional regulations are down to 35%.

As significant as these poll results are, they still don’t answer the question as to why gun sales are up. No one can give a definite answer to that question, but it appears to be a combination of reasons.

1. Shooting’s New Positive Media Image

Popular mainstream television programs about guns and shooting, such as Top Shot, Sons of Guns, and others are stimulating interest in sport shooting. People are seeing clean, wholesome people handling and shooting guns in a safe and sporting manner. This is doing a lot to dispel the negative image of gun owners being only criminals and psychopaths.

2. An Attitude of Self-Reliance

With continual budget cuts in law enforcement, many people now feel the need to protect themselves and their families.

3. Many states have revised their requirements to allow law abiding citizens to obtain a concealed pistol license.

49 states now allow for a person to carry a concealed pistol under varying restrictions and licensing requirements, with Illinois and The District of Columbia being the only jurisdictions without such provisions.      4 states, Vermont, Arizona, Wyoming, and Alaska do not require a concealed license and any legally owned gun can be carried open or concealed.  35 states have “shall issue” laws. This essentially means that if you pass the required background checks and meet certain requirements (such as proper training) the state cannot deny your request for a license.

Many states have revised their laws to shall issue within the past 20 years. This essentially changed the burden of proof from the applicant needing to show a just reason for getting a license, such as a business owner having to carry large sums of money to the bank after closing, to the state having to prove that there is just cause for denying your application, such as a criminal record or being mentally ill. The exact laws and requirements vary from state to state, but they are similar.

For example, in Michigan where I live, an applicant must pass a detailed background check. He cannot have any felony convictions, drunk driving convictions, 2 or more impaired driving convictions (one is allowed) mental illness, no domestic violence convictions or orders of protection, no gun law violations and my personal favorite, he cannot not have a conviction for driving a locomotive under the influence of alcohol. (that is actually on the books) There are a few other things that can be cause for denial.

In addition, he must pass an approved class in gun safety and laws specifically related to concealed carry. The class has to include shooting of a handgun at a range under the supervision of the licensed instructor. You have to be finger printed, palm printed, edge of hand printed, etc. and these are sent to the FBI for a federal background check.  Though it is a statewide license, the final approval is made by your local county’s gun board. If you are a borderline applicant, you may have to appear before the board in person for an interview. Remember that what I have described is Michigan’s policy. Each state has its own requirements which can vary widely.

35 states also have reciprocal agreements where a person with a license in one of these states can legally carry in another. For example a person who is licensed in Michigan can legally carry his gun into Ohio. He must, however, comply with the laws of Ohio and it is his responsibility to know how the laws differ in the two states. Since each state has its own specific laws and restrictions, this can get quite confusing.

Other states have “may issue” laws. These have very large variations from state to state and even different counties within one state. These states require that the applicant give a “valid” reason for wanting a carry license. What is considered valid is up to the discretion of the licensing board. Alabama, which is legally a may issue state, functions pretty much as though it were a shall issue one, that is an applicant that meets the legal requirement seldom is denied, whereas Hawaii, also a may issue state makes it nearly impossible to obtain a license and when granted, it may impose severe limits, such as a bank guard might get a license but it is only valid while he is on duty.

New York and California have huge variations from county to county, with counties in upstate New York granting licenses fairly freely and areas around New York City being extremely difficult to get a license. Likewise, central California makes it fairly easy, while LA and San Francisco grant few licenses.

Some states and cities have laws prohibiting certain designs or capacities that are legal elsewhere. It is your responsibility to know the laws in your area and comply with them as violations of gun laws, even if unintentional, have dire consequences. Many people believe that the laws are deliberately made confusing to trap people or simply make them believe that it is all too much trouble.

Some laws are just downright strange. Again, I will give an example from Michigan, because those are the laws I am most familiar with. Here you have to be 21 to get a Concealed Pistol License. This is the name given the carry license in Michigan. Other states have differing names. The minimum age to purchase or own a handgun is 18 here, but federal law only allows federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) to sell to those over 21, so while an 18 year old may buy a handgun, he must purchase it from a private seller. It gets stranger. To legally purchase handgun ammunition, you must be 21, so you can own the gun, but no ammunition. This law can be easily sidestepped by stating that you are purchasing the ammunition for a rifle. Since rifles are made that use handgun ammunition, this is allowed. Technically the young person has committed a crime by lying to the store clerk, but most look the other way.

Now he has a legal gun and illegally obtained ammunition so if he goes to a range and loads his gun, he could be charged with underage possession of handgun ammunition. As long as the young person behaves in a responsible manner, most police officers will overlook this technical violation, but it is always there hanging over his head. It may also create a distrust and disrespect for the law in the young person’s mind. What laws need to be obeyed and which ones can be ignored?

Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms made a tactically brilliant ruling if their goal was to divide and conquer the population. Many states now allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for particular medical conditions. These laws also vary from state to state, but generally the patient must register with the state and get a marijuana license. Federal law prohibits those with a history of drug abuse from possessing any firearm. The ATF ruled that in signing the application for a marijuana license, the patient has also signed a confession that he is a drug addict and is now prohibited from owning a firearm.

Where this is brilliant on their part is that this is a way of chipping away at gun ownership and legal drug use at the same time. Groups that support gun rights typically don’t support drugs and groups that support drug rights typically don’t support gun rights, so there is no organized group to fight for the rights of those patients who want to own a gun.

The sales of compact handguns for legal concealed carry are steady and strong. Greater access to concealed weapons permits has fueled a surge in women choosing to become gun owners. According to a Gallup poll, a record 43 percent of women in America say they have a firearm in their home. Women are the fastest growing segment of gun owners. The reasons are many. The old views that guns and shooting are a man’s domain have evaporated. Newer guns have been designed to fit a woman’s hand and with controlled recoils that require less physical strength than previously. More women are choosing to remain single and not have a “man around to protect them.”

Women are much more aware of the violence that is directed at them and want to take steps to protect themselves. There are a few other lessor reasons also including some that are pretty silly such as guns being manufactured in designer colors. Guns are now made in fluorescent green, blue, red, purple, orange and many other colors, ever rainbow. I think this is a mistake as they look like toys. It is not a real gun looking like a toy that creates most of the problem, though a child might be confused if he finds one, but the real danger is that a kid with a toy gun will be shot by someone who believes it to be real. I have a friend who says that he is going to buy a pink gun to carry because if he ever needs to pull it out, the fraction of a second when the bad guy laughs at him would give him a tactical advantage. I think he is joking, at least I hope so.

4. What Did Not Happen

When many states began revising their concealed carry laws to will issue, many people feared rivers of blood flowing in the streets as crazy people packing heat would get into gun fights often and life would resemble a TV western. There would be more armed robberies with more guns. These events did not happen. Crime rates actually decreased and there were fewer gun fatalities. If you stop and think for a minute, a person that had ill intent would not buy a legal gun, register it with law enforcement, get finger printed and put it into the police database that he may be carrying a gun. He would go down to the corner and buy a gun in a Crown Royal bag. Knowing that the person he is attempting to rob just might have a gun, may make him think twice before acting.

The same principle applies to open carry. In states that don’t have laws prohibiting it, a person who legally owns a gun may carry it openly on his side except in prohibited areas. In practice, however, the sight of a gun makes some people nervous. Again, I would say to them, would a criminal openly advertise that he has a gun? This would be like having a sign saying “arrest me” around his neck. The criminal would keep his gun hidden so he had the element of surprise.

Many people who were on the fence about the change in the laws, now can see the positive results and this creates a more favorable view of guns and their owners.


5. Politics

Another reason for increased gun sales is political. Pro-gun groups have done a good job of creating the belief that there is a huge group of politicians whose sole goal in life is to take away their guns. Whether this is true or not does not matter. As long as a sizable group believes this and acts on the belief that they need to buy now before the ban, sales will boom.

Between the time of the 2008 presidential election and the inauguration of President Obama, and well beyond, gun and ammunition sales went off the charts. There were severe shortages of popular size ammunition such as 9mm and .380 and prices took a big jump. This was all based on the belief that he was planning to curtail gun rights. While I cannot look inside his head to know what he really feels, so far he has not done this, but the perception continues. Now they are saying that he is just waiting until his second term. Since this article is about gun ownership and our advertising is computer generated based on topic, I would be willing to bet that somewhere on this page is an ad that says something like “Obama and Hillary want to take away your guns,” and asking for money to fight them.

Even if these allegations prove to be true, this is beyond the power of the president, so it is mostly a hollow scare tactic. Congress and the people would need to support this and that won’t happen. The vast majority of people in this country either own guns themselves or have friends or relatives who do, so they are either pro-gun or neutral on the subject. As I mentioned earlier the number of people who now support a ban on handguns is down to 26% and the pro-gun lobby is very powerful so there would not be sufficient support for such actions.

This brings us to the National Rifle Association, the largest and most politically influential pro-gun group in the US. People have strong and diverse opinions about the NRA ranging from them being the saviors of all that is good and right about this country to them being the spawn of Satan. They are certainly an enigmatic group. On one hand, they provide more training in safe gun handling and hunter safety than any other group. They train and certify instructors in all phases of gun ownership, from simple maintenance to concealed carry training. Their “Personal Protection in the Home” class is the number one class used in states that require a formal class to get a concealed carry permit. They promote youth programs and work hard to train people in safe handling of guns.

They also are very politically powerful and collect huge sums of money to fight the enemy, whether he is real or imaginary. Basic marketing and lobbying procedures require an enemy to stir up the troops.

I will give an example that is completely unrelated to the subject of guns. In the computer operating system arena, Microsoft and Apple are symbiotic competitors. What do I mean by this? They do compete for most of the computer market, but they actually need each other to exist. Aside from competition generating innovation, Apple needs the giant dominant evil empire to rebel against and Microsoft needs a viable competitor to prevent getting an anti-trust suit from the government. This is why several years ago, when Apple was near bankruptcy, it was Microsoft that came to their rescue with an infusion of capital.

Getting back to the NRA; for them to collect huge sums of money and members, they need an enemy. (The liberal anti-gun lobby which does exist, but is much smaller than perceived) They need flawed legislation to defeat, even if they have to create it themselves. This is part of lobbying 101 and they are far from the only ones doing it. How it works is that when they need a boost, they write a poorly crafted piece of legislation that would somehow impinge on gun rights and have a lame duck legislator, one who is in an uncontested district or a dupe who does not know who wrote it to introduce this legislation. They then attack the flaws that were intentionally put into the bill and it gets defeated. This gets them credibility and donations from their members and donors.

Sometimes one of these bills is allowed to pass to really get people riled up. Such a bill was the now defunct “Assault Weapons Ban” from a few years ago. This was a law that sounded very restrictive on the surface, but in reality, it had loopholes large enough to drive a tank through. Between the grandfather clauses and it focusing on the cosmetic appearance of a gun rather than its function, it really did not ban anything. What it did do was create the impression that big government was trying to take away people’s rights and really boosted sales of the very guns it was allegedly banning. It had a sunset clause, so it conveniently went away after its desired effect.

I have spoken with a former Congressional lobbyist and he assured me that this is done all of the time by many politically active groups, not just the NRA. This is very similar to false flag operations that occur in international politics. Enemies are created where few or none exist.

I will close with a very good video for those who legally carry a gun. It deals with how to deal with the police if you are stopped while legally carrying your gun. Watch it closely. It might save your life.


Posted in USAComments Off on Americans Changing Attitude Toward Guns

Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable?


Yes unless the Jews of Europe and America distance themselves from the Zionist monster before it’s too late to do so.

by Alan Hart

The Gentile me believes this question needs to be addressed because there is a very real danger that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, which is being provoked by Israel’s terrifying arrogance of power and sickening self-righteousness, will be transformed into anti-Semitism unless two things happen.

The notion that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism is not new. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, gave this warning:

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

The fact that (pre-1967) Israel is a Zionist not a Jewish state – how could it be a Jewish state when a quarter of its citizens are Muslims (mainly) and Christians? – in no way diminishes Harkabi’s message.

He was, in fact, treading a quite well worn path. Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, and as I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, most Jews, eminent American and British Jews especially, were opposed to Zionism’s enterprise in Palestine. They believed it to be morally wrong.

They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

Today, in my opinion, it can be said that Zionism wants and needs anti-Semitism in order to justify anything and everything its monster child does.

So what are the two things that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism (assuming as I do that the Zionist state is not going to change course in the direction of peace)?

One is that the mainly Gentile citizens of the Western world among whom most Jews live become aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism, and thus why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Israel.

The difference can be simply stated. Like mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam, mainstream Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles. Zionism, which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by ethnic cleansing and terrorism, is without moral values and ethical principles.

Its driving ideology, conditioned by Jewish experience of persecution on-and-off down the centuries, is that might is right. Mainstream Judaism and Zionism are, in fact, total opposites. In April one of the anti-Zionist Jews I most admire, Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer, is giving a talk in Luxembourg with the title How Israel betrayed all the human values of Judaism.

In the paragraph above I insist on the term “few” in Israel being to blame because the truth is that most Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by their leaders. (As the headline over an article by Gideon Levy for Ha-aretz put it on 5 February, Israelis should be afraid of their leaders, not Iran). Most Israeli Jews are, for example, totally unaware that the vast majority of Palestinians and most Arabs everywhere have been ready for many years for peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief.

The other thing that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism stems from the fact, perhaps I should say overwhelming probability, that no American president is ever going to be free to use the leverage he has to oblige the Zionist state to be serious about peace because of the Zionist lobby’s control of policy for Israel-Palestine in Congress.

So as things are Israel is a nuclear-armed monster beyond control. (From recently de-classified documents we now know that in a memorandum dated 19 July 1969, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, warned President Nixon that the Israelis “are probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” And as I mentioned in my post of 30 January with the headline Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?, Golda Meir said in an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme when she was prime minster that in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it.”)

On reflection it seems to me that whether or not anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism will depend not only on the Westerners among whom most Jews live understanding why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the few, but also on what the Jews of the world, European and American Jews especially (I mean the majority of them), do from here on.

In my view they have two options.

OPTION 1 is to stay silent which, at this moment in time, is still the preferred option of most European and American Jews.

That said it has to be acknowledged that recent years have seen an increase in the number of Jewish groups which are critical of Israel’s polices and, in some cases, have even endorsed the call of Palestinian civil society for a campaign of Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. But the voices these groups represent are those of only a minority of Jews.

On the debit side of this particular balance sheet is also the fact that by limiting their campaigns to calls for an end to Israel’s occupation to make the space for a two-state solution, most if not all of the “progressive” (critical of Israel) Jewish groups are demonstrating that they are out of touch with or don’t want to recognize the reality on the ground in Israel-Palestine. The reality is that Israel’s still on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank has made a two-solution impossible. It is not yet formally buried but it is dead.

My own understanding of why began with a private conversation I had with Shimon Peres in early 1980. At the time he was the leader of Israel’s main opposition Labour party and seemed to be well placed to win Israel’s next election and deny Menachem Begin and his Likud party a second term in office – an outcome for which President Carter was praying. After learning that Carter had said behind closed doors that institutional diplomacy could not solve the Palestine problem because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress and that what was needed was some informal and unofficial diplomacy, my purpose was to invite Peres to participate in a secret and exploratory dialogue with PLO chairman Arafat with me as the linkman.

The idea was that if we could use the 18 months or so before Israel’s next election to get agreement in principle on the way to the two-state solution to which Arafat’s PLO was by then committed, Peres and Arafat could begin to do the business for real when Peres became prime minister. (I was aware that a two-state solution would not provide the Palestinians with full justice, but at the time I shared the hope of those, including Arafat, who believed it was not impossible that within a generation or two the peace of a two-state solution could open the door to One State for all by mutual agreement, thus allowing all Palestinians who wanted to return to do so).

Peres welcomed the idea of an exploratory dialogue with Arafat with me as the linkman, but at a point in our conversation before I went off to Beirut to secure Arafat’s agreement to participate, he, Peres, said, “I fear it is already too late.”

I asked him why.

He replied: “Every day sees new bricks on new settlements. Begin knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s stuffing the West Bank with settlers to create the conditions for a Jewish civil war because he knows that no Israeli prime minister is going down in history as the one who gave the order to the Jewish army to shoot Jews (in order to end the occupation).” Pause. “I’m not.”

Question: If it was too late in 1980 when they were only about 70,000 illegal Jewish settlers on the West Bank, how much more too late is it today when the number of illegal Jewish settlers is in excess of 500,000 and rising, and the political influence of Israel’s religious fanatics and other bigots is growing?

In the words of an old English cliché, Jewish groups which are critical of Israeli policy but limit their effort to calling for an end to Israeli occupation are flogging a dead horse.

My considered Gentile take on why most Jews are silent on the matter of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and denial of their rights is in my book. For this post I’ll make only two brief points.

One is that deep down, if only in their sub-consciousness, most Jews fear (in large part because they are conditioned by Zionism to fear) that there will one day be another great turning against them. Holocaust II. So they perceive Israel as their refuge of last resort, and they tell themselves they must say nothing, do nothing, that could undermine Israel and put their insurance policy at risk.

The other, no doubt related, is that private discussion about publicly criticizing Israel or not can and does tear Jewish families as well as communities apart. So for the sake of at least the appearance of Jewish unity it’s best not to discuss the matter.

The problem with Jewish silence is that it’s not the way to refute and demolish a charge or assertion of complicity in Zionism’s crimes. So continued silence by the majority of European and American Jews is most likely to assist the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.

OPTION 2 is for the Jews of the world to distance themselves from the Zionist state.

A most explicit statement of this as a possible option was made in October 2001 by Dr. David Goldberg, the prominent, widely respected, liberal London rabbi and author of a popular introduction to Judaism, The Jewish People, Their History and Their Religion. He dared to say, in public, “It may be time for Judaism and Zionism to go their separate ways.”

Eight years on the late Tony Judt, a professor of history at New York University and director of the Remarque Institute, put some flesh on that bone. British-born of a Jewish mother whose parents emigrated from Russia and a Belgian father who was descended from a line of Lithuanian rabbis, Judt started out as an enthusiastic Zionist. He helped to promote the migration of British Jews to Israel, and during the 1967 war he worked as a driver and translator for the IDF. But after that war, his belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. “I went with the idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work, but I started to see that this view was remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible.”

In an article for the Financial Times on 7 December 2009, Judt wrote this:

“If the Jews of Europe and North America took their distance from Israel, as many have begun to do, the assertion that Israel was ‘their’ state would take on an absurd air. Over time, even Washington might come to see the futility of attaching American foreign policy to the delusions of one small Middle Eastern state. This, I believe, is the best thing that could possibly happen to Israel itself. It would be obliged to acknowledge its limits. It would have to make other friends, preferably among its neighbors.”

For the sake of discussion there’s a case for saying that an Israel that was obliged by European and America Jews to acknowledge its limits might also be an Israel in which many Israeli Jews were prepared to open their minds to the wise words of one of their own – Avraham Burg. Between 1999 and 2003 he was the speaker of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. By the end of his term in that office he was a leading advocate of the idea that Israel and a viable Palestinian state could coexist in peace. In August 2003 he wrote a most remarkable essay which was published in its original Hebrew by Yediot Aharonot and subsequently newspapers in Europe and America.

His lead point was that Israel had to “shed its illusions” and choose between “racist oppression and democracy.” The Jewish people, he wrote, “did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programmes or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto nations. In this we have failed.”

And the following is what Burg had to say about Israel’s need to change course and the choices:

Prayer for Peace

Here is what the prime minister should say to his people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world’s only Jewish state – not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.

Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.

Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.

“Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box. (Here, I note, Burg was being less than explicit about the consequences of Greater Israel giving full citizenship and voting rights to everyone. At the point not too far into the future when the Palestinian Arabs outnumbered the Jews of Greater Israel, Zionism would be voted out of existence. Palestine would effectively be de-Zionizedopening the door to One State for all).

The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.

In my view Judt’s assumption that Israel “would” be obliged to acknowledge its limits if the Jews of Europe and America took their distance from it is questionable. Why? It’s rational, based on reason, and Israel’s deluded leaders are beyond reason. They are never going to shed their illusions and present the choices for Israel’s Jews in the terms outlined by Burg.

But the main argument for European and American Jews distancing themselves from the Zionist state and its policies is self-interest. By demonstrating that they were not complicit in Zionism’s crimes, they would be playing their necessary part in preventing anti-Israelism from being transformed into anti-Semitism.

But even if self-interest (in the context above) is the direction in which most European and American Jews might move, events on the ground suggest to me that the time left for them to decide whether or not to actually distance themselves from Israel is running out. And here is my brief summary of why.

Given their determination to keep for all time much if not all of the occupied West Bank (despite what they sometimes say to the contrary for propaganda purposes), Israel’s leaders have got to find a way to defuse the ticking, demographic time-bomb of occupation (the coming of the day when the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews of Greater Israel).

The evidence of the past 44 years is that Israel’s leaders believed they could do it in one of two ways.

One was by making life hell for the occupied Palestinians in the hope that very many of them would either give up their struggle in despair and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table – a few disconnected Bantustans which they could call a state if they wished; or, better still, abandon their homeland and seek new lives elsewhere. Neither of those two things happened or are going to happen.

The other was having in place a compliant, puppet, Palestinian leadership which could be bullied and bribed, with American assistance, into forcing its people to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table. It might be that Israel’s leaders still hope they can make this scenario work with Palestinian “President” Abbas or his successor, but it won’t work.

And that will leave them, Israel’s leaders, with only one way of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation – creating a pretext to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan, Syria or wherever.The final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

I think that will be Zionism’s final solution to its Palestine problem. I also think that such an event will guarantee that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism, meaning, as Harkabi warned, that Jews throughout the world will pay the price of Israel’s “misconduct”.

I’ll end by re-asking my headline question and giving it an explicit answer.

Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable? Yes unless the Jews of Europe and America distance themselves from the Zionist monster before it’s too late to do so.

Also see:  Getting to the Hart of the Matter with One of the World’s Most Experienced Reporters

Palestine land map 1947 – 2000

Note particularly 1967 – 2000 this map is almost 10 years out of date.

Since the last map update, the 20 ft wall and illegal settlements have been built. There is no freedom of movement for Palestinians to travel from one partitioned area to all other areas of their territory. Since the building of the wall, many more families have been divided, their lands inaccessible to farm, all goods and services controlled by Israel. Essentially Palestine is now a series of walled prisons.

Posted in EducationComments Off on Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable?

Mondoweiss Online Newsletter


Netanyahu seeks Iran conflict, extremist reaction to knock out Obama

Feb 29, 2012

Philip Weiss


Brilliant post by Andrew Sullivan off the report by AP that Israel has told the US that it would attack Iran without any warning to the US. A sinister read, but given Israel’s record during the “clash of civilizations” era, it’s hard to argue with. Extended excerpts:

So Israel would, without warning, put US troops and Western civilians at direct risk of terrorist assaults, would likely tip Pakistan into even more outright hostility to any cooperation with the West, and rally the Iranian opposition to its foul regime…. My own fear is that global recruitment for Jihad would boom as well – reversing all the gains of the last three years. The war would also galvanize Islamist parties in the new Arab democracies, giving Israel more ammunition in blocking any rapprochement between the US and the Muslim world. And following this essential blackmail, the Israeli government would doubtless rally much of the US Congress, the entire GOP, its media outlets (like Fox, and the Washington Post), and a key part of the Democratic fundraising machinery to side entirely with Israel against the US president.

I don’t think you can understand the Republican strategy for this election without factoring in a key GOP player, Benjamin Netanyahu… A global war which polarizes America and the world is exactly what Netanyahu wants. And it is exactly what the GOP needs to cut through Obama’s foreign policy advantage in this election. Because it is only through war, crisis and polarization that extremists can mobilize the emotions that keep them in power. They need war to win.

Here’s a prediction. Netanyahu, in league and concert with Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, will make his move to get rid of Obama soon. And he will be more lethal to this president than any of his domestic foes.

Sullivan makes a similar point as Max Blumenthal in this must see interview on Real News:

“Netanyahu is more immersed in the American political process, in the culture wars, and in the Republican primary than any foreign leader in recent modern history, and he’s doing so because he wants regime change in two countries, the first country is Iran, the second country is the United States.

He wants to replace Barack Obama with a Republican. He tried the same thing when he was Prime Minister in the 1990’s against President Bill Clinton. He leaned on Gingrich, he leaned on people who were seeking to impeach President Clinton using Israel as a partisan wedge issue the same way the Christian Right uses abortion and gay marriage.

And this campaign is the fulfillment of Netanyahu’s strategy to use Israel and now Iran as a political tool to unseat Barack Obama. And Newt Gingrich is just one candidate who is assisting this effort. Mitt Romney is also happy to assist this effort and he has surrounded himself with neoconservatives who have a seamless connection to Israel and to the Israeli military intelligence establishment and to Netanyahu’s advisors…….in the words of former AIPAC researcher Keith Weissman, they are advancing the ‘War of the Jews’, that’s his words.”

Did ‘Atlantic’ coverage lead to release of Fadi Quran after five days in administrative detention? Updated

Feb 29, 2012

Philip Weiss

The expression, If Americans Knew would seem to apply more than anyone these days to Robert Wright, the Atlantic journalist who today reports that his friend Fadi Quran has been released from administrative detention, five days after Wright reported Quran’s arrest in Hebron in the Atlantic, also with cold outrage.

Why is he outraged? Wright has been to Shuhada Street in Hebron, seen the central street of the city shut down, and Palestinian businesses destroyed, for apartheid. And Wright lacks the ability to lie to himself about this central moral issue in our politics. Wow; what a force is knowledge (and what if Jeffrey Goldberg had used his power at the Atlantic in the cause of human freedom not ethnocracy). Wright:

Fadi Quran, the Palestinian activist whose arrest I’ve followed in recent days, was released from jail last night. But he wasn’t released because Israeli authorities have admitted that the charges against him are false (though they certainly seem to be ). He’s been released on bail, and an investigation continues that could still result in an indictment…

The Israeli foreign ministry says Fadi was arrested for “obstructing a law enforcement officer, assault and resisting arrest.” The two videos below–the only evidence I’m aware of–don’t seem to support that charge.

Update: I think this post was shortsighted, too focused on the MSM. There has been a wide campaign on Fadi Quran’s behalf. Jake Horowitz at policymic:

Fadi’s upcoming release brings a culmination to a dramatic international advocacy campaign which began last Friday, when he was arrested and imprisoned by Israeli authorities. In just four days, Fadi’s story spread like wildfire in the media, on Facebook and Twitter, and via PolicyMic and A Free Fadi Quran Facebook page has garnered 1,295 Likes, and many supporters changed their profile pictures to stand in solidarity with Quran.

Over at, Stanford student Lila Kalaf spearheaded a campaign to petition for his release which generated 2,392 signatures, including activist Noam Chomsky, Stanford Middle East professors Joel Beinin and Khalil Barhoum, and Director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research Institute Clayborne Carson.

Here is Lila Kalaf’s petition.

The Rosh Hashanah sermon on Fire Island

Feb 29, 2012

Philip Weiss

Fire Island NY
Fire Island, NY

I keep wanting to get to this story, and today I will.

At the Penn BDS conference earlier this month, there was a panel of Jews speaking on “BDS, Hillel, and the Question of Anti-Semitism,” and Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peacebegan her remarks with a wonderful story:

Rebecca Vilkomerson
Rebecca Vilkomerson

It wasn’t that long ago that there were quotas on the numbers of Jews at universities, covenants to keep Jews from living in certain neighborhoods, and places of employment where Jews need not apply. So it’s really a bit of a balancing act of being sensitive to Jewish history and trauma without pulling punches about today’s reality. And while Jews in the United States have more political, economic, cultural and intellectual status than perhaps ever before, the Jewish narrative is still about vulnerability.

I just want to tell a little story. For Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, I was invited to spend it in Fire Island, a little island off the coast of New York City where people have summer homes. They did a beautiful job. They opened up the fire house in the town, and we were sitting, and some guy who was a cardiologist was playing the role of the rabbi, and the yoga teacher was playing the role of the cantor.

And I was sitting in the service and really enjoying it, looking out at the ocean and sort of congratulating myself on this do it yourself service that I was in. And then they announced that someone was going to come up and give a little sermon. And this was at the end of September, shortly after the [Palestinian Authority’s] UN bid on Palestinian statehood. And this guy, I don’t remember exactly what he was, but he was the chair of the department at Columbia University. And he got up and he gave a talk about how the fact that this vote could come up at the UN was proof that the Jews were not considered fully human in this society and never would be.

So you know my head was exploding. Also I started looking around and saying, Here is a guy who is at a pinnacle of American intellectual success preaching to a group of people who by virtue of the fact that they were in this synagogue for a day were there because they were rich enough to have second homes, or being invited by other people rich enough to have second homes, people who live very comfortable, very successful lives, and there they all were nodding along.

So you know I think that’s part of our job as progressive Jews, those of us who are Jewish, is taking responsibility for challenging that narrative. And I think as a coda to that story, afterwards there was a little Kiddush, like a little reception with food, and someone asked me what I thought about the sermon, as people are wont to do, and I thought, oh God I don’t feel like dealing with this right now, having all these strangers mad at me. But if have to, I have to. I started talking about why I didn’t like it at all. And why I thought he was totally wrong.

And a bunch of them came up to me, and said, thanks so much for saying that, that was so important, I felt so uncomfortable when he was talking but I didn’t know exactly why.

So it’s not that hard once you start talking about it, but if you don’t talk about it then that narrative sort of stands. So it really is a process within the Jewish community of having to talk about it.

But we do all need to hold I would say collectively, and that means all of us in the BDS movement, the idea that anti-Semitism in our society is still real, maybe not very potent at the moment, and at the same time recognize and fight how accusations of anti-Semitism are being used as an effective though I would say less and less so weapon to silence the debate on Israel. And of course it would be hard to choose just one example of how participating in the BDS movement for example is equated with anti-Semitism.

Barghouthi and Erakat can reach young Americans

Feb 29, 2012

Rob Buchanan

Omar Barghouthi
Omar Barghouthi

Noura Erakat
Noura Erakat

Noura Erakat and Omar Barghouthi spoke on “legality and morality” at Israeli Apartheid Week last night at NYU.

They are an excellent one-two combination. Both are young and very well-spoken, both smiling, insistent and unflappable. Their poise alone makes you cringe–how can people this rational and composed have emerged from the horrific mess we have wrought?

Her presentation on the legal differences between Palestinian and Jewish ‘citizenship’ is totally devastating (she has a job at Georgetown but wants to be teaching at a law school–will any hire her?).

He’s urbane and witty, with a slick, designy powerpoint–I think good for reaching young people. They really seemed effective and appealing to me, capable of changing minds. Who else young and Palestinian, or Palestinian-American, is out there doing a better job?

Will the US act as Israel’s proxy against Iran?

Feb 29, 2012

Philip Weiss

Obama Net
These two leaders are to meet March 5

Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to meet Barack Obama on Monday March 5, during the AIPAC conference. And it is a good question which leader feels he has more power in the encounter. It’s an election year. Netanyahu will feel emboldened by all the Jewish “voters” he meets at AIPAC the day before.

“Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike,” Barak Ravid reports in Haaretz.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that “all options are on the table,” the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,” said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

Jerry Haber says this thinking is nuts, and that he’d rather live with a bomb than have anyone pursue such aggression:

Iran is an enemy of the State of Israel, but it is not an existential threat to Israel, nor has it threatened Israel with nuclear destruction. But even it had, that would not be a legal or moral justification for an act of aggression against Iran – unless the possibility of an Iranian attack was imminent, and other non-violent diplomatic options had run their course. By diplomatic options, I do not mean sanctions, I mean negotiations, including multilateral negotiations that include Israel and Iranian pledges not to build nuclear weapons or to eliminate current stockpiles.

….[Iran] is doing what many other countries have done in the past – develop[ing] nuclear energy, and even a nuclear weapon capability. Why should there be one law for North Korea and Pakistan, and another for Iran? Why should Israel reserve the right to prevent any Arab country from going nuclear, or from joining a nuclear-free zone?

The Jews I know seem to be divided between those who support sanctions and those who support military action. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd. I support neither. The drums of war have started again, and the madness should be stopped now. If either Israel (or its proxy, the US) attacks Iran, it will be difficult for any moral person to defend the right of such a rogue state to exist.

Why I’m presenting at Harvard’s one-state conference

Feb 29, 2012

 Rabbi Brant Rosen

Avraham Burg
Avraham Burg

The Harvard Kennedy School is hosting a “One State Conference” this weekend and already the usual suspects are crying foul. Since I’m going to be speaking on a panel at the conference on Sunday, I thought it might be a good idea to weigh in with some thoughts.

I’ll begin with the stated vision/goals of the conference, according to student organizers:

To date, the only Israel/Palestine solution that has received a fair rehearsal in mainstream forums has been the two-state solution. Our conference will help to expand the range of academic debate on this issue. Thus, our main goal is to educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization.

Sound reasonable? Not according to self-appointed Jewish community watchdogs like the ADL andNGO Monitor and the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Goldberg.  According to the ADL, such a conference could only be interested in “the elimination of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.”  Dershowitz referred to it as an “anti-Israel hate fest.” Goldberg thinks organizers share “a goal with Hamas: the elimination of Israel as a homeland and haven for Jews.”

Reading these incendiary words such as these, I can’t help but be struck by the abject hysteria that gets regularly mistaken for public relations by the American Jewish establishment.

I find it fascinating that these concerned institutions and individuals are more than willing to rail against the wide-eyed extremists and useful idiots participating in this conference, yet cannot take the time to ponder what might have brought us to this point in the first place.  Has Abe Foxman, for instance, ever called out Israel over its settlement policy that has by now made a mockery of a viable two-state solution?  Is Alan Dershowitz willing to bring half as much righteous anger to the concern that Israel is fast creating “one state” all by itself?

I wrote recently about the “ever-closing window” on the two state solution. We might still argue about whether or not the window has closed yet, but I think we can all agree that the prospect for a viable, equitable two state solution for Israel/Palestine is in serious jeopardy.

As I pointed out in my post, sooner or later we’ll be forced to choose between a patently undemocratic Jewish state that parcels out rights according to ethnicity and a democratic state in which equal rights are enjoyed by all its citizens. Given this scenario, is it unreasonable that people of good will might desire to open conversations and suggest fresh, creative approaches that might ensure a better future for Israelis and Palestinians?

It’s even more ironic when you consider that notable and respected Israeli figures have been discussing a potential one-state solution for some time. While the American Jewish establishment grows apoplectic at the very thought, Israeli society seems more than secure enough to tolerate the discussion.

As far back as 1991, for instance, respected Israeli/American political scientist Daniel J. Elazar promoted a one-state “federal solution” for Israel/Palestine (most notably in his book, “Two Peoples – One Land: Federal Solutions for Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan”). Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist who was Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem under Teddy Kollek from 1971 to 1978, has publicly advocated the idea of a bi-national state for several years. A more recent Israeli advocate of one state is Avrum Burg, former Speaker of the Knesset and chairman of the Jewish Agency, who wrote about the subject in a widely read 2011 op-ed in Ha’aretz.

It is even less widely-known in the American Jewish community that prominent numbers of the Israeli right wing, such as former Minister of Defense and Foreign Minister Moshe Arens andcurrent Speaker of the Knesset Reuven Rivlin, have suggested the desirability of some form of a one-state solution. Granted, the solution advocated by Arens and Rivlin – an undivided state that nonetheless retains its exclusively Jewish character – differs significantly from the federalist or bi-national models promoted by Elazar, Benvenisti and Burg. Still, I believe these unlikely bedfellows share critical aspects in common: the conviction that a two-state solution in unworkable, a willingness to pursue fresh creative ideas, and – contrary to what many might claim – a hard-headed political realism.

Many of the conference’s critics have pointed out that secular multi-ethnic states simply do not work. Goldberg claims that it “barely works” in Belgium and Dershowitz points out that it failed in India and the former Yugoslavia.  Fine. If this is the criticism, then let’s put this issue on the table and discuss it – as we most certainly will be doing this weekend (most likely at the panels entitled “Nationhood and Cultural Identity: The Preservation of the Peoples” and “What are the Obstacles to the Realization of a One-State Solution?”). But must we seek to marginalize the conference for simply seeking to have the conversation?

There are also criticisms that the conference is too “one sided” and that the presenters are unduly “biased.”  In truth, the presenters in the conference represent a spectrum of opinions on this issue. Some (like Ali Abunimah) have openly advocated a one state solution, others (such as Stephen Walt) support a two state solution and some (like me) are agnostic on the issue.  But I know many of the presenters personally and have long admired many more. Contrary to the venom being slung their way, these are thoughtful – if sometimes controversial – people of good will.  While we are a diverse lot, I believe we share a common desire to broaden this scope of conversation and an eagerness to bring fresh new thinking to a painful and paralyzed status quo.

The student organizers of the conference have released an open letter to their critics. Here’s an excerpt:

The aim of this conference is to explore the possibility of different solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Invoking inflammatory language like “anti-semitism” and “destruction of Israel” to describe the ideas and speakers of the conference is not only incorrect and defamatory but serves to prevent rational discussion of ideas and preempt the effective exercise of speech.

I look forward to reporting on my experiences at the conference.

This post was first published at Brant Rosen’s site, Shalom Rav.

Posted in Nova NewsletterComments Off on Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

One State in Historic Palestine, An Introduction


by  Sami Jamil Jadallah


Note to readers: The Arab – Israeli conflict has defied so many generations of Israelis and Palestinians, so many Noble Prize winners, so many US presidents, so many wars, and so many proposed solutions. There is only one solution: the One State solution. For months I have had the honor of working with a group of Israelis and Palestinians negotiating and drafting both the introduction and the Preamble for One State in Palestine. I hope all of you will support and promote the One State as the only proposal on the table that can truly resolve the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

“One single, secular, democratic state in Palestine: A Republic of all its citizens!”

For 63 years, since the fateful UN Resolution 181, Palestinians have lived in terror and fear. During the 1948 Nakba, which followed the UN partition resolution, Israel conquered 78% of Palestine and expelled most of its population, almost 800,000 people, from their homes, villages and towns. It also forced the remaining Palestinians to remain under its control as second-class citizens of Israel, and discriminated against Mizrahi (Arab and Sephardic) Jews in what it defined as a ‘Jewish state’ – not a state of its citizens; despite the fact that today, at least 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish. Palestinian refugees were never allowed to return home, despite UN Resolution 194 of December 1948, and countless UN resolutions since, affirming their right of return. Today over six million Palestinians and their descendants are refugees, now into a third generation of refugees.

In 1967, the remainder of historic Palestine was occupied by Israel. Every Palestinian in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip has lost his and her human and political rights under a brutal settler-colonial military occupation. 1967 was followed by a fast colonization project, in violation of international law and the 4th Geneva Convention, of settling Israeli Jews in the newly conquered territories, which was (and continues) to lead to further expulsion and dispossession of Palestinians.

Israel has since disregarded all UN resolutions demanding its withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and has continued to build illegal settlements, roads and army camps. It has since continued to brutally supress and dispossess the Palestinian population under its military rule. Internationally, Israel has set up powerful lobbies, which have sought to silence the voice of reason among Jews across the world. Domestically, it has constructed a highly militarized society, armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction, which render the situation in Palestine-Israel extremely volatile and highly dangerous not only to Palestinians but also to Israeli Jews.

The Oslo Accords of 1993, which were the result of secret negotiations between Israel and the PLO, laid the groundwork for an agreement which in theory would have returned 22% of historic Palestine back to Palestinian rule, along the lines of the 1949 ceasefire boundaries. This agreement was systematically violated by Israel, which has continued to this day to confiscate more Palestinian land, build more Israeli settlements and kill more Palestinians. It was clear from the outset that Israel had no intention of withdrawing either the settlements or its army from the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the number of its settlers living illegally in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has in fact tripled since the signing of the Oslo Accords, rendering the two-state solution completely unrealistic. The current policies of the Quartet are aimed at funding, not ending, the occupation.

In fact, the two-state solution was never realistic nor was it fair. However, even an unjust ‘solution’ like that of the two-state has been systematically undermined by Israel through uninterrupted land grabs and growing numbers of illegal settlers in the Occupied Territories – the envisioned ‘state’ for Palestinians. Israel made sure the two-state solution based on the 1967 boundaries would never become a reality. Most Palestinians and many Israelis have recognized this fact for decades. They have instead desired an alternative solution, a solution based on justice and non-separation, a solution which will bring an end to the trauma and suffering of the Palestinian refugees, a solution which will end the settler-colonial, military and rule of Zionism over historic Palestine, a solution which will treat all citizens, residents and refugees of historic Palestine fairly and as equals. Such a solution is the single secular (in the sense of separating religion from the state), non-sectarian, democratic state in the whole of historic Palestine: A STATE OF ALL ITS CITIZENS.

A group of Palestinians and Israelis has been working on the basics of the one-state vision and foundational principles of a Republic in historic Palestine. They have mapped out the road to peace, reconciliation, equality and coexistence in a democratic state, a state which would bring an end to illegal occupation and the unequal racist and separatist practices of apartheid Zionism. The document presented here outlines the foundations for a future constitution of the Republic of Palestine.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on One State in Historic Palestine, An Introduction

9/11 Narrative Remains Broad and Repetitious


by Stewart Ogilby

Olivier Picard Photo

Theater patrons in ancient Greece – someone stayed home to watch the kids and feed the animals. In what has been called Athenian democracy, it has been estimated that slaves constituted around 25% of the human population and free laborers around 30%.

For centuries, poets, historians, historical novelists, and actors provided narratives for the literate and the gentry. There was no outcry or demand for truth when poets lied, such as Longfellow’s apocryphal “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”. Shakespeare’s history plays provided an interesting nationalistic past for his audiences. Centuries earlier a biblical myth of exodus from Egyptian bondage had given cohesiveness to a tribal bronze-age population. These may constitute a set called “useful myths”. In reality, all myths are useful, but to only a certain group in the population.

Until only a couple of hundred years ago, churches provided religious myths that influenced the masses in their grueling struggles to survive. The exposure of the masses to contemporary narrative was limited until the advent of radio, television, and motion pictures through both the constraint of literacy as well as the means to access broader sources.

In light of many narratives supporting fraudulent antecedents to wars planned by bankers and patently fake photos and supporting narratives for seven (or nine, I forget which) round-trip moon excursions, why all the hubub today about lies of 9/11? Could it be that the human spirit is actually developing? The erudite mythologist, Joseph Campbell, observed, “I think the human spirit is developing. I don’t take a negative attitude toward what’s happening with the human spirit. I take a very negative attitude with what’s happening to our politicians, but that has nothing to do with the human spirit. I mean, the chaos in the world today is not a function of the illumination of humanity today; it’s a function of the bungling of a bunch of self interested politicians.”

The immense political power wielded today upon the masses by radio and television demands that their managers be totally separated from sharing economic interests with governmental bureaucracies and
affiliated corporations. The huge 9/11 media hoax has spotlighted the necessity of freeing the masses from contemporary political propaganda. Today we have the spectacle of a host of “researchers” poring over fake videos, dissecting promulgated disinformation, and arguing among themselves. Is it in the hope of presenting our country’s masses with a nice clear explanation of the events of that day? What makes them think that they are really interested?

Basic confusion includes the following (and much more):
Planes or no-planes –

  • What about all those witnesses presented by our good friends in the media?

  • If no-planes, why all the fuss about stand-down when there was nothing to stand-down to?

  • If planes, why the paucity of proof that would benefit the perpetrators?

  • If no-planes, what were the Arab hijackers up to?

  • If no-planes, why bring up Dov Z’s relationship to a remote-guidance company?

  • If no-planes, what really happened to the missing passengers?

  • If planes, what really happened to the missing passengers if they didn’t crash where claimed?

WTC brought down with explosives –

  • Collecting on terrorism insurance policy would constitute huge insurance fraud.

  • Would they have been so stupid as to mass-murder 3,000 people?

  • Was the whole operation a financially desirable urban renewal project?

  • How much televised coverage, including witnesses, crowds, and explosions, was Hollywood special effects photography, aired in segments?

I have my own recently adopted views on these matters. Expressing them, for now, is inappropriate as it brings the wrath of professional 9/11 pundits and researchers down upon me. I am willing to wait, perhaps only a few months, for the real 9/11 scholars to catch up. The truth is simple, as always. However, the scope of the problem is mind-boggling. There is just too much money and profiteering involved.

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11 Narrative Remains Broad and Repetitious

Shoah’s pages