Archive | July 23rd, 2013

Mohammad Nour – The Harmony Band

Posted by Nahida the Exiled Palestinian

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Mohammad Nour – The Harmony Band

Internet Porn to be Censored in the UK


Today prime minister David Cameron will announce that in future UK Internet subscribers will be required to opt-in if they want to be able to watch adult content online.


Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Torrent Freak

The theory is that somehow Internet service providers will be able to stop such material having a ‘corroding influence’ on the nation’s children. But can the ISPs pull it off without collateral damage, and can we trust the government to stop there?

“By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account the settings to install family-friendly filters will be automatically selected. If you just click ‘next’ or ‘enter’, then the filters are automatically on,” David Cameron will announce today.

The prime minister is on a moral crusade to protect the country’s children – a commendable cause – but is this really the way to go about it?

Accepting the filters will supposedly stop adult material from being accessible from an Internet connection, but so far no one has been forthcoming about how this will be achieved. The prime minister does, however, indicate that this will be something controlled and administered remotely.

“And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account. No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one-click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe,” he will say.

It seems likely that the ISPs will implement a system similar to the one currently being used by TalkTalk, as the prime minister will specifically single the ISP out for praise in his speech.

TalkTalk’s HomeSafe is a system which filters out URLs based on a remote blocklist provided and maintained by…..well, no one quite knows. This is worrying since when things don’t go quite to plan there’s no one to complain to.

As previously reported, when TalkTalk customers are asked whether they want to block file-sharing sites, is rendered inaccessible. Despite our pleas and complaints that we are a news resource, the company said it would not remove us from their blocklist. We doubt we’re the only ones being silenced.

But of course, millions of households in the UK view adult material every day online anyway, so they will simply disable the filters when they get the chance. That’s just neutralized Cameron’s censorship efforts on that front in the blink of an eye. But there’s more.

The prime minister will also put search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo on notice that they will have to introduce further measures to block searches for illegal content such as child pornography. Google already has a zero-tolerance approach to images of child abuse so it’s not clear what more they can do, but they will have to says the PM.

“I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest. You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don’t just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.”

While few will argue against the need to protect children by cracking down on abusers, “illegal content” can take many forms – the law will shortly be updated to outlaw scenes of “simulated rape”, for example. The concern is that once ISPs and companies like Google are led down the censorship path, mission creep could come into play. Do they also have a “moral obligation” to protect, say, the content industries, once they have these systems in place?

The Cleanfeed system, first implemented in the by UK ISP BT, was designed to hide away images of abuse from Internet users but by 2011 it had been put to new use – blocking Usenet indexing site Newzbin2 following a court case initiated by the MPA. What began as “think of the children” eight years earlier later became “think of the copyright holders.” The chances seem high that history could repeat itself.

But it doesn’t stop there. If there is a moral obligation to censor on child safety grounds, will there also be calls to censor ‘potential’ terrorist material (and by whose definition) or those with extreme political views? If so, who will be the watchdog, and how transparent will his decisions be?

Finally, one should consider whether any of this is going to be effective in achieving its aims of stopping children becoming corrupted and abused. Frankly, it seems unlikely. Censorship of file-sharing sites is being carried out in the UK almost every month now and as time goes on users are becoming more and more adept at evading the blocks. A sampling of Twitter comments from the last few hours tells the story.

“Wow, they couldn’t even block Pirate Bay. Now they think they can take on porn. Morons,” said one unimpressed individual responding to BBC News.

“For the effectiveness of efforts to block anything on the internet see the ban on accessing the Pirate Bay,” said another.

Worryingly, if circumventing blocks is this easy for people casually looking for some MP3s or a TV show, imagine the simplicity for the hardened child abuser looking for his fix.

The solution is not to force ISPs and Google to hide this criminal behavior away in an effort to pretend it somehow doesn’t exist, but to hit it at its source. But the suggestion of how that may be achieved is also just a little bit scary.

According to the Guardian, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is going to draw up a list of “abhorrent” search terms to enable the identification of people searching for this content.

Monitored Google searches? We definitely haven’t heard the last of this.

Posted in UKComments Off on Internet Porn to be Censored in the UK

Today in History–The Bombing of the King David Hotel by Jewish Nazi terrorists


The King David Hotel explosion of July 22, 1946 (Palestine), which resulted in the deaths of 92 Britons, Arabs and Jews, and in the wounding of 58, was not just an act of “Jewish extremists,” but a premeditated massacre conducted by the Irgun in agreement with the highest Jewish political authorities in Palestine– the Jewish Agency and its head David-Ben-Gurion.

According to Yitshaq Ben-Ami, a Palestinian Jew who spent 30 years in exile after the establishment of Israel investigating the crimes of the “ruthless clique heading the internal Zionist movement,” The Irgun had conceived a plan for the King David attack early in 1946, but the green light was given only on July first. According to Dr. Sneh, the operation was personally approved by Ben-Gurion, from his self-exile in Europe. Sadeh, the operations officer of the Haganah, and Giddy Paglin, the head of the Irgun operation under Menachem Begin agreed that thirty-five minutes advance notice would give the British time enough to evacuate the wing, without enabling them to disarm the explosion.


The Jewish Agency’s motive was to destroy all evidence the British had gathered proving that the terrorist crime waves in Palestine were not merely the actions of “fringe” groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang, but were committed in collusion with the Haganah and Palmach groups and under the direction of the highest political body of the Zionist establishment itself, namely the Jewish Agency. 

That so many innocent civilian lives were lost in the King David massacre is a normal part of the pattern of the history of Zionist outrages: A criminal act is committed, allegedly by an isolated group, but actually under the direct authorization of the highest Zionist authorities, whether of the Jewish Agency during the Palestine Mandate or of the Government of Israel thereafter.



The following is a statement made in the House of Commons by then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee: On July 22, 1946, one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history took place. We refer to the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters. The attack was made on 22 July at about 12 o’clock noon when offices are usually in full swing. The attackers, disguised as milkmen, carried the explosives in milk containers, placed them in the basement of the Hotel and ran away.

The Chief Secretary for the Government of Palestine, Sir John Shaw, declared in a broadcast: “As head of the Secretariat, the majority of the dead and wounded were my own staff, many of whom I have known personally for eleven years. They are more than official colleagues. British, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Armenians; senior officers, police, my orderly, my chauffeur, messengers, guards, men and women– young and old– they were my friends. “No man could wish to be served by a more industrious, loyal and honest group of ordinary decent people. Their only crime was their devoted, unselfish and impartial service to Palestine and its people. For this they have been rewarded by cold-blooded mass murder.” Although members of the Irgun Z’vai Leumi took responsibility for this crime, yet they also made it public later that they obtained the consent and approval of the Haganah Command, and it follows, that of the Jewish Agency.

The King David Hotel massacre shocked the conscience of the civilizedworld. On July 23, Anthony Eden, leader of the British opposition Conservative Party, posed a question in the House of Commons to Prime Minister Atlee of the Labor Party, asking “the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the bomb outrage at the British Headquarters in Jerusalem.” The Prime Minister responded: “…It appears that, after exploding a small bomb in the street, presumably as a diversionary measure– this did virtually no damage– a lorry drove up to the tradesmen’s entrance of the King David Hotel and the occupants, after holding up the staff at pistol point, entered the kitchen premises carrying a number of milk cans. At some stage of the proceedings, they shot and seriously wounded a British soldier who attempted to interfere with them.

All available information so far is to the effect that they were Jews. Somewhere in the basement of the hotel they planted bombs which went off shortly afterwards. They appear to have made good their escape. “Every effort is being made to identify and arrest the perpetrators of this outrage. The work of rescue in the debris, which was immediately organized, still continues. The next-of-kin of casualties are being notified by telegram as soon as accurate information is available. The House will wish to express their profound sympathy with the relatives of the killed and with those injured in this dastardly outrage.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI1 Comment

Khamenei urges caution in dealing with ‘untrustworthy’ US



‘If interaction with the world causes retreat from the path, it is a loss,’ Iran’s supreme leader says on nuke talks with the West

Times of Israel

Iran’s top leader said Sunday he has not prohibited talks with the U.S. but urged caution with any possible dialogue, describing the American government as untrustworthy.

The U.S. and Iran are in deep disagreement over Tehran’s nuclear program. The U.S. and the West have imposed punishing economic sanctions to press Iran to stop enrichment of uranium, fearing that the process could lead to production of nuclear weapons. Iran denies that intention. 

“I said earlier this year that I’m not optimistic about talks with the U.S.,” said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “although I didn’t prohibit dialogue on specific issues such as Iraq in the past years.” He told outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other top government officials in Tehran, “Americans are untrustworthy and illogical. They are not honest in their dealings.”

Iran’s president-elect, Hasan Rouhani, has pledged to follow a path of moderation and interaction with the outside world. Khamenei said Iran must determine the goals of its adversaries. Otherwise it will suffer, he said.

“We’ve always believed and continue to believe in interaction with the world but the important point is to understand the other party and determine its goals and tactics, because we will be tripped up if we don’t understand them correctly,” Khamenei said in comments posted on his website late Sunday.

“The art in interaction with the world is to continue your path without the other party being able to stop you. If interaction with the world causes retreat from the path, it is a loss,” he said.

Rouhani, who won a landslide victory in the June 14 presidential election, will be sworn in Aug. 4. Iran has sent invitations to world leaders to attend his inauguration.

Rouhani’s election has revived hopes for easing of tensions with the West as well as possible direct talks with the U.S.

Posted in IranComments Off on Khamenei urges caution in dealing with ‘untrustworthy’ US

ليبق الأسد ولتعترف الثورة بفشلها



* ماهر ابو طير

حّذر كثيرون من الازمة السورية، واقتتال كل الاطراف أدى الى تدمير سورية البلد والشعب، واعاد سورية الف عام الى الوراء، ويحتفل بعضنا بهذه الثورة التي حرقت الاخضر واليابس، واقنعت الناس ان اقتتلوا وانتحروا وسنعيد اعمار سورية بعد سقوط النظام.

لا..يقولون لك من أين سيُؤمّنون ثلاثمائة مليار دولار لاعادة الاعمار، ومن سيسمح اصلا من العواصم الكبرى واسرائيل بإعادة الاعمار اذا كان المطلوب الاساسي تدمير سورية وجيشها وشعبها واقتصادها؟!.

الثورة بدأت سورية، ولم تعد الان سورية، والبداية كانت آثمة من درعا، غير ان الثورة تم امتطاء صهوتها واختطافها من اجهزة المخابرات في العالم، الموساد والسي اي ايه والاتراك والفرنسيون وغيرهم، وتقابلهم اجهزة مخابرات ايران والصين وروسيا.

سورية باتت ملعباً دموياً لصراع اقليمي ودولي، يتغذى على لحم اهلنا السوريين، معارضة وجيشاً وشعباً في حرب الوكلاء في الشام.

يكفينا هذا الانتحار المجاني في الشام، مئات الاف القتلى، ومئات الاف الجرحى، وملايين المهجرين من بيوتهم، والاقتصاد تم تدميره، والبنية الاجتماعية تم تحطيمها، ومع هذا فالمجتمع الدولي لايريد الحسم في سورية حالياً، وقد يريده متأخراً، بعد ان يتمكن كل الفرقاء من تدمير سورية، ونحرها جهاراً نهاراً.

الثورة في سورية تنحر سورية، لان ثورة لاتنتصر عليها ان تعيد حساباتها، والا ماهو المنطق الذي يسمح باستمرار الثورة، دون ان تنتصر، الا اذا كان المطلوب قتل آخر سوري، ثم اعلان الانتصار فوق جثته؟!.

ليس صعباً لدى العقلاء الاعتراف اليوم ان الثورة في سورية كانت خطأ مميتاً في بلد لم يكن مديناً، وكانت اموره حسنة الى حد كبير، ودرعا التي جرت فايروس الثورة الى سورية، ليست قبلة المؤمنين المقدسة، حتى تواصل جرنا في بحر الدم، لاننا لانريد الاعتراف ان الثورة كانت انتحاراً بكل مافي الكلمة من معنى.

يكفينا ايضا فوضى القتال، فالقاعدة تُهدّد الجيش الحر، وقيادات الجيش الحر تُهدّد السلفيين والقاعدة، وجماعة الاخوان طرف ثالث في سورية له حساباته، ثم التنظيمات العلمانية، وهذا يعني اننا سنشهد حرباً بين «الفصائل» فوق حرب «القبائل» في ذات البلد.

ماهذا الانتحار كحيتان الشاطئ لشعب بلد عربي مهم، وسط الروايات التحريضية والمنقوصة، التي تقول ان الجيش السوري هدم عمارة وقتل من فيها، ولاتحكي لك الرواية ذاتها عدد المقاتلين الذين كانوا في ذات العمارة يقنصون افراد الامن والجيش، والرواية الناقصة نراها في كل الاعلام العربي، والمحصلة ادامة الصراع وتدمير سورية؟!.

السوريون اصحاب القرار في بلدهم، ويستثني هذا الاستخلاص النخب التلفزيونية المؤجرة التي نراها تتصدر المشهد وتخطف اسم السوريين وتنطق به، والكارثة ان من انشقوا عن دولتهم وتمردوا يخافون العودة عن قرارهم تحت وطأة التحسب على مستقبلهم الشخصي، فلايجدون مسرباً الا في الاستمرار في اشعال الثورة، وجر شعب بأكمله الى المحرقة.

الشعب السوري مطالب ان يخرج من تحت الركام، ويعلن عن وقف الثورة، والعمليات المسلحة، وان يذهب الجميع الى مصالحة وطنية عامة، دون ثمن، لان الحديث عن الاثمان سيكون مضراً بالجميع، اذا كنا سنوزع المسؤوليات على كل اطراف الصراع في سورية.

إما ثمن يدفعه النظام ومن اشعلوا الثورة، معاً، واما التخلي عن فكرة الثمن، وعقد تسوية تعفي الجميع من الكلف، فيبقى الاسد، ويتم العفو عمّن تورطوا وتعويض من تضرّروا، في هذه الفتنة القبيحة التي تتم ادامتها تحت عناوين قومية ودينية.

اذا لم يمتلك الثائرون القدرة على الاعتراف بأن الثورة لم تنتصر، ، والتخلص من تبعية وتمويل عواصم عربية واجنبية، فإنهم يساعدون عملياً في نحر بلدهم، ولابد من اعلان المراجعة، ولايمكن هنا اتهام النظام بالدموية بهذه البساطة، مادام النظام ذاته يقول ايضا ان الثورة دموية، وان الرصاصة تقابلها رصاصة.

هذا الاقرار جارح ومؤلم لكثرة فقدت وخسرت ممتلكاتها ودمها، وتعرضت الى خسائر، غير اننا اذا وقفنا عند ميزان الخسارة، فإن رفض هذا الاقرار سيأخذ كل سورية الى خسائر اعظم، ستجعلهم لاحقاً يندمون على عدم اتخاذهم لخطوة جريئة بوقف ثورتهم وترتيب امورهم، وطرد كل هذه العواصم التي تلعب في بلدهم وبدمهم جهاراً نهاراًَ.

كلمات ستجلب لي الشتائم واللعنات، غير ان تصفيق الجمهور، ليس مهماً وليس مطلوباً، وليس مؤشراً في حالات على عبقرية المُصفقين، ولم تضع هذه الامة الا بسبب الدهماء، والنخب التي انتجتها هذه الدهماء، وفرضت عليها مجاراة الشارع حتى لو كان ينتحر.

رد الله الشام من غربتها لاهلها ولنا ايضا لاننا من اهلها,اذ يعز علينا رؤية الجميلة اذ ينهمرون كالذئاب على لحمها.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on ليبق الأسد ولتعترف الثورة بفشلها

TUT Broadcast: Zio-Nazi attack on the military base in Latakia, Syria

TUT Broadcast July 22, 2013

by crescentandcross

Israel’s attack on the military base in Latakia, Syria–a demonstration to the world that no one is safe from the Jewish state’s nukes and with the new subs given to her by Germany she now has the means of delivering them anywhere, anytime.


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on TUT Broadcast: Zio-Nazi attack on the military base in Latakia, Syria

British baroness: European states are not wishful of receiving MKO members

By: Habilian
A number of MKO members in Iraq wish to return to Iran and to rejoin their families there, but the problem here lies with their leaders both inside and outside of Iraq, said a member of the House of Lords of the UK parliament.

Baroness Emma Nicholson said in an exclusive interview with Habilian Association, that the MKO leadership does not allow these individuals to travel to Iran where they will not be prosecuted and their own families await them.

Referring to the expulsion of MKO members from Iraq, vice president of the EU Committee on Foreign Affairs added, “Western European states are not at all wishful of receiving them because of their recent past history. Albania has agreed to take several hundred in theory, but in practice has only accepted seventy two.”

Despite the repeated requests made by the UN Secretary General, just two European countries, Albania and Germany, offered asylum to members of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq group. In late March, Albania offered to grant asylum to 210 MKO members in Iraq. But, the group’s spokesperson has immediately turned down the offer. Instead, he asked for the resettlement of all the members in the US or their relocation back to Camp Ashraf, their former military headquarters.

However, after some two months, 14 members of the terrorist group departed Iraq for Albania as the first group followed by the second and third groups which brought the total number of the group members in the southeastern European country to 71.

Germany has also offered asylum to 100 members of the terrorist group, but so far only a group of 7 individuals arrived in this country.

Posted in Iran, IraqComments Off on British baroness: European states are not wishful of receiving MKO members


Posted by J

A Canadian genocide in search of a name

Canadians [and Americans] need to face the sad truth that the country engaged in a deliberate policy of attempted genocide against First Nations people.

CANADIAN GENOCIDE blood_sample.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox

A nurse takes a blood sample from a boy at the Indian School in Port Alberni, B.C., during the experiments conducted on aboriginal children in the 1940s.

A nurse takes a blood sample from a boy at the Indian School in Port Alberni, B.C., during the experiments conducted on aboriginal children in the 1940s.

By: Phil Fontaine Dr. Michael Dan Bernie M. Farber Published on Fri Jul 19 2013

Canadians have been staggered by the news arising from a University of Guelph study which proves that in our lifetime Canadian authorities knowingly and wilfully starved aboriginal children in residential schools. Their incomprehensible rationale: they wanted to conduct nutritional experiments on these famished children for future study.


It is time for Canadians to face the sad truth. Canada engaged in a deliberate policy of attempted genocide against First Nations people. And the starvation experiments were only the first of a litany of similar such attempts to control, delegitimize and, yes, even annihilate First Nations to suit the needs of a growing Dominion.

Some have argued that the beginnings of this genocide had its seeds with the establishment of the Indian Act of 1876, which legalized First Nations as an inferior group and made them wards of the state. In truth, these were just words on paper compared with accusations lodged against the Canadian government by our first Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Peter Bryce, in 1907.

According to an academic study undertaken by Adam Green for the University of Ottawa, Dr. Bryce uncovered a “national crime” pertaining to the health of First Nations people. In a book Bryce wrote after he was summarily dismissed from his position for blowing the whistle on the Canadian government’s complicity in the mass deaths from tuberculosis of aboriginals on reserves and in residential schools, Bryce outline in detail what he observed.

According to Bryce, Canada’s aboriginal people in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan were being “decimated by tuberculosis and that the federal government possessed the means to stop it.” Instead, it chose a such minimalist approach that, in the medical opinion of Dr. Bryce, it “amounted to almost nothing.”

The government of the day sought to hide Bryce’s findings from the general public and chose to bury the report and relieve Bryce of his duties. This had the effect of ensuring that no real steps would be taken to help save the lives of natives on reserves and in residential schools from the ravages of this disease. Indeed, Bryce was so frustrated that in the end he charged that “the government’s treatment of it’s aboriginal peoples amounted to nothing less than an infuriating and criminal disregard to the country’s Treaty pledges.”

It would be the easy course for us to continue to turn our backs and pretend that Canada would simply never have engaged in a deliberate attempt to destroy aboriginal people. However, the facts seem to point ominously to that conclusion.

We must ask ourselves: When does genocide become genocide? This might seem an absurd question, but history isn’t always forthcoming with a neat little package bearing the label “genocide, open with caution.” The definition of genocide is quite clear, however:

. . . any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Under this definition, Canada’s treatment of its First Nations, even in our own lifetime, meets the genocide test:

The recently exposed nutrition experiments carried out in the residential schools meets the criteria under point (b).

The residential school system itself, and the practice of forcibly removing First Nations children from reserves and placing them with adoptive non-aboriginal families, common in the 1960s, and referred to as Sixties Scoop, meet the criteria under point (e).
The decision by the government in the 1900s to allow native children to die of tuberculosis meet the criteria under point (c).
This list is by no means exhaustive.

In 1910, Duncan Scott, then head of Canada’s residential schools, refuting the high death rate in his schools as reported in the Bryce’s study, wrote:

“But this does not justify a change in the policy of this Department which is geared toward a Final Solution of our Indian Problem (our emphasis).”

The Government of Canada currently recognizes five genocides: the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide and Srebrenica.

The time has come for Canada to formally recognize a sixth genocide, the genocide of its own aboriginal communities; a genocide that began at the time of first contact and that was still very active in our own lifetimes; a genocide currently in search of a name but no longer in search of historical facts.

Phil Fontaine is the former National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Dr. Michael Dan and Bernie M. Farber are the president and senior vice-president respectively of Gemini Power Corporation, working with First Nations to build sustainable industries.


canadian genocide-paganmediathatbitescanadashiddengenocide

related articles:




Posted by J

NOW IN THE 7TH 2012 EDITION: "TELLS IT LIKE IT WAS--AND LIKE IT IS" (Meir Amit, former director general of Mossad)

“TELLS IT LIKE IT WAS–AND LIKE IT IS” (Meir Amit, former director general of Mossad)

SOME Visual Metaphors 4



The MEGA story indeed is a “mega-story” if allowed to surface and to be properly investigated. It shows the potential costs of treachery and lies at the highest levels of the U.S. Government and how cover-ups can wind up causing more cover-ups, corruption causing more corruption, breaches of national security causing more breaches, lies necessitating more lies, that continue to this day with ramifications that continue to this day.

The Bill and Monica story was always about a lot more than the letter “V” of the “Oval Office” being replaced with the letter “R”.


monica collage fbfin



This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This site makes such material available in efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information.

Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School


“Then, in April 1997, Rafi Eitan’s name began to surface in connection with a Mossad spy in Washington whom the FBI identified as code-named “Mega.”

His own well-laced source within Mossad had told Rafi Eitan that the FBI had begun to explore the role Mega could have had in the way Jonathan Pollard had been run. The FBI had recently interviewed Pollard in prison and he had admitted that even his high security clearance had not been enough to obtain some of the documents his handler, the funereal Yagur, had requested. The FBI knew such documents had a special code word through which they had to be accessed, which changed frequently, sometimes even on a daily basis. Yet Yagur had seemed to know the code within a matter of hours to give to Pollard. Had Mega provided it? Was Mega the second Israeli spy in Washington the FBI had long suspected? How close had he [or she?] been to Rafi Eitan?


These were the dangerous questions now being asked in Washington that could shatter the relationship between Washington and TEl Aviv.

After the FBI had identified him as the puppet master behind Pollard, Rafi Eitan had accepted that his time in Israeli intelligence was finally over. He had looked forward to ending his days facing no greater risk than being scorched from the blowtorch he wielded when forming his sculptures.

Instinctively he knew that events in Washington posed a threat not only to him–a CIA snatch squad could try to grab him as he came and went from Cuba and bring him to Washington for questioning, and there was no way of telling what would happen then; but the discovery of Mega’s existence would also be exercising minds in the upper echelons of the Israeli intelligence community’s Va’adat Rashei Hasherutim–the Committee of the Heads of Service– whose primary function is to coordinate all intelligence and security activities at home and abroad.

But even they knew nothing about who Mega was. All they had been told was that he was highly placed in the Clinton administration. Whether the president had inherited him from the Bush government was another carefully guarded secret. Only the incumbent Mossad memune [“first among equals”] knew how long Mega had been in place.

The committee members did, however, know that the FBI’s counter-intelligence division finally believed that the lack of action against Mossad was due to the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington, and the reluctance of successive administrations to confront it. Once more the lobby could be called upon to dampen the firestorm building since Mega had first been discovered by the FBI. On February 16, 1997, the National Security Agency (NSA) had provided the FBI with an intercept of a late-night conversation from the Israeli embassy between a Mossad intelligence officer identified only as “Dov” and his superior in Tel Aviv whose name had not been revealed during the short conversation.


Dov had asked for ‘guidance’ as to whether he ‘should go to Mega’ for a copy of a letter written by Warren Christopher, then the secretary of state, to PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. The letter contained a set of assurances given to Arafat by Christopher on January 16 about the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank city of Hebron. Dov was instructed by the voice in Tel Aviv ‘to forget the letter. This is not something we use Mega for’.


The brief conversation had been the first clue the FBI had of the importance of Mega. The code name had not been heard before in its round-the-clock surveillance of the Israeli embassy and its diplomats. Using state-of-the-art computers, the FBI narrowed the urgent search for the identity of Mega to someone who either worked there or had access to a senior official employed by the National Security Council, the body that advises the president on intelligence and defense-related matters. Its office is in the White House, and its members include the vice-president and secretaries of state and defense. The director of Central Intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serve in an advisory role. Th permanent staff is headed by the president’s national security adviser.

How the Israeli embassy had learned its secure communications channel with Tel Aviv had been breached still remained as closely guarded as the identity of Mega. Like all Israeli missions, the Washington embassy was constantly updated with more sophisticated systems for encryption and burst transmissions: a significant portion of this equipment has been adapted from stolen U.S. blueprints.

On February 27, 1997, a pleasant spring morning in Tel Aviv, the members of the Committee of the Heads of Services drove from their various offices around the city along the broad road called Rehov Shaul Hamaleku to a guarded gate in a high blank wall tipped with barbed wire. All that could be seen of what lay behind the wall were the roofs of buildings. Rising above them was a massive concrete tower visible all over Tel Aviv. At various heights were unsightly clusters of electronic antennae. The tower was the centerpiece of the headquarters of the Israel Defense forces. The complex is known as the Kirya, which simply means ‘place’.


At a little before 11:00 a.m., the intelligence chiefs used their swipe cards to access a building near the tower. Like most Israeli government offices, the conference room they entered was shabby.

The meeting was chaired by Danny Yatom, who had recently been appointed as Mossad’s latest chief by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yatom had a reputation as a hard-liner, very much in keeping with Netanyahu. The Tel Aviv rumor mills had it that they new Mossad chief had ‘baby-sat’ the embattled prime minister when Netanyahu’s colorful private life threatened his career. The men around the cedar-wood conference table listened attentively as Yatom outlined the strategy to be adopted should the ‘situation’ with Mega become a full-blown crisis.

Israel would deliver a strongly worded protest that its Washington embassy’s diplomatic status had been violated by the bugging–a move that would undoubtedly cause embarrassment to the Clinton administration. Next sayanim [sympathetic helpers] connected to the U.S. media should be instructed to plant stories that Mega was an incorrect decoding of the Hebrew slang Elga, which had long been Mossad-speak for the CIA. Further, the word Mega was part of one well-known to U.S. intelligence. Megawatt was a code name it had until recently used jointly with Mossad to describe shared intelligence. For good measure sayanim should add that another word, Kilowatt, was used for commonly shared terrorist data. But for the moment nothing would be done, Yatom concluded.

In March 1997, on receipt of information from Mossad’s ‘katsa’ [case officer] in Washington, Yatom took action. He sent a yahalomin team [special communications unit] to Washington to follow-up on the katsa’s report that President Clinton was repeatedly indulging in phone-sex calls with a former White House aide, Monica Lewinsky. He was making calls from the Oval Office to her apartment in the Watergate Complex. Knowing that the White House was totally protected by electronic counter-measures, the yahalomin team focused on Lewinsky’s apartment. They began to intercept explicit phone calls from the president to Lewinsky. The recordings were couriered by diplomatic bag to Tel Aviv.

Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton photographed together in November 1995

On March 27, Clinton once more invited Lewinsky to the Oval Office and revealed he believed a foreign embassy was taping their conversations. He did not give her any more details, but shortly afterwords the affair ended.

In Tel Aviv, Mossad strategies pondered how to use the highly embarrassing taped conversations; they were the stuff of blackmail–though no one suggested any attempt should be made to blackmail th president of the United States. Some, however, saw the recordings as a potent weapon to be used if Israel found itself with its back to the wall in the Middle East and unable to count on Clinton’s support.

There was common consensus that the FBI must also be aware of the conversations between Clinton and Lewinsky. Some strategists urged Yatom to use ‘the back-door channel’ with Washington and let the FBI know Mossad was aware of the president’s phone calls it would be a not-very-subtle way of telling the agency to back off of their continuing hunt for Mega. Other analysts urged a wait-and-see policy, arguing that the information would remain explosive whenever it was released. That view prevailed.

In September 1998, the Starr report was published and Yatom had left office. The report contained a short reference to Clinton warning Lewinsky back in March 1997 that his phone was being bugged by a foreign embassy. Starr had not pursued the matter when Lewinsky had given her testimony before the grand jury about her affair with Clinton.However the FBI could only have seen the revelations as further evidence of their inability to unmask Mega.

Six months later, March 5th, 1999, the New York Post published in a cover story the revelations in the original edition of this book. The Post story began: ‘Israel blackmailed President Clinton with phone-tapped tapes of his steamy sex talks with Monica Lewinsky, a blockbuster new book charges. The price Clinton paid for the silence of the Mossad spy agency was calling off an FBI hunt for a top-level Israeli mole’

Within hours of this complete distortion of the facts in the book (which I had carefully checked with sources in Israel), the Post’s version had appeared in thousands of newspapers around the world.

The essential point of my story, that the public prosecutor Kenneth Starr had not fully pursued his impeachment investigation into Clinton, was lost. Starr had noted in his report that on March 29, 1997: ‘He, [Clinton] told her [Lewinsky] that he suspected that a foreign embassy [he did not specify which one] was taping his telephone calls. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all day long, and the phone sex was a put-on’.

The president’s words most strongly indicated that he was aware that he had become a target for blackmail. By talking to Lewinsky over a public phone network–there is no evidence he had attempted to secure the phone in her apartment–the president had indeed left himself open to interception by foreign eavesdroppers and, even more so, the powerful microwave vacuum cleaners of the National Security Agency. Given that any incumbent president routinely gets NSA reports, he would also have known that his calls to Monica could well end up on the Washington rumor mills.

A sense of the panic my revelations created in the White House can be seen from its briefing to correspondents by Oval Office spokesmen Barry Toiv and David Leavey. There is a shifting-sands feeling about their responses that the official White House transcript has detained:

QUESTION: Why did the president reportedly tell Monica Lewinsky that he was concerned about his phone conversations being taped?

TOIV: Well as you know, other than the president’s testimony in this case, we really haven’t commented on specifics, on other specifics like that and we’re not going to start now.

QUESTION: When the president heard about this, was he shicked by it? What was his reaction Mr. Toiv?

TOIV: To be honest, I haven’t gotten the president’s reaction to the book.

QUESTION: Well, why did he say that to Monica Lewinsky? Why did he warn her?

TOIV: I’ve already not answered that question (Laughter).I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I know you’ve not answered it, but it’s very valid, really.

TOIV: Well, again, we’re not going to get into commenting on specifics beyond what the president has already testified to.

QUESTION: I don’t understand why you think it’s legitimate for you not to comment on the president of the United States supposedly saying that he thinks a foreign government is taping his conversations. For you just to say, no comment.

TOIV: There have been questions about all sorts of comments that have been made or testified to and we have not gone beyond the president’s testimony in discussing these and we’re not going to do that.

QUESTION: That’s because you’ve said its unseemly and its about sex. This is about the national security of the United States and the president supposedly saying that a foreign government is taping his conversations. And you’re just going to say sorry, no comment?

TOIV: I am not going to go beyond what he has already testified to.

QUESTION: You’re not denying it. You’re not denying it.

LEAVEY: Obviously, we’re not aware of a mole at the White House. But it’s the long-standing practice for people who speak at this podium to refer calls to the appropriate authorities who undertake these types of investigations.

QUESTION: Was there any attempt by the president to intervene in any kind of investigation or search for mole?

LEAVEY: No. There is no basis in that allegation whatsoever.

QUESTION: Well, there is a basis for it. There is a sworn testimony that Lewinsky gave that attributes to the president a comment that a foreign embassy was taping–

LEAVEY: And Barry just answered that question.

QUESTION: His answer was that he is not going to comment on it. That’s not much of an answer. With all due respect.

LEAVEY: Let me say two things–noted.

TOIV: I wouldn’t go beyond my comments.

LEAVEY: Yes, I’m definitely not going to add to Barry’s comments. But let me say this. We take all the precautions to secure the president’s communications. There is absolutely no basis for the allegation in the book.

QUESTION: Are you getting that from CIA or FBI, or are you getting out of just an automatic reflex?

LEAVEY: You can take that as authoritative.

QUESTION: I understand that you would have his communications secure. However, if he picks up the phone and calls some ordinary citizen at 2:20 a.m. in the morning at their apartment, what’s to say that that person’s phone couldn’t be tapped? Does you security system prevent that?

LEAVEY: There is some serious allegations in the book, and what I am sayng is that there is absolutely no basis for the allegation. So I have to leave it at that.

Not one serious newspaper made any attempt to follow-up on those revealing responses.

It turned out that Mossad was not the only organization that had taped the sex phone calls. The Republican senator for Arizona, Jon Kyl, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, told his local newspaper The Arizona Republic that, ‘a U.S. intelligence agency may have taped telephone conversations between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. There are different agencies in the government that make it their business to tape certain things for certain reasons, and it was one of those agencies.’

snowden prism

Kyl refused to identify to the newspaper who the agency or agencies were: ‘That’s something I absolutely can’t get into in any greater detail.’ Of his sources he said, ‘By virtue of who they are, they have credibility. You can assume that they are people who at some period in time have been in the employ of the federal government.’ He went on to compare the existence of the tapes to the ‘smoking-gun’ evidence in the Watergate scandal.

These explosive allegations from a respected politician were never pursued into the public domain.

According to at least one well-placed Israeli source, Rafi Eitan had received a phone call from Yatom reinforcing the need to stay well clear of the United States for the foreseeable future.

Rafi Eitan did not need to be told how ironic it would be if he fell victim to the very technique that had made him a legend–the kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann. Even worse would be to be quietly killed by one of the methods that had burnished his reputation among men who saw assassination as part of the job.

(Gordon Thomas pages 100-107)

At fifty-one years of age, there was something unstoppable about Danny Yatom; tireless and ruthless, he had the chutzpah of a street fighter. That was typified by his response to the discovery by the FBI in January 1997 of Mega–the high-level Mossad deep-penetration agent within the Clinton administration. He had told the Committee of the Heads of Services, whose role included preparing a fallback position in thee event of an operational failure, all that needed to be done was to make sure that the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States countered demands from Arab organizations that the hunt for Mega must be pursued as vigorously as the FBI dealt with spies from other countries. Jewish dinner guests at the White House dinner table–Hollywood stars, attorneys, editors–all lost no opportunity to remind the president of the danger of an ill-conceived manhunt would produce–even more if one of his own staff was arrested. In a presidency already besieged by scandal, that could be an opening that could finally destroy Clinton. Six months later, on July 4, 1997, Independence Day in the United States, Yatom learned that the FBI had quietly downgraded its hunt for Mega. (pp 327-328)

These [files and archives] included psycho-profiles of world leaders, terrorists, politicians, leading financiers–anyone who could be a help or hindrance to Israel. A typical profile contained personal details and close relationships. The one on President Bill Clinton listed many transcripts from the yaholomin surveillance of his conversations with Monica Lewinsky, some verging on phone-sex calls (see chapter 5, ‘Gideon’s Nuclear Sword’, pp. 103-5). The profile of Hillary Clinton contained a close analysis of her contact with Vince Foster, the Clinton White House deputy counsel. Mossad concluded that Foster did not commit suicide but, according to one Mossad officer who had read the file, ‘ most likely was murdered to cover-up what was a serious attempt by persons in the Clinton White House to keep secret material they would have preferred to keep quiet’ (the author was told) (p. 443)


Once more the specter that had haunted Dagan’s predecessors had surfaced. The FBI had reopened its investigation to try and establish the identity of Mega, Mossad’s deep-penetration agent high-level spy in Washington. He had originally been identified as working within the Clinton administration. But the FBI now believed he had successfully managed to conceal himself to secure a place in the Bush presidency. Like his predecessors, Dagan was probably the only spy chief in Israel who knew the true identity of his prized informer (see chapter 5, ‘Gideon’s Nuclear Sword’ pp. 100-02)

In the after math of George Bush being returned to the White House for another four-year term, FBI director Robert Mueller had briefed National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice–soon to become secretary of state–that Mega was the conduit for how highly sensitive policy documents on Iran had been passed to Israel. Mueller had told Rice that Mega would now be more important than ever for Israel as Bush began to formulate his policy toward the Middle East.

The FBI had already spent more than a year covertly investigating, using the latest electronic surveillance equipment, [and] a Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, who was a senior analyst at the Pentagon office dealing with Middle East affairs. Franklin formerly worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The Defense Department had confirmed the investigation, adding that Franklin worked in the office of defense undersecretary Douglas J. Feith, an individual aide to defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The FBI had publicly said their investigation centered on whether Franklin passed classified U.S. material on Iran to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. The AIPAC is a highly influential Israeli lobby in Washington. Like Franklin, it had been swift to deny ‘any criminal conduct’. In Israel, Ariel Sharon had taken the unusual step of issuing a similarly worded statement insisting ‘Israel does not engage in intelligence activities in the United States.’

Meir Dagan knew better. The United States had remained a prime target for Mossad operations after the 1985 conviction of navy analyst Jonathan Pollard on charges of passing secrets to Israel.

The FBI now believed Mossad had been responsible for how America’s nuclear secrets, stored on computer drives, had been stolen from Los Alamos. The drives were each the size of a deck of playing cards and kept in the facility’s most secure, password-protected vault in X-Division, twenty feet below the Mexican mountains.

The theft was discovered after a massive forest fire threatened the area and scientists were ordered to enter the vault to remove the drives. But because of the intensity of the fire, Los Alamos was closed down for ten days, which meant a full-scale search for the drives was launched only after this period. The drives were designed to fit into laptop computers carried by members of the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) on permanent readiness to fly to the scene of any nuclear accident within the United States. NEST squads wojld use the highly detailed technical information on the drives to disarm and dismantle nuclear devices. The drives had been checked as all-present in an inventory taken in April 2002.

When the FBI finally arrived on the scene, in May that year, their first suspicion was that a terrorist group had carried out the theft. But the, three months later, they discounted this when the drives were found behind a photocopier in another Los Alamos laboratoy. In a report to Bill Richardson, the then secretary of energy responsible for the lab, and its security chief, Eugene Habinger, the FBI concluded the theft was the work of a highly professional intelligence service ‘like Mossad’.

Now, three years later, the agency had not changed its view, Mueller told Condoleezza Rice. He also remained certain that somewhere within the Bush administration, Mega was securely entrenched. It was not a comfortable thought for the FBI director.” (pp. 453-54)

gideons spies IMG_1809



The Samson Option of Israel: " If we "feel" threatened, we light-off all our nukes we say we do not have and the temple (the whole world) comes down with us.

The Samson Option of Israel: ” If we “feel” threatened, we light-off all our nukes we say we do not have and the temple (the whole world) comes down with us.




Israeli-security-chiefs (1)



People, power, or propaganda? Unraveling the Egyptian opposition


Uncorroborated turnout estimates of the June 30 protests have used to justify the actions of the military

The debate over the legitimacy of Egypt’s new, military-installed government has become a popularity battle, with some of the most vocal supporters of the coup claiming that the June 30 protests against President Mohammed Morsi represented the largest demonstrations in human history, a real-life Cecil B. DeMille production, with crowd sizes ranging anywhere between 14 to 33 million people – over one-third of the entire population of Egypt.

Substituting subjective head counts for vote totals, Morsi’s opponents have also pointed to the 22 million signatures supposedly gathered by the newfangled Tamarod youth movement. To them, the tens of millions in the streets were a clear sign that “the people” had sided unequivocally with the army and its political allies.

The importance of head counts to the military-installed government’s international legitimacy was on display at a July 11 press conference at the US State Department. Pressed by Matt Lee of the Associated Press on whether the Obama administration considered Morsi’s ouster a coup, and if it would respond by canceling aid including a planned shipment of four F-16′s to Egypt, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki countered by citing Tamarod’s figures, declaring that the US could not reverse the will of the “22 million people who spoke out and had their voices heard.”

Days later, the Pentagon announced that the F-16 sale would proceed as planned. As far as the US was concerned, Egypt had not just witnessed a military coup. Instead, “the people” – or at least 22 million of them – had spoken.

With Egypt’s new army-backed regime relying on jaw dropping, record-shattering crowd estimates and petition drive figures to assert its democratic legitimacy, it is worth investigating the source of the numbers, and asking whether they add up at all.

Baseless claims born in an echo chamber

Among the first major Egyptian public figures to marvel at the historic size of the June 30 demonstrations was the billionaire tycoon Naguib Sawiris. On June 30, Sawiris informed his nearly one million Twitter followers that the BBC had just reported, “The number of people protesting today is the largest number in a political event in the history of mankind.” Sawiris exhorted the protesters: “Keep impressing…Egypt.”

Sawiris was not exactly a disinterested party. He had boasted of his support for Tamarod, lavishing the group with funding and providing them with office space. He also happened to be a stalwart of the old regime who had thrown his full weight behind the secular opposition to Morsi.

Two days after Sawiris’ remarkable statement, BBC Arabic’s lead anchor, Nour-Eddine Zorgui, responded to a query about it on Twitter by stating, “seen nothing to this effect, beware, only report on this from Egypt itself.” Sawiris seemed to have fabricated the riveting BBC dispatch from whole cloth.

On June 30, one of the most recognisable faces of Egypt’s revolutionary socialist youth movement, Gigi Ibrahim, echoed the remarkable claim, declaring on Twitter, “I think this might be the largest protest in terms of numbers in history and definitely in Egypt ever!” Over 100 Twitter users retweeted Ibrahim, while a BBC dispatch reporting that only “tens of thousands of people [had] massed in Tahrir Square” flew below the radar.

Some Egyptian opponents to Morsi appear to have fabricated Western media reports to validate the crowd estimates. Jihan Mansour, a presenter for Dream TV, a private Egyptian network owned by the longtime Mubarak business associate Ahmad Bahgat, announced, “CNN says 33 million people were in the streets today. BBC says the biggest gathering in history.”

There is no record of CNN or BBC reporting any such figure. But that did not stop a former Egyptian army general, Sameh Seif Elyazal, from declaring during a live CNN broadcast on July 3, just as the military seized power from Morsi, “This is not a military coup at all. It is the will of the Egyptians who are supported by the army. We haven’t seen in the last — even in modern history, any country in the world driving 33 million people in the street for four days asking the president for an early presidential election.” CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Christian Amanpour did not question Elyazal’s claim, or demand supporting evidence.

Three days later, Quartet’s Middle East special envoy Tony Blair hyped a drastically different, but equally curious, crowd estimate. In an editorial for the Observer (reprinted by the Guardian), Blair stated, “Seventeen million people on the street is not the same as an election. But it is an awesome manifestation of people power.” The former UK Prime Minister concluded that if a protest of a proportionate size occurred in his country, “the government wouldn’t survive either.”

From what source did the claim of 17 million demonstrators originate? Apparently, it was a single anonymous military official. One of the first Egyptian outlets to cite the number was the newspaper Shorouk, which headlined its June 30 report, “Military source: The number of demonstrators is 17 million and increasing.”

Strangely, a day before the military told Shorouk that 17 million demonstrators were in the streets against Morsi, another unidentified military source claimed to Reuters that 14 million were protesting. The news service noted that the figure was “implausible,” but amidst the excitement and chaos, examples of critical detachment like this were rare.

Meanwhile, the Tamarod youth movement triumphantly announced that it had collected a whopping 22 million signatures on its petition calling for early elections and Morsi’s withdrawal. European and US outlets repeated the claim without any critical scrutiny, noting that the number of signatures far exceeded the votes Morsi received when he was elected president.

Like the massive crowd estimates, Tamarod’s signature counts were impossible to independently verify. Increasingly it appeared that the numbers were products of a clever public relations campaign, with the Egyptian army and its political supporters relying on the international press and Western diplomats to amplify their Mighty Wurlitzer.

‘Impossible’ crowd estimates collapse under scrutiny

Was there any credible source for the widely cited figure of 33 million demonstrators? It has been impossible to locate one, either in English or Arabic media. As for the estimations of 17 and 14 million anti-Morsi protesters, there does not appear to be a valid source beyond the two anonymous military officials – not exactly dispassionate observers.

On July 15, the BBC reported that it was unable to find any legitimate sources for the opposition’s claims of either 14, 17, or 33 million protesters, affirming the conclusions of BBC Middle East correspondent Wyre Davies, who concluded that mobilising such a massive number of protesters was “impossible.”

Supporters of deposed president Mohammed Morsi hold a picture of him during a rally in Cairo’s Ramsis square under the Six of October bridge on July 15, 2013. [AFP]
Through simple Algebra, the Egyptian blogger Shereef Ismail has also poked gaping holes in the opposition’s numbers. Estimating that each protester occupied a space of approximately .45 square metres, Ismail calculated that the absolute maximum number of anti-Morsi demonstrators who could fit in the total area of major public spaces in Egyptian cities was at most 2.8 million.

There are other factors that cast doubt on the June 30 crowd estimates, like the basic logistics of cramming between 20 and 40 percent of Egypt’s population into already densely populated urban spaces without a staggering number of deaths and injuries ensuing, especially in the oppressive summer heat. Yet many among the army-installed government’s supporters are holding fast to their claims, insisting that “the people” led the way against the Muslim Brotherhood’s anti-democratic “ballotocracy.”

The opposition may have made an impressive showing on June 30 and in the days that followed, but the stunning crowd counts it spread across the world do not seem to hold up against critical scrutiny. And as the mirage of a 30-million-person march evaporates, an unsavory military coup stands exposed.

Posted in EgyptComments Off on People, power, or propaganda? Unraveling the Egyptian opposition

Shoah’s pages