Archive | March 21st, 2014

I$raHell Is No Ally



But is it even a friend?

[This is an edited version of a speech given by me at the National Summit to Reassess the Israel-US Special Relationship, which took place at the National Press Center in Washington on March 7th. The all day event included speakers Stephen Walt, Justin Raimondo, Paul Pillar, Jeff Blankfort, Alan Brownfeld, Philip Weiss, Ray McGovern and Scott McConnell. It was broadcast live by C-Span and is still available on their site.]

Inside the beltway types and the media constantly refer to Israel as an ally, which it is not. Israeli soldiers have never fought beside American troops and to be an ally you need an actual alliance on paper. No such legally binding document exists between Washington and Tel Aviv. Sycophants in congress are also fond of calling Israel Washington’s best or closest friend in spite of the fact that it does actual damage to the United States through using its considerable access to the government and media to promote policies that are good neither for the US nor for Israel itself. Recalling the expression that a friend does not let a friend drive drunk, one might observe that the United States has been driving drunk for quite some time, dangerous behavior that has to some extent been encouraged by Israel and its many supporters in Washington.

Israel might or might not have been an actual enabler of the disastrous American invasion of Iraq but it is undeniably true that the Pentagon officials who contributed to the “Clean Break” recommendations prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 were subsequently behind the rush to war and the forgery of phony intelligence that fed the process. And Iran is Iraq redux. If the Washington goes to war with Tehran in the near future it will not be because Iranians actually threaten America, it will be because Israel and its powerful lobby in the US have succeeded in creating an essentially false casus belli to bring about such action.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who once commented that 9/11 was good for Israel, has repeatedly sought to commit the United States to draw red lines that would narrow options for the White House and de facto require it to take military action against Iran. Congress is meanwhile advancing legislation that would commit the United States to intervene militarily in support of a unilateral Israeli attack, meaning that Israel could easily be empowered to make the decision on whether or not the US goes to war.

Nothing relating to Israel is quite like how the US interacts with other countries. Direct grants, forgiveness of loans, charitable exemptions, and Pentagon co-production schemes all contribute to the dollar costs that go to support Israel, measures that are not in place for any other nation. Congress also recently approved by a 410 to 1 vote the United States Israel Strategic Partnership Act which grants to Israel an exemption from the reciprocity mandated by the so-called visa waiver program. Israelis will be able to travel freely to the United States while their government will be allowed to refuse entry to American citizens, a privilege granted to no other visa waiver country. One congressman has even introduced a bill to cut off federal funding for any academic organization that engages in boycotting Israel. Boycotting other countries is apparently okay.

Israel involves itself in American elections, most recently on behalf of Mitt Romney, it has corrupted our congress, its head of government publicly humiliates our own head of state, its government ministers insult and ridicule John Kerry, and its intelligence officers actually provide alarmist and inaccurate private briefings for American Senators on Capitol Hill. No other country interferes in our system in as many ways as Israel.

That Israel, accustomed to behaving with impunity towards its alleged friend and patron in Washington, might manufacture a pretext reminiscent of the Lavon Affair in Alexandria Egypt in 1954 or the false flag attack carried out on the USS Liberty in 1967 that killed 34 US sailors and civilians to draw the US into a new conflict is not unthinkable. Israel also strongly supports using force to intervene in Syria, a proposition that is opposed overwhelmingly by the American public. In short, Israel has no reluctance to use its enormous political and media clout in the US to pressure successive administrations to conform to its own foreign and security policy views.

One other very good reason why Israel should not receive a free pass on its behavior as well as billions of dollars in military assistance annually is its persistent espionage against the United States. American friends of Israel stole enriched uranium from a Pennsylvania refinery to create the country’s secret nuclear arsenal. More recently we have learned how Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer born in Israel, arranged for the illegal purchase of 800 nuclear triggers. He picked up his first Oscar on March 2nd without any interference from the FBI.

The existence of a large scale Israeli spying network at the time of 9/11 has been widely reported, incorporating Israeli companies in New Jersey and Florida as well as hundreds of “art students” nationwide. Five Israelis from one of the companies were observed celebrating against the backdrop of the twin towers going down, the so-called “Dancing Shlomos.” Did Israel know in advance about 9/11? Many in the intelligence community believe that it certainly had knowledge of some aspects relating to the terrorist attack.

While it is often observed that everyone spies on everyone else, particularly true when one is referring to our own NSA, spying is a high risk business and most countries are extremely careful when spying on friends for fear of blowback. Israel, which relies on Washington for billions of dollars in aid and also for political cover in international fora like the United Nations, does not spy discreetly, largely because it knows that few in Washington will seek to hold it accountable. There were, for example, no consequences for the Israelis when Israeli Mossad intelligence officers using US passports and pretending to be Americans recruited terrorists to carry out attacks inside Iran. Israelis using US passports in that fashion puts every American traveler or businessman at risk.

Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against US competitors. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Israel has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program, which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion, to help the Chinese develop their own J-10 fighter.

The reality of Israeli spying is indisputable. Jonathan Pollard, Ben-Ami Kadish, Stuart Nozette and Larry Franklin are spies for Israel who have been caught, but apart from Pollard they all received no or light sentences and are only the tip of the iceberg. Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage.” The 2005 report states“Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.” It adds that Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the information. The 2005 report concluded that the thefts eroded US military advantage, enabling foreign powers to obtain expensive technologies that had taken years to develop.

A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that Israel has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it has with the Pentagon. “Placing Israeli nationals in key industries …is a technique utilized with great success.” A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage directed against American defense and security industries described how Israeli citizens residing in the US had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes, obtained classified plans for a reconnaissance system, and passed sensitive aerospace designs to unauthorized users. An Israeli company was caught monitoring a Department of Defense telecommunications system to obtain classified information, while other Israeli entities targeted avionics, missile telemetry, aircraft communications, software systems, and advanced materials and coatings used in missile re-entry.

The GAO has concluded that Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.” In June 2006, a Pentagon administrative judge overruled an appeal by an Israeli who had been denied a security clearance, stating, “The Israeli government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States. An Israeli citizen working in the US who has access to proprietary information is likely to be a target of such espionage.” More recently, FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has reported how many cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He provides a “conservative estimate” of 125 viable investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were stopped due to political pressure from above.

So is Israel an ally of the United States? The answer is most definitely no. Is it even a friend? Well, I suppose there are all kinds of friends in the world but if you judge Israel by its record on how it interacts with the American government and people I think the answer would also have to be no.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I$raHell Is No Ally

Putin signs treaty making Crimea, Sevastopol part of Russia



Russia president calls those behind recent events in Ukraine ‘nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites’; Biden: More sanctions coming for Russia.


Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty on Tuesday on bringing the Crimea region into Russia, a move that was met with strong condenmnation by the West and by threats of further sanctions against Russia.

Putin’s announcement came shortly after delivering a speech before the parliament in which he said that Crimea was and is an integral part of Russia.

Putin and leaders of Crimea and Sevastopol signed an agreement making the two entities new members of the Russian Federation.

“In the hearts and minds of people, Crimea has always been and remains an inseparable part of Russia. This commitment, based on truth and justice, was firm, was passed from generation to generation,” Putin said.

At the same time, he said in a televised address to the nation Tuesday that Russia doesn’t want to move to other regions of Ukraine, saying that “we don’t want division of Ukraine.”

He also said that Crimea would have three equal languages; Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar.

“It will be right if in Crimea, and I know that Crimeans are supporting this, there will be three equal languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Crimea Tatar,” he told a joint session of parliament.

Putin said relations with “brotherly” Ukrainian people will always be of crucial important to Russia. “Russians in Ukraine are fed up with the Ukrainian government,” Putin said.

Putin condemned the “so-called” authorities in Ukraine on Tuesday, saying they had stolen power in a coup and had opened the way for “extremists” who would stop at nothing to determine the future of Ukraine.

“Those who were behind recent events, they were … preparing a coup d’etat, another one. They were planning to seize power, stopping at nothing. Terror, murder, pogroms were used,” he told a joint session of parliament, calling them “nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites.”

“It is primarily they how are deciding how Ukraine lives today. The so-called Ukrainian authorities introduced a scandalous law on the revision of the language policy, which directly violated the rights of the national minorities.”

Putin compared Crimea’s move to Ukraine’s 1991 declaration of independence from Soviet Union,but stated that he does not seek any further divisions of Ukraine. “We do not want a partition of Ukraine, we do not need this.”

Putin thanked China for its support but said about Western partners that they have “crossed the line” over Ukraine, acting unprofessional and irresponsibly. He said he wouldn’t seek confrontation with the West but did say that he sees Western attempts to frighten Russia with sanctions as aggression and will retaliate.

He added that U.S. foreign policy is dictated not by international law but by might. “Our Western partners headed by the United States prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun,” he told the joint session of parliament. “They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destinies of the world, that it is only them who can be right.”

‘No common sense’

The Ukrainian foreign ministry said Ukraine does not recognize the treaty, and added it has “nothing in common with law or democracy or common sense.”

“Putin’s address very clearly demonstrates just how real the threat is that Russia poses to international security and international security,” ministry spokesman Evhen Perebynis said on Twitter.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday called Russia’s move a land grab and underscored Washington’s commitment to defending the security of its NATO allies on Russia’s borders.

Speaking at a news conference in Warsaw after meeting Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Biden said collective security guarantees remained the bedrock of NATO, and that Washington will take additional steps to strengthen the alliance in the future.

He said the United States stood by its commitment to complete a missile defense system in Poland by 2018. Biden said Russia will face additional measures from the European Union and United States if it goes ahead with a plan to make Crimea part of its territory.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, speaking to reporters, said the United States was preparing to add to those targeted for asset freezes and travel bans under a sanctions order announced on Monday.

“More is coming,” Carney said, adding that he did know when the action would be taken. “Work is being done to make further designations” under the sanctions.

Angela Merkel and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed in a call on Tuesday that Crimea’s declaration of independence and Russia’s annexation of the peninsula was an “unacceptable blow to the territorial integrity of Ukraine”, her office said.

The German chancellor’s office said in a statement that both leaders viewed European Union and U.S. sanctions against people implicated in the annexation of Crimea as a consequence of Russia’s actions, but they both remained open to dialogue.

The threats of increased sanctions were met by Russian outcries. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that Western sanctions were “unacceptable” and “will not remain without consequences”, the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Britain has suspended bilateral military co-operation with Russia that is not subject to treaty obligations, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Tuesday. Hague said this included cancelling a planned French-Russian-UK-United States naval exercise and suspending a proposed Royal Navy ship visit to St Petersburg.

Hague also said Britain would be pushing for the strongest possible package of further sanctions against Russia that could be agreed among European leaders when the European Union council meets later this week.

The Black Sea peninsula on Monday voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and seek to join Russia.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Tuesday that Russia’s participation in meetings of the G8 group of nations has been suspended.

The other seven countries had already said they had halted preparations for the G8 summit, which is set for June in the Russian resort of Sochi.

Fabius said Tuesday that the seven leading countries will unite without Russia.

Within hours of the vote on Monday, the Crimean parliament formally asked that Russia “admit the Republic of Crimea as a new subject with the status of a republic.”

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Putin signs treaty making Crimea, Sevastopol part of Russia

Crimea and punishment: Is Obama serious about making Putin pay?



The U.S. president and Congress are assembling a formidable legal arsenal against Russia in response to the putsch in Crimea. Will they use it?


President Obama’s executive order Monday, naming 11 individuals to be sanctioned in connection with their actions against Ukraine, may do little to end the mockery the president has been getting from the right for his diplomacy in respect of Russia’s seizure of the Crimea and his military maneuvering. But the President and Congress are putting into place a legal arsenal with that could, if they use the powers being assembled, really wallop President Putin and his camarilla. It all depends on how serious Obama really is.

This started to come into view on March 6, when President Obama un-pocketed his famous pen and signed an executive order “blocking property of certain persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine.” It is aimed at “persons who have asserted government authority in the Crimean region without authorization of the Government of Ukraine.” The order says those who undermine Ukraine’s peace, stability, and sovereignty and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets constitute “an extraordinary threat” to America.

It’s hard to think of language that broad since the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stunned America when they were passed by the 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams. That was in 1798 during our almost war with France. It’s not my purpose to attribute the negative connotations of the Alien and Sedition Acts to Mr. Obama’s executive order, or the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 that is now moving through the Congress. It is merely to mark their potential power.

Obama’s order applies to those whom the treasury secretary, Jacob Lew, and the state secretary, John Kerry, deem to be in violation of its terms. It declares as blocked all their property and interests in property that “are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch).” Their property “may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.” He also blocks the individuals from entering America.

The individuals announced by the White House Monday as being targets of sanctions include such figures as an aide to President Putin, Vladislav Surkov; to the chairman of a committee of the Russian legislature, Leonid Slutsky; to Dmitry Rogozin, deputy premier of the Russian federation; to the fugitive president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who urged a Russian invasion. The 11 figures named Monday mark the principle that America will target political figures fronting for Putin’s putsch.

The sanctions them — and any others like them — in the line of fire of the Office of Foreign Assets Control and of one David Cohen, the Treasury undersecretary for “terrorism and financial intelligence.” Cohen was described by one savvy market adviser, in a cable over the weekend, as “a ninja warrior of global finance: you mess with him at your peril.” He has blocked Iranian money, Mexican drug cash, and, as this adviser put it, “plenty of other things we don’t read about.”

There have already been hints that the Kremlin comprehends at least some of what it’s up against. Feature the report last week from the Fed, which disclosed that $104.5 billion in American government securities were moved from custody of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. One market letter circulating around town characterized the market’s conclusion as being that “this was the Central Bank of Russia reacting to President Obama’s March 6th executive order.”

It’s not so clear, though, that the Kremlin fully appreciates its predicament. “Dead wrong” is how the market letter is characterizing any supposition by the Russians that they could dodge the Treasury ninjas by moving custody to a different bank. It reminds me of the way things used to work during the American embargo of communist North Vietnam. Washington asserted authority over any deposit in a U.S. bank, any deposit in a foreign bank branch in America, any deposit in a foreign bank branch overseas if the foreign bank had a branch in America, and any deposit in a foreign bank without branches in America if the deposits were denominated in dollars.

Vietnam, of course, weathered those sanctions. But it had a banker in Russia and, to a degree, a backer in communist China. A European continent that was hostile to America’s and freedom’s cause in Vietnam. It’s not so clear who is going to run that kind of interference for President Putin, though the Daily Beast is reporting that an analysis by an investment firm called Macro-Advisory, which operates in Russia, reckons the starting sanctions against Russia would be only an “inconvenience” in the near term.

That analysis, the Daily Beast reports, characterizes as “disruptive” more drastic measures that would include “going after Russia’s ability to interact in global financial markets, which the analysis calls “disruptive,” and restrictions on Russian energy exports or trade sanctions, which the analysis says would be “catastrophic.” So the question really boils down to how aggressively President Obama and the United States Congress are going to wield the legal arsenal they are now assembling. If Putin and his camarilla are studying the example of Iran, they may be betting that Obama will, even when it has its adversary in a corner, flinch.

Seth Lipsky is editor of The New York Sun He was a foreign editor and a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, founding editor of The Forward and editor from 1990 to 2000.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Crimea and punishment: Is Obama serious about making Putin pay?

The Passion of Vladimir Putin



‘What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs…If we allow him to go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then we will lose our place and our nation.” Then one of them named Caiphas who was High Priest that year spoke and said “You fools, you know nothing at all…Do you not realize it is better that one man die than that the whole nation perish?”

Book of John

2014 Mark Glenn

The mood in Tel Aviv that day in early September 2013–specifically in the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu–had to have been absolutely electric. The news blaring out over the airwaves the world over was that more war (as if there weren’t enough already) was on its way to the Middle East, close enough to Israel in fact that gawkers and fans, if they so desired (as many did during Operation Cast Lead) could pull up lawn chairs and gigglingly watch the spectacle as if it were 2nd century Rome and Christians were being fed to lions.

The winning lottery ticket that had Chosenites the world over as giddy as schulgirls was the fact that Barack Obama had finally been Bar Mitzvaed, politically speaking, as virtually all American presidents inevitably must. Having experienced his ‘coming to Moses’ moment, the news was that he had finally decided to ‘get right’ with the god of Israel by surrendering his authority as leader of the free world to the genocidal demands of the Jewish state viz-a viz the obliteration of Syria.

Given the nature of what was involved then, how could such news have been greeted in Zionist circles in any fashion other than one of orgiastic celebration? As stated earlier, ‘electric,’ and not just any old sort of AC/DC razzle dazzle/razzmatazz, but rather the kind of ‘high voltage’ energy one sees taking place every year during the Judaic festival of Purim…Handshakes, hugs, kisses, high-fives, throaty shouts of ‘Mazel Tov’, Magan David flowing like blood from a severed jugular vein and hearty backslaps between goombahs from Likud, Beiteinu and everything in between as they congratulate each other over the fact that, once again–

–Jewish threats

–Jewish needling

–Jewish duplicity

–and of course the infamous kvetching for which this peculiar cult has been historically well-known had finally paid off, resulting now in the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse stampeding towards ancient Assyria faster than a swarm of Tomahawk cruise missiles bearing painted slogans on their sides such as ‘Bomb a sand nigger for Jesus’.

A long and winding road for Netanyahu and his gang of Armageddonistas, for sure. Syria was a ‘late bloomer’ as the saying goes and schedule-wise should have been a done deal a long time ago along with twin sisters Iran and Lebanon.

As far as Israel and her high priests of war were concerned, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into cauldrons of human suffering under George Bush’s landlordship had been as difficult as finding fleeting and meaningless human companionship at the local brothel on dollar day.

Obama however was another matter altogether. For 5 long years now Netanyahu had been forced to swallow the bitter bile of embarrassment as an uppity hired hand–elected solely on the basis of Jewish money, Jewish sloganeering and Jewish support–refused time and again to deliver the kind of Old Testament warporn to which Netanyahu was an admitted addict, leaving today’s wannabe King David as edgy as an old and rusted razor blade.

And so, on that day in early September, when the news of Syria’s impending Iraqification came blaring out of the Jewish mainstream media like Joshua’s trumpets announcing the destruction of Jericho, Netanyahu & co the world over had to have been–no pun intended–absolutely out of their minds with maniacal glee…

All can imagine then the fury—instantaneous and atomic–that had to have ignited in the mind of Nutty Netty when on Sept 10th, the day before Americans remember with great sadness the same 9/11 terror attacks which Netanyahu characterized as ‘good’ in terms of Israel’s PR, Barack Obama appeared on live television and announced that he had upgraded his ‘coming to Moses’ moment for something less problematic and Armageddonesque, specifically that–

Over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs, in part because of the constructive talks I’ve had with President Putin…The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons…’

and ending it with–

I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path…I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin and we will work together in consultation with Russia to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.’

For Netanyahu, the original announcement that Syria’s death sentence would soon be carried out with America as designated executioner was the ultimate ‘CHA-CHING’ moment…It was the equivalent of stepping into a time machine and going back almost a decade in terms of lost prestige, authority, respectability, and a dozen other commodities a leader must possess if he is to be taken seriously on the world stage. Having just recouped a large percentage of the losses he had incurred in recent years owing to Obama’s recalcitrance, he had gone from being deeply in the red to sittin’ pretty in the black…

With the announcement however that the death sentence imposed by Israel against Syria back when God was knee-high to a grasshopper had just been commuted, Netanyahu was–again, in front of the entire world–defeated, deflated, defanged, destroyed. Not only was the Emperor wearing no clothes, but as well, 14 billion eyes watching it all reacted with obvious snickering. The previous 5 years of Obama playing political-hard-to-get with Netanyahu and his war demands could not equal the humiliation and embarrassment delivered by that particular 10 minute television broadcast. The only suitable comparison would be Good Friday, 33 A.D., where–despite the curses and screeching demands coming from a pack of rabid, Judaic hyenas that an infamous rabble-rouser named Jesus Christ be subjected to a slow, tortuous death, instead–Pilate gives him the keys to the city along with a permanent escort of Rome’s best trained/well-armed Praetorians while Barabbas is dragged away kicking and screaming to the nearest cross for a little session of ‘time out’.

Netanyahu, a devoted Armageddonist in the truest and most fanatical sense of the word, is–on his best day–as lethal to his surroundings as a Hamentaschen-sized hunk of Uranium-235. On his worst day (such as that same Sept 10th, 2013 when he had the war door slammed in his face yet again by Obama) he’s that same hunk of Uranium-235, only now, installed within the business end of a nuclear warhead with a lit fuse coming out of the other side.

And it is safe to say that Netanyahu—being after all a ‘good Jew’, rejects with unequivocal contempt that very-Christian business of ‘turn the other cheek’ in favor of that very-Judaic dictum of ‘an eye for an eye’…

That being said then, all can be rest assured—and particularly now during this annual celebration of Judaic revenge known as Purim, where the body parts of Judea’s enemies are symbolically made into pastries and then devoured by Jews practicing a form of political cannibalism that Netanyahu is looking for a few eyes to gouge out…

And particularly those of a certain Russian leader of the Orthodox Christian variety going by the name of Vladimir Putin, in essence a new sheriff of sorts who has ridden into town on top of a Russian tank, is re-establishing law and order and is singularly responsible for Barack Obama refusing to launch new wars in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc, in order to satisfy the Old Testament fetishes of a dirty old man named Benjamin Netanyahu.

‘Vlad the bad’ and ‘Vlad the mad’ as Netanyahu’s cousins in the Jewish mainstream media are now referring to him, Putin started off on the wrong foot with La Kosher Nostra more than a decade ago with his prosecution of various mobsters of the non-Gentile variety bearing names such as Khodorkovsky, Berezhovsky etc. Certainly problematic all by itself as far as the synagogue and its many-tentacled agenda is concerned, but small potatoes as far as what has just taken place with regards to Syria. Having effectively robbed Netanyahu & co of yet another halakhic bloodbath, Putin has now become the equivalent of the crusading cop torching a drug production warehouse owned by a gangster who has never once seen the long arm of the law, much less been touched by it.

But this is certainly not the only crime against organized Jewish interests that has resulted in Putin ceremoniously being given the unenviable title of ‘Haman’ for this years Purim celebrations. Over the course of the last decade, he has–slowly but with great resolve–maneuvered a nuclear-armed/natural resource-rich Russia into becoming the new headquarters of Christian militancy against the toxic influences of organized Jewish power throughout the world. Whether it has been his reigning in the more fanatical, dangerous and subversive elements operating within Russia such as the sharmuta rock group Pussy Riot, the stripper ‘activist’ group FEMEN or curtailing the activities/behaviors in which militant homosexuals may legally engage, Putin has declared himself and his government to be the antibiotic and antidote to the morally corrupting and corrosive nature of Western (Jewish) influences, saying at his state of the nation address in December of 2013 that–

Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots and their Christian values…Policies are pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and the worship of Satan. This is the path to degradation.”

Besides declaring war against Hollywood and other apothacaries dispensing the spiritual/cultural poisons associated with the septic and unsanitary by-products of the synagogue, he has courted the Muslim world, accentuated the shared values between Christianity and Islam and has called for solidarity between two peoples with a common Judaic enemy. He recently uttered the unutterable concerning the disproportionately large Judaic influence/involvement with the most barbaric act of butchery in human history known as Bolshevism, resulting in a Judaic screeching campaign against him that could be heard from the Mir space station.

Knowing that spiritual solidarity can only go so far in a world governed by shekels and the law of the jungle, he is pushing forward the Eurasian Union as a bulwark against the EU and has made Russia the fulcrum of power around which economic consortiums such as BRICS revolve so as to stymie the influence of the IMF. When Georgia was being set up as a forward operating base for the US and Israel to launch attacks against Iran, Putin sent Russian tanks rolling over the border in what was a clear demonstration of Russian resolve and how far he was willing to go in opposing the NWO. While insisting upon carrying a big stick he has also spoken softly yet firmly through political fora such as the UN and has quite effectively utilized International Law in various maneuvers and machinations designed to impede western/Zionist aggression, in stark contrast to the United States, Europe and Israel who make up law as they go along.

Time and again, through both his words and actions, he has underscored the utterly bankrupt nature of the ‘Judeo-Christian’ West in all its manifestations– moral, political, economic, cultural and military–resulting in opinion polls around the world placing him numero uno in terms of popularity…

And it is for this reason then that organized Jewish interests have decided that Putin simply has to go. In resurrecting the rule of law and the moral values upon which all civilized societies MUST be based in order to not just thrive but survive, he has in effect become the 21st century political version of a Christ figure, challenging the organized Jewish interests of his own day, casting the goombahs out of the temple with a whip and in the process, incurring upon himself the kabbalistic Pulsa D’Nura death sentence reserved for those declared by the rabbinate to be enemies of Judea, the same curse Jesus Christ himself incurred upon His very open and public opposition to the organized Jewish leadership of His day as recounted in the gospels–

‘What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs…If we allow him to go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then we will lose our place and our nation.” Then one of them named Caiphas who was High Priest that year spoke and said “You fools, you know nothing at all…Do you not realize it is better that one man die than that the whole nation perish?”

And so too has Putin been branded with this curse by international Jewry who are set to use the situation in the Ukraine as the 1st of many falling dominoes that (they hope) will bring about his demise–literal, political or otherwise.

Surely it would be a breath of fresh air if a rational, thinking world could just analyze geo-political events for what they appear to be rather than being forced to factor the mad nature of Judaic esotericism into the equation before arriving at an accurate understanding of events such as Ukraine.

However, those who think that the timing of the present crisis in the Ukraine, falling PRECISELY during the Judaic celebration of Purim is mere coincidence need to check back into the Hotel Reality lest they be declared MIA and AWOL. Symbolism, numerology, nuance and subtle statements within Kosher Nostra are as hand-in-hand with the nature of Jewish power politics as are phrases such as ‘making an offer you can’t refuse’. History, cold hard facts and the words of organized Jewish interests themselves present a picture that prevents and precludes the possibility of accepting situations such as the events in Ukraine at face value. Taking this pernicious and pervasive influence out of the picture is like trying to understand the criminal history surrounding Prohibition-era Chicago and leaving absent any mention of Al Capone.

Likewise, given the disproportionate amount of influence that these interests wield over world affairs, trying to factor out of the equation Israel—both the geographic location in the Levant as well as the Diaspora that has installed itself in every corner of the globe—is the equivalent of putting together a spaghetti and meatball dinner while leaving out of the recipe the spaghetti and meatballs.

Purim—like all Judaic feasts that celebrate the defeat/death of Gentiles—is a BIG to-do, both in Israel and beyond. Like most Judaic rituals, it serves as a magnet in holding together an otherwise fractured, fractious group of cultists whose very identity is rooted in the ‘us vs them’ paradigm.

And historically, (and especially within the last century as organized Jewish interests have accumulated more and more power) when Purim comes ’round every year, someone (or a large group of someones) dies in some spectacular manner. Whether it was the bombing of Dresden during WWII, the hangings at the Nuremberg Trials post WWII, the massacre of 30 Palestinians by Baruch Goldstein in 1994 or the invasion/destruction of Iraq in 2003, every year when Purim floats to the top of the septic tank of Judaic religious feasts, some type of nasty business inevitably ensues. As Israeli writer Nathan Pasko wrote in his piece‘This War is for Us’ a mere few weeks after George Bush set loose his dogs of war in 2003–

‘Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us…we already knew that this war is for us – i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal – our sages – throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People. Simply put another way, if all the world is a stage, then the Jews – and especially those in the Land of Israel – are the lead actors on the stage of history, and the goyim – the nations, i.e. the gentiles – have supporting roles, while the evil-doers are props and background scenery. As our tradition states, G-D – the great playwright – created the world for the sake of the Jewish People, and it is our responsibility to implement the Torah – absolute morality and the blueprint of creation – in it.

Stop and think for a moment: the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev – just before – Purim. This Gulf War began motzei – just after – Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, “The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor.” (Book of Esther 8:16) Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the proto-typical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons – all hanged – and the Jews kill 75,800 members of the anti-Semitic – i.e. Nazi – party of the time.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, or crying, “anti-Semitic slur”, we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin-Laden are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.

Great things are yet to come…Purim is a time for celebrating our salvation from enemies who plot our destruction…

Despite their well-known differences of approach on various topics, this—the removal of Vladimir Putin from power–is something upon which both Obama and Netanyahu are in agreement. Putin simply has to go. Obama, being (at least in name) the most powerful man in the world doubtless bristled over the fact that he had been told ‘nyet’ by Putin back in September concerning the military strikes against Syria, and despite Obama’s blaming Congress’s refusal to ‘grant’ him legal authority to launch the strikes, nevertheless the ENTIRE WORLD knew that the force responsible for reigning in Obama was not a few corrupt men in DC, but rather a righteous one in Moscow. Semi-sane world leaders such as Obama are just as susceptible to the stinging aftereffects of being politically embarrassed on such a grand scale as are nutcases such as Netanyahu and rarely do they take their licks like a man and simply let bygones be bygones.

Where the two–Obama and Netanyahu–differ however is in the mechanics of Putin’s removal. Doubtless that it was/is Obama & co’s plan to engineer a situation in the Ukraine that would elicit a Russian response that could then be painted as ‘aggressive’, indicating a ‘resurgence of Soviet totalitarianism’ that could/would then be used to bring Putin’s popularity and his image down to a more ‘manageable’ level. Doubtless as well that it was/is the plan within the neo-liberal wing of the pro-Israel community in D.C. to stage some sort of incident whereby Russian troops (of course acting under Putin’s direct orders) fire on a group of innocent, freedom loving, pure-as-the-wind-driven snow Ukrainian citizens that can then be used to turn Russia into a pariah state, leading to isolation, marginalization, sanctions, etc, in the interest of forcing Putin and Russia to the bargaining (begging) table where terms are then dictated.

With Netanyahu in the picture however it is another matter altogether…

Netanyahu has no more patience for the slow, seemingly imperceptible progress of the ‘political’ process. He is feeling the hurt NOW and wants his war-aspirin immediately. Following the let down of September 2013 he remains in a state of suspended, sustained, seam-splitting fury, having reached critical mass a LONG time ago and angry enough to fry an egg on the top of his head. He IS the image of the cartoon bomb with the lit fuse ready to blow at any moment that he brandished at the UN in 2012, and in his messianic, apocalyptic mind, no moral qualms exist whatsoever about setting events in motion that lead to a real-life shooting war between 2 nuclear powers such as the US and Russia.

In fact, given the fanatical, narcissistic tendencies inherent to Judaism, and particularly in seeing Israel—and specifically Jerusalem—as the center of the universe from whence all power—political, economic, military, spiritual, etc–are concentrated, how can such an idealic vision be realized when the Jewish state must compete with Gentile superpowers such as the US and Russia?

Therefore, what this means is that Netanyahu is watching events as they unfold between the US and Russia like a crouching wolf as unsuspecting prey wanders into his territory, at which point he will lunge and strike. And anyone making the mistake of thinking that even Israel isn’t crazy enough to get a war started between 2 nuclear powers needs to get into their time machine and go back to the afternoon of June 8, 1967 when Israeli pilots attacked a U.S. ship, the USS LIBERTY, for 2 hours in the interests of blaming Egypt, Russia’s biggest client state in the Middle East at that time. As the attack was taking place, American F-4 Phantom bombers, loaded with nukes, were on their way to Cairo, a mere 3 minutes away, with orders to turn the ancient city into a parking lot. Besides the grace of God, the only thing that prevented those nukes from going off that day was a phone call from Russian Premier Kosygin to US President Johnson informing him that the Russians knew full well what was going on and that if the US wanted a war that Russia would be all too happy to oblige.

In short, with regards to Israel’s attempt to get WWIII started that day, the pause button was pushed, and now, with the fabricated tension between the U.S. and Russia over the issue of Ukraine playing center stage, the play button has been pushed again and things are moving along—with a vengeance–where they left off on June 8, 1967.

Indeed, it is Purim again, with Vladimir Putin—intent upon reigning in Apocalypto and in raising the Lazarus (world peace and order) from the dead–who figures as this year’s Haman, set to be hanged for his maneuvering against organized Jewish interests.

The question that remains is whether those interests headquartered in Tel Aviv who are eager to bring about Apocalypto will settle with the number set down in the book of Esther of 75,000 killed, or whether they will make adjustments for ‘inflation’ and bring the sum total much higher.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on The Passion of Vladimir Putin

US and EU hypocrisy on display over Crimea

Israeli crimes

By Nureddin Sabir

This is rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

The United States and its European allies have reacted with fury to the Crimean referendum, which resulted in an overwhelming vote in favour of breaking away from Ukraine and joining the Russian Federation.

Reuters news agency reported that the US and the European Union reacted to the vote by imposing sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, on officials from Russia as well as pro-Russian Ukrainian officials. According to the agency,

US President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on 11 Russians and Ukrainians on Monday [17 March] blamed for Moscow’s military seizure of Crimea, including ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, and Vladislav Surkov and Sergei Glazyev, two aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin…

In Brussels, the EU’s 28 foreign ministers agreed on a list of 21 Russian and Ukrainian officials to be subject to travel bans and asset freezes for their roles in the events…

Washington and Brussels said more measures could follow in the coming days if Russia does not back down and formally annexes Crimea.

“Today’s actions send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation,” the White House said.

I$raHell annexation of the Golan Heights and Arab Jerusalem

Now, turn the clock back, first to 27 June 1967. On that day, following a premeditated act of aggression which resulted in the seizure of Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, the Egyptian-administered Gaza Strip, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Jordanian-administered West Bank, Israel annexed Arab East Jerusalem, which it proclaimed as its eternal capital. Fourteen years later, on 14 December 1981, it did the same again, this time annexing the Syrian Golan Heights. And that’s not all. In the occupied West Bank, Israel set about systematically stealing Palestinian land and colonizing it with Jewish squatters brought in from all over the world (see here and here).

Both the 1967 and 1981 annexations, and the colonization of occupied territory, are flagrant violations of international law. However, in contrast to the Euro-American reaction to the Crimean referendum, the US and its European allies never entertained the idea of imposing sanctions on Israel for its annexations and colonization of stolen land. In fact, they rewarded Israeli transgressions with huge amounts of aid – in the case of the US military and economic aid amounting to 3.4 billion dollars in 2014 and in the case of the EU preferential trade agreements.

At least the people of Crimea – Russian territory until Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev arbitrarily gave it to Ukraine as a “gift” in1954 – had an opportunity to vote on whether or not to join Russia. No such opportunity was afforded to the peoples of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied West Bank, not even a flawed one.

The case of the two airliners

But there is form to the Western double standards shown towards Russia on the one hand and Israel on the other. On 21 February 1973 a Libyan airliner that had strayed over then Israeli-occupied Sinai was shot down by the Israelis, killing 108 passengers and crew. Were sanctions imposed on the Israeli terrorists who needlessly shot down the airliner? Does anyone even remember Flight LN 114?

It was, of course a very different story 10 years later, when the Soviet air force shot down a South Korean airliner that had flown through prohibited Soviet airspace around the time of a US reconnaissance mission, killing 269 passengers and crew. Then, in contrast to Israel’s shooting down of Libyan airlines Flight LN 114, sanctions and boycotts were the order of the day, and the incident ushered in a spate of anti-Soviet sentiment, particularly in the United States and Britain.

We don’t care very much for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Its support of Bashar Assad’s murderous sectarian regime in Syria, which prolonged the Syrian civil war and allowed the Islamist serpents to hijack the Syrian revolution, can never be forgiven. We care even less for Ukraine – a retarded society riddled with fascists and neo-Nazis and with a proven track record of collusion with Israel.

But we do care about the truth and integrity, both conspicuous by their absence in the US and European reactions to the crisis in Crimea.

Posted in USA, Europe, UkraineComments Off on US and EU hypocrisy on display over Crimea

Ukraine intervention may be key to US undoing


File photo shows Ukrainian servicemen marching behind flags at Belbek airport, which was taken over by Russian troops.

File photo shows Ukrainian servicemen marching behind flags at Belbek airport, which was taken over by Russian troops.

‘All that glitters is not gold; all that shivers is not cold.’ Mythology has it that Midas, the king of Phyrgia, was able to turn everything he touched into gold — ‘the Midas Touch’.  According to Aristotle, the legendary figure died of starvation as a result of his greed to transmute everything from its natural substance to gold. This myth is a tragic reality when it comes to America and its neocolonial adventures; America’s reach into Ukraine may well be the ‘touch’ that will end America as we know it today.

For decades, American neocons[1] have engaged in coups, false flag operations, covert and overt wars in order to institute their goal of global domination. The end of the Cold War emboldened them and 9/11 enabled them. Nations and societies became battlefields facilitated by the concept of ‘jihad’ versus ‘crusade’[i] thanks to neocon Bernard Lewis who initiated this idea. As country after country fell to America’s ruthless touch — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, (attempts in Venezuela and Iran), little attention was paid to covert activities against Russia (and China) considered to pose a challenge to America’s global domination.

Failure of the 2004 Western-backed Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the massive 2006 protests in Crimea against NATO’s invasion with slogans such as “Occupiers go home!” which prompted the parliament of autonomous Ukraine to declare Crimea a “NATO-free territory” (Euronews archive), sent Washington’s neocons into a spin mode, especially since NATO and US have been trying to encircle Russia since 1991.

Azar Gat, Ezer Weizman professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University writing for the powerful and influential Council on Foreign Relations publication (Foreign Affairs, July-August 2007) emphasized ‘the significant challenge emanating from China and Russia operating under “authoritarian capitalist” poised for a comeback.’ Global domination demanded curbing Russia (and China). Depriving Russia of its Black Sea Fleet in Crimea and Russia’s access to Syria’s Tartus Port are no doubt a crucial part of this strategy. As importantly, Russia’s gas exports to Europe had to be curbed.

To this end, overt and covert actions were put in place. CIA/State Department propaganda voice, Radio Free Europe, announced in 2010 that “Ukraine has been the target of democracy-promoting Western foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), for a quarter of a century” (well prior to 1991 dateline admitted to by Victoria Nuland). NED’s counterpart in England, the UK funded Westminster Foundation for Democracy was an active partner in the endeavor.

It was the Westminster Foundation that coopted the “Ukrainian Foundation for Democracy” – The People’s First Foundation that later that same year would become a member of the US-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC). Of particular relevance is the cast of characters who would shape things to come in Ukraine (to be discussed shortly).

“Democracy” promotion aside, the possible and likely role of United States Special Operations Command (USSOC) said to be present in 120 countries as of 2011, and growing (potentially in over 140 countries to date) must be also considered. Working with SOC is CIA’s Special Activities Division (SAD) and its departments Special Operations Group (SOG) and Political Action Group (POG), which engage in covert activities related to political influence and psychological operations.

As images of Molotov cocktails and sniper shootings and deaths found their way into living rooms across the globe, Europe (Ashton) concealed doubts cast over Yanukovch’s complicity in the sniper shootings, facilitating his overthrow in trumped up charges. There is no good reason for the Western backers of the mob government not to investigate the sniper killings unless a) they themselves were complicit, b) they had full knowledge of the actions, or c) concealing the actions was in their interest. No investigation has taken place to date.

Many scholars have voiced concern that the US is backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine; never mind the neo-Nazis – the EU and the United States have embraced terrorism and have sided with terrorists over a democratically-elected president. Although there is no universal definition of terrorism, Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

This must be an incomprehensible part of the US/EU “war on terror”! These actions marginalize those of the marines in Afghanistan who urinated on dead corpses.  With their backing of terrorists, the US and EU partners, in effect, have urinated on the graves of all who died in the despicable ‘war on terror’, including Allied soldiers.

This much said, one must surely ask why it is that the Jewish community is supporting the neo-Nazis rise. Why is it that the presence of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who led rebel groups has not been questioned and addressed?   Furthermore, why have Jewish leaders voiced support for the coup and its leaders, and they have chosen to direct their anger and venom toward Russia and President Putin in a letter?

Perhaps, familiarizing oneself with the executive members of the aforementioned USUBC may cast some light on this bizarre behavior. Especially noteworthy are  names and organizations among the senior advisors to the USUBC are from pro-Israel think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings, and Board of Directors executives selected from powerful players at weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon and Boeing (See

Undoubtedly, the cast of characters and their involvement in Ukraine would help ensure the safety of the Ukrainian Jews – especially in light of the fact that Israel is poised to play a huge role in eliminating Europe’s reliance on Russian gas and supplying Europe with gas it has stolen from the Palestinians – and Syrians.  Or as the New York Post put it last month:  “Israel’s fortune is Putin’s horror”

The planning of this “horror” has been in the making for some time. Perhaps the most revealing and interesting article is one penned by David Wurmser writing for the Jewish policy Center titled The Strategic Impact of Israel’s Export of Natural Gas. Referring to the newly-found stolen gas in 2009, he writes “Israel and its neighbor now sit atop roughly two years’ worth of European consumption.” He further suggests “even modest amounts of Israeli gas exports can carry significant strategic leverage.” Wurmser opines that “the short-term inflexibility of gas trade and the difficulty of replacing disrupted supply also imply that energy prices for consumers and revenues for suppliers can be easily manipulated by marginal increases or decreases.”

Citing Europe’s gas vulnerability, Wurmser posits “Europe’s grim reality could represent a unique window of opportunity for Israel to nail down long-term agreements and align export policy with a broader effort to reset Israeli-European relations.”

In December of last year, The Jerusalem Post reported that not only did Hungary seek Israeli gas as an alternative to Russian gas, but it also offered to Israel access to its state-owned gas storage and offered Hungary “as a central European distribution hub for Israeli gas.”

As recently as March 11, Rigzone cited Gideon Tadmor, CEO of Avner Oil, speaking at a conference in Tel-Aviv: “With recent events in Europe…and the aspiration of different countries to diversify their gas supply that puts another spotlight on our massive resources and transforms our story into a global one.”

It then should come as no surprise that the Ukrainian Jewish leaders denounce any threat from the presence of ‘neo-Nazis’ claiming that they can take care of themselves. No doubt this is the case. But will Ukraine, a state that is not one nation, survive the assault on its diversity and its sovereignty? The unforeseen circumstances, the unpredicted reactions may well turn Ukraine into the last of America’s ‘Midas touch’.

[1] Former, self-confessed neocon Jacob Heilbrunn describes neoconservatism as “a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon,” even if many adherents — albeit a minority — are not Jewish and even though most US Jews are not neoconservatives.  Neoconservatives, he adds, both Jew and gentile, are bound by a “shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel.”

[i] Bernard Lewis, ‘Learning the Lingo. Jihad vs. Crusade. A Historian’s Guide to the New War’, Wall Street Journal (27 Sept. 2001).

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine intervention may be key to US undoing

The Origins of the I$raHell Lobby in the US

America’s Role in the Creation of the State of Israel

The immediate precursor to today’s pro-Israel lobby began in 1939[i]under the leadership of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, originally from Lithuania. He created the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), which by 1943 had acquired a budget of half a million dollars at a time when a nickel bought a loaf of bread.[ii]

In addition to this money, Zionists [adherents of “political Zionism,” a movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine] had become influential in creating a fundraising umbrella organization, the United Jewish Appeal, in 1939[iii], giving them access to the organization’s gargantuan financial resources: $14 million in 1941, $150 million by 1948. This was four times more than Americans contributed to the Red Cross and was the equivalent of approximately $1.5 billion today.[iv]

With its extraordinary funding, AZEC embarked on a campaign to target every sector of American society, ordering that local committees be set up in every Jewish community in the nation [for decades the larger majority of Jewish Americans had been either non-Zionits or actively anti-Zionist]. In the words of AZEC organizer Sy Kenen, it launched “a political and public relations offensive to capture the support of Congressmen, clergy, editors, professors, business and labor.”[v]

AZEC instructed activists to “make direct contact with your local Congressman or Senator“ and to go after union members, wives and parents of servicemen, and Jewish war veterans. AZEC provided activists with form letters to use and schedules of anti-Zionist lecture tours to oppose and disrupt.

A measure of its power came in 1945 when Silver disliked a British move that would be harmful to Zionists. AZEC booked Madison Square Garden, ordered advertisements, and mailed 250,000 announcements – the first day. By the second day they had organized demonstrations in 30 cities, a letter-writing campaign, and convinced 27 U.S. Senators to give speeches.[vi]

Grassroots Zionist action groups were organized with more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches. AZEC funded books, articles and academic studies; millions of pamphlets were distributed. There were massive petition and letter writing campaigns. AZEC targeted college presidents and deans, managing to get more than 150 to sign one petition.[vii]

Rabbi Elmer Berger, executive director of the American Council for Judaism, which opposed Zionism in the 1940s and ‘50s, writes in his memoirs that there was a “ubiquitous propaganda campaign reaching just about every point of political leverage in the country.”[viii]

The Zionist Organization of America bragged of the “immensity of our operations and their diversity” in its 48th Annual Report, stating, “We reach into every department of American life…”[ix]

Berger and other anti-Zionist Jewish Americans tried to organize against “the deception and cynicism with which the Zionist machine operated,” but failed to obtain anywhere near their level of funding. Among other things, would-be dissenters were afraid of “the savagery of personal attacks” anti-Zionists endured.[x]

Berger writes that when he and a colleague opposed a Zionist resolution in Congress, Emanuel Celler, a New York Democrat who was to serve in Congress for almost 50 years, told them: “They ought to take you b…s out and shoot you.”[xi]

When it was unclear that President Harry Truman would support Zionism, Cellar and a committee of Zionists told him that they had persuaded Dewey to support the Zionist policy and demanded that Truman also take this stand. Cellar reportedly pounded on Truman‘s table and said that if Truman did not do so, “We’ll run you out of town.[xii]

Jacob Javits, another well-known senator, this time Republican, told a Zionist women’s group: “We’ll fight to death and make a Jewish State in Palestine if it’s the last thing that we do.”[xiii]

Richard Stevens, author of American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1942-1947, reports that Zionists infiltrated the boards of several Jewish schools that they felt didn’t sufficiently promote the Zionist cause. When this didn’t work, Stevens writes, they would start their own pro-Zionist schools.[xiv]

Stevens writes that in 1943-44 the ZOA distributed over a million leaflets and pamphlets to public libraries, chaplains, community centers, educators, ministers, writers and “others who might further the Zionist cause.”[xv]

Alfred Lilienthal, who had worked in the State Department, served in the U.S. Army in the Middle East from 1943-45, and became a member of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, reports that Zionist monthly sales of books totaled between 3,000 and 4,000 throughout 1944-45.

Richard Stevens reports that Zionists subsidized books by non-Jewish authors that supported the Zionist agenda. They would then promote these books jointly with commercial publishers. Several of them became best sellers.[xvi]

Zionists manufacture Christian support

AZEC founder Silver and other Zionists played a significant role in creating Christian support for Zionism.

Secret Zionist funds, eventually reaching $150,000 in 1946, were used to revive an elitist Protestant group, the American Palestine Committee. This group had originally been founded in 1932 by Emanuel Neumann, a member of the Executive of the Zionist Organization. The objective was to organize a group of prominent (mainly non-Jewish) Americans in moral and political support of Zionism. Frankfurter was one of the main speakers at its launch.[xvii]

Silver‘s headquarters issued a directive saying, “In every community an American Christian Palestine Committee must be immediately organized.”[xviii]

Author Peter Grose reports that the Christian committee’s operations “were hardly autonomous. Zionist headquarters thought nothing of placing newspaper advertisements on the clergymen’s behalf without bothering to consult them in advance, until one of the committee’s leaders meekly asked at least for prior notice before public statements were made in their name.”[xix]

AZEC formed another group among clergymen, the Christian Council on Palestine. An internal AZEC memo stated that the aim of both groups was to “crystallize the sympathy of Christian America for our cause.”[xx]

By the end of World War II the Christian Council on Palestine had grown to 3,000 members and the American Palestine Committee boasted a membership of 6,500 public figures, including senators, congressmen, cabinet members, governors, state officers, mayors, jurists, clergymen, educators, writers, publishers, and civic and industrial leaders.

Historian Richard Stevens explains that Christian support was largely gained by exploiting their wish to help people in need. Steven writes that Zionists would proclaim “the tragic plight of refugees fleeing from persecution and finding no home,” thus linking the refugee problem with Palestine as allegedly the only solution.[xxi]

Stevens writes that the reason for this strategy was clear: “…while many Americans might not support the creation of a Jewish state, traditional American humanitarianism could be exploited in favor of the Zionist cause through the refugee problems.”[xxii]

Few if any of these Christian supporters had any idea that the creation of the Jewish state would entail a massive expulsion of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews, who made up the large majority of Palestine‘s population, creating a new and much longer lasting refugee problem.

Nor did they learn that during and after Israel’s founding 1947-49 war, Zionist forces attacked a number of Christian sites. Donald Neff, formerTime Magazine Jerusalem bureau chief and author of five books on

alison weir book

Israel-Palestine, reports in detail on Zionist attacks on Christian sites in May 1948, the month of Israel’s birth.

Neff tells us that a group of Christian leaders complained that month that Zionists had killed and wounded hundreds of people, including children, refugees and clergy, at Christian churches and humanitarian institutions.

For example, the group charged that “‘many children were killed or wounded’ by Jewish shells on the Convent of Orthodox Copts…; eight refugees were killed and about 120 wounded at the Orthodox Armenian Convent…; and that Father Pierre Somi, secretary to the Bishop, had been killed and two wounded at the Orthodox Syrian Church of St. Mark.”

“The group’s statement said Arab forces had abided by their promise to respect Christian institutions, but that the Jews had forcefully occupied Christian structures and been indiscriminate in shelling churches,” reports Neff. He quotes a Catholic priest: “‘Jewish soldiers broke down the doors of my church and robbed many precious and sacred objects. Then they threw the statues of Christ down into a nearby garden.’ [The priest] added that Jewish leaders had reassured that religious buildings would be respected, ‘but their deeds do not correspond to their words.’”[xxiii]

After Zionist soldiers invaded and looted a convent in Tiberias, the U.S. Consulate sent a bitter dispatch back to the State Department complaining of “the Jewish attitude in Jerusalem towards Christian institutions.”[xxiv]

An American Christian Biblical scholar concurred, reporting that a friend in Jerusalem had been told, “When we get control you can take your dead Christ and go home.”[xxv]

Zionist Colonization Efforts in Palestine

In order to reach their goal of a Jewish state in Palestine, Zionists needed to clear the land of Muslim and Christian inhabitants and replace them with Jewish immigrants.

This was a tall order, as Muslims and Christians accounted for more than 95 percent of the population of Palestine.[xxvi] Zionists planned to try first to buy up the land until the previous inhabitants had emigrated; failing this, they would use violence to force them out. This dual strategy was discussed in various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians.[xxvii]

As this colonial project grew, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land.

When the buyout effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.[xxviii]

By the eve of the creation of Israel, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent[xxix] and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6-7 percent.[xxx]

This was in 1947, when the British at last announced that they would end their control of Palestine. Britain turned the territory’s fate over to the United Nations.

Since a founding principle of the UN was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.[xxxi]

Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution to give them a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine.[xxxii][xxxiii] (While they rarely announced this publicly, their plan, stated in journal entries and letters, was to later take the rest of Palestine.[xxxiv])

U.S. Officials oppose creation of Israel

The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and U.S. interests.

For example, the director of the State Department‘s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs consistently recommended against supporting a Jewish state in Palestine. The director, named Loy Henderson, warned that the creation of such a state would go against locals’ wishes, imperil U.S. interests and violate democratic principles.

Henderson emphasized that the U.S. would lose moral standing in the world if it supported Zionism:

“At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the [second world] war.”[xxxv]

When Zionists pushed the partition plan in the UN, Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal, saying that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and was “not based on any principle.” He warned that partition “would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future…”

Henderson elaborated further on how plans to partition Palestine would violate American and UN principles:

“…[Proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [UN] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race…”[xxxvi]

Zionists attacked Henderson virulently, calling him “anti-Semitic,” demanding his resignation, and threatening his family. They pressured the State Department to transfer him elsewhere; one analyst describes this as “the historic game of musical chairs” in which officials who recommended Middle East policies “consistent with the nation’s interests” were moved on.[xxxvii]

In 1948 Truman sent Henderson to the slopes of the Himalayas, as Ambassador to Nepal (then officially

under India).[xxxviii] (In recent years, at times virtually every State Department country desk has been directed by a Zionist.)[xxxix]

But Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the [State] Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”[xl]

He wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”[xli]

Ambassador Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on U.S. national interests.

“I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had ended,” wrote Grady. “I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty…. [I]n the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.”[xlii]

Grady concluded that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the soviets.”[xliii]

Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson‘s biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another author, John Mulhall, records Acheson‘s warning of the danger for U.S. interests:

“…to transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.”[xliv]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported in late 1947, “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.”[xlv]

The Joint Chiefs issued at least sixteen papers on the Palestine issue following World War II. They were particularly concerned that the Zionist goal was to involve the U.S.

One 1948 paper predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”[xlvi]

The CIA stated that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”[xlvii]

The head of the State Department‘s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:

“U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter – a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of UN‘s own charter.” [xlviii]

Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:

“…the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN.… In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”[xlix]

And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw one last outcome of the “partition“ plan: that no Arab state would actually ever come to be in Palestine.[l]

This essay is excerpted from Alison Weir’s Against Our Better Judgment: How the US was Used to Create Israel.

Alison Weir is the president of the Council for the National Interestand executive director of If Americans Knew.

Citations for this excerpt, which also contain additional information, are available in the book. Discounted bulk orders can be obtained by writing


[i] “American Zionist Movement (AZM),” Jewish Virtual Library, 2008,

[ii] Neff, Pillars, 23.

The executive secretary of AZEC was a man named Isaiah Kenen, who went on to found today’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), rated as one of the most powerful lobbying organization in the U.S. Grant Smith, in his book Declassified Deceptions: the Secret History of Isaiah L. Kenen and the Rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2007) describes Kenen‘s activities in detail, particularly how he worked to elude U.S. legal requirements that he register as a foreign agent.

[iii] Elmer Berger, Memoirs of an Anti-Zionist Jew (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1978), 9.

Originally there had been two organizations, the United Palestine Appeal (the main Zionist fund-raising effort in the U.S.) and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which was dominated by non-Zionists and which raised more money. Its purpose was to “provide assistance to Jews in the countries in which they lived, hoping to facilitate their eventual integration into those societies.” Berger reports, “Never at a loss for maneuver – or dissembling– however, the Zionist manager persuaded the ‘big givers’ that a ‘united campaign’ would be more efficient than the competing, double campaigns,” and they managed to push through the creation of the United Jewish Appeal.

[iv] Christison, Perceptions, 73; Wilson, Decision on Palestine, 134.

Wilson reports that Zionists, wishing to pressure the U.S. government to support partition and end its arms embargo, raised $35 million (the equivalent of $349 million today) in just two weeks for the United Jewish Appeal in just two weeks.

[v] Neff, Pillars, 23; Tivnan, The Lobby, 24.

[vi] Tivnan, The Lobby, 24

[vii] Neff, Pillars, 23.

[viii] Berger, Memoirs, 11.

In 1947 the American Council for Judaism submitted a 27-page memorandum to the UN opposing Zionism. ACJ President Lessing J. Rosenwald railed against what he termed Zionists’ “anti-Semitic racialist lie that Jews the world over were a separate, national body.”

Smith, Declassified Deceptions, 29.

[ix] Stevens, American Zionism, 101.

[x] Berger, Memoirs, 17.

[xi] Berger, Memoirs, 22.

[xii] Wright, Zionist Cover-up, 25.

Wright was General staff G-2 Middle East specialist, Washington, 1945-46; Bureau Near East-South Asian-African Affairs Department of State, since 1946, country specialist 1946-47, advisor U.N. affairs, 1947-50, advisor on intelligence 1950-55. He retired from the State Department in 1966.

[xiii] Lilienthal, What Price Israel, 63.

[xiv] Stevens, American Zionism, 24.

[xv] Stevens, American Zionism, 22.

[xvi] Stevens, American Zionism, 22-23.

[xvii] Neff, Pillars, 23.

Herbert Hoover, “Message to the American Palestine Committee, January 17, 1932,” The American Presidency Project,

Patai, ed. “American Palestine Committee,” Encyclopaedia of Zionism and Israel, accessed January 1, 2014,

[xviii] Neff, Pillars, 23-24.

[xix] Grose, Mind of America, 173.

[xx] Neff, Pillars, 23-24.

[xxi] Stevens, American Zionism, 28.

[xxii] Stevens, American Zionism, 28.

Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2004).

Researchers may wish to explore an interesting though speculative discussion about what might have been an earlier effort by Zionists to influence Christians. Many years before AZEC targeted Christians, an annotated version of the bible known as the Scofield Reference Bible had been published, which pushed what was a previously somewhat fringe “dispensationalist“ theology calling for the Jewish “return” to Palestine.

Some analysts have raised questions about Cyrus Scofield and how and why the Oxford University Press published his book. Scofield, a Texas preacher who had been something of a shyster and criminal and had abandoned his first wife and children (when his wife then filed for divorce, the court ruled in her favor, noting that Scofield was “…not a fit person to have custody of the children”). (Canfield, Incredible Scofield, 113) He mysteriously became a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901. Biographer Joseph Canfield comments:

“The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C. I. Scofield.” (Canfield,Incredible Scofield, 220)

Canfield suggests that Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermyer, who was also a member of the Lotus Club, may have played a role in Scofield‘s project, writing that “Scofield‘s theology was most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermyer‘s pet projects – the Zionist Movement.” (Canfield, Incredible Scofield, 219)

Professor David Lutz, in “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” writes: “Untermyer used Scofield, a Kansas city lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

David Lutz, “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” in Neo-Conned! Again: Hypocrisy, Lawlessness, and the Rape of Iraq, ed. D. Liam O’Huallachain and J. Forrest Sharpe (Vienna, VA: Light in the Darkness Publications, 2005), 127-169.

According to the Untermyer Gardens Conservancy website, Untermyer “was a partner in the law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, and was the first lawyer in America to earn a one million dollar fee on a single case.  He was also an astute investor, and became extremely wealthy.

He was instrumental in the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, was an influential Democrat and a close ally of Woodrow Wilson.

The bio continues: “Samuel Untermyer was one of the most prominent Jews of his day in America. He was a prominent Zionist, and was President of the Keren Hayesod.  In addition, he was the national leader of an unsuccessful movement in the early 1930’s for a worldwide boycott of Germany, and called for the destruction of Hitler‘s regime.”

“Samuel Untermyer,” Untermyer Gardens Conservancy, accessed January 1, 2014,

Irish journalist Maidhc Ó Cathail suggests that “absent such powerful connections, it is hard to imagine ‘this peer among scalawags’ ever getting a contract with Oxford University Press to publish his bible.”

Maidhc O Cathail, “Zionism‘s Un-Christian Bible,” Middle East Online, November 25, 1999,

[xxiii] Donald Neff, “Christians Discriminated Against By Israel,” in Fifty Years of Israel (Michigan: American Educational Trust, 1998).

[xxiv] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (Brattleboro: Amana, 1988), 20.

[xxv] Millar Burrows, Palestine Is Our Business (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949), 116.

[xxvi]    See citation 7.

[xxvii]   Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007).

Masalha Nur, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, 4th Ed. (Washington, DC: Inst. for Palestine Studies, 2001).

Mazin Qumsiyeh, Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle (London: Pluto, 2004).

Mazin Qumsiyeh, “Palestinian Refugees Right to Return and Repatriation” in Sharing the Land of Canaan (London: Pluto, 2004). Online at

[xxviii] Russell Warren Howe, “Fighting the ‘soldiers of Occupation’ From WWII to the Intifada,” in Seeing the Light: Personal Encounters with the Middle East and Islam, Ed. Richard H. Curtiss and Janet McMahon (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Trust, 1997), 38-39.

Warren and his film crew were filming an interview with Begin in 1974. “The red light had come on, under the lens. Without preamble, I turned my shoulder to the camera, stared straight into Begin’s eyes, and asked: ‘How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?’ ‘In the Middle East?’ he bellowed, in his thick, cartoon accent. ‘In all the world.’”

[xxix]    McCarthy, Population of Palestine, 35.

[xxx]    British Mandatory Commission, A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991), 243-267.

This gives Jewish ownership in 1945 as approximately six percent.

A UN map showing percentages of each district can be seen at

Israeli author Baruch Kimmerling gives the landownership in 1947 as seven percent.

Robert J. Brym, review of Zionism and Territory: The Socio-Territorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics, by Baruch Kimmerling, The Canadian Journal of Sociology 11, no. 1 (1986), 80.

It is interesting to note that the Arab position was largely based on democratic principles. At a British conference on Palestine in 1946, Arabs presented a proposal “calling for the termination of the Mandate and the independence of Palestine as a unitary state, with a provisional governing council composed of seven Arabs and three Jews.” (Wilson,Decision on Palestine, 97)

[xxxi]    “Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I, Purposes and Principles.” UN News Center, accessed January 1, 2014,

[xxxii]   “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181,” The Avalon Project, accessed January 1, 2014,

“UN Partition Plan,” BBC News, November 29, 2001,

For a US equivalent, see:

“UN Partition Applied To US,” Palestine Remembered, September 10, 2001,

[xxxiii] Neff, Pillars, 41.

[xxxiv]   Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Boston: South End, 1983), 161.

“In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that ‘after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine.’”

[xxxv]   Neff, Pillars, 30-31.

[xxxvi]   Neff, Pillars, 46-47.

[xxxvii] Berger, Memoirs, 21.

Berger writes that in a personal conversation with him, Henderson had said:

“I hope you and your associates will persevere. And my reason for wishing this is perhaps less related to what I consider American interests in the Middle East than what I fear I see on the domestic scene. The United States is a great power. Somehow it will surmount even its most foolish policy errors in the Middle East. But in the process there is a great danger of creating divisiveness and anti-Semitism among our own people. And if this danger materializes to a serious extent, we have seen in Germany and in Europe that the ability of a nation to survive the consequences is in serious question.”

[xxxviii]             Richard D. McKinzie, “Oral History Interview with Edwin M. Wright,” Truman Library, Wooster, OH, July 26, 1974,

“Mr. Henderson was, therefore, told, ‘You’ve got to leave the State Department or the Zionists are going to keep after us.’ The State Department suggested he be sent as an ambassador to Turkey. The Zionists had a clearance process going and they said, ‘No, that’s too near the Middle East, we want to get him completely away from the Middle East.’ The result was that they sent him as ambassador to India to get him out of the area completely.”

[xxxix]   Revealed during conversation with State Department associate.

[xl] Neff, Pillars, 46; Wilson, Decision, 117; Wright, Zionist Cover-up, 21.

[xli]     Green, Taking Sides, 20.

[xlii]    Henry Grady, “Chapter 9,” Adventures in Diplomacy(unpublished manuscript), (Washington D.C.: Truman Library, n.d.), 170. Online at

Henry Francis Grady and John T. McNay, The Memoirs of Ambassador Henry F. Grady: from the Great War to the Cold War (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2009). Online at

[xliii]    Grady, Adventures, 166.

Benzion Netanyahu, a Zionist who travelled to the US from Palestine to propagandize Americans and father of future Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, tried – unsuccessfully – to use the Cold War as a rationale for the U.S. to support Israel. Netanyahu believed that “arguments appealing to American fears of Soviet expansion” would be the best way to win over U.S. officials. He used this argument in 1947 in meetings with Loy Henderson and General Dwight Eisenhower, but found no takers, (though Eisenhower arranged for him to meet with someone else). (Medoff, Militant Zionism, 146)

[xliv]    Mulhall, America, 130.

Robert L. Beisner, Dean Acheson: a Life in the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 215.

[xlv]     Mark Perry, “Petraeus wasn’t the first,” Foreign Policy, April 2, 2010,

[xlvi]    Perry, “Petraeus wasn’t the first.”

The paper speculated that the eventual goal was sovereignty over “Eretz Israel,” which included Transjordan and parts of Lebanon and Syria.

[xlvii]   Green, Taking Sides, 20.

[xlviii]   Neff, Pillars, 42-43.

[xlix]    Neff, Pillars, 65. Citation: “Draft Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett),” Secret, Washington May 4, 1948, FRUS 1948, pp. 894-95.

[l]       Wilson, Decision on Palestine, 131.


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Origins of the I$raHell Lobby in the US

Remembering Puerto Rico’s Ponce Massacre



Juan-Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, Puerto Rican political analyst and radio host. He joins us on the line from Puerto Rico.

In Puerto Rico, Wednesday marked the 70th anniversary of the Ponce massacre. On March 21st, 1937, 19 people were killed and more than one hundred wounded when police opened fire on a demonstration calling for independence from the United States. The day is considered a defining event in Puerto Rico’s history of struggle against US domination. [includes rush transcript]


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to Puerto Rico, where the seventieth anniversary of the Ponce massacre has passed. On March 21, 1937, nineteen people were killed and more than 100 wounded when police opened fire on a demonstration calling for independence from the United States. The day is considered a defining event in Puerto Rico’s history of struggle against US domination.

AMY GOODMAN: Juan-Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua is a well-known Puerto Rican attorney, radio host and political analyst. He joins us now on the line from Puerto Rico. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Juan-Manuel.


AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of this date, of March 21, yesterday, in fact?

JUAN-MANUEL GARCIA-PASSALACQUA: It is no coincidence that on the date of the commemoration of the abolition of our slavery and of the Ponce massacre that intended to celebrate it, precisely today the American Congress takes up at a hearing in an hour what to do with the eight million Puerto Ricans. And I am sure Juan will know that in my column today in El Vocero here, I have requested that they hear him and that he should send all members of the committee a copy of his brilliant book Harvest of Empire that explains it all. So I am very glad to be with you today, and don’t forget to tune in at 10:00, because the Congress, for the first time in 107 years, is going to listen to the diaspora.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Juan-Manuel, for many Americans who don’t know anything about the Ponce massacre, it would be good to sort of give the framework of what happened. And clearly, I think, Albizu Campos, the great Nationalist leader, had just been sentenced to prison on sedition charges for ten years in prison, and this protest was actually a protest to free Albizu, wasn’t it?

JUAN-MANUEL GARCIA-PASSALACQUA: Well, the whole demonstration was directed at the commemoration of the abolition of slavery, and one of the examples that slavery had continued after its abolition was precisely that Pedro Albizu Campos was imprisoned by the United States. The important thing about this celebration, commemoration — however you want to call it — is that the governor, Blanton Winship, was the one that ordered the massacre, the American governor who was a military governor with experience in the killing of Sandino in Nicaragua, and that that particular order has been transformed into a brilliant movie here by one of our best authors, called Revolucion en el Infierno, which I recommend to anybody that has a CD, because you can ask for it at the Ateneo, and it will show. The fascinating thing about that, Juan, is that its author took up the experience that his uncle told him, because his uncle was one of the wounded in the Ponce massacre. So we have now a visual testimony of what happened that day, that I recommend to all your listeners. It is really espelosnante.

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on Remembering Puerto Rico’s Ponce Massacre

Serbian paramilitaries join pro-Russian forces in Crimea


By Aleksandar VasovicMarch 

BAKCHISARAY, Ukraine (Reuters) – Bearded men in camouflage uniforms and black fur hats and armed with knives, were checking traffic on Thursday along the busy road linking Crimea’s regional capital of Simferopol and the naval port of Sevastopol.

A black flag with a skull, the standard of Serbian nationalists, and a Serbian national flag fluttered in the wind alongside the Russian tricolor, bringing back images from the turbulent events of the 1990s in the Balkans.

Bratislav Zivkovic, one of the commanders of Serbia’s Chetnik movement, an ultranationalist group with roots in another era, said it was only natural for them to come to Crimea to help their Russian brethren.

Crimea, part of independent post-Soviet Ukraine since 1991, has been in the grip of the Russian military for a week. Its local assembly has declared that the region wants to become part of Russia, subject to a referendum scheduled for Sunday.

Zivkovic’s group of five activists have been tasked with manning patrols alongside Cossacks, most of whom have journeyed to the peninsula from Russia in anticipation of the referendum.

“Our motive was to offer moral support to the Russian people of the Crimea and their right for a referendum and nothing more than that,” said Zivkovic. “Through the centuries, Russians were helping us, they were giving us support, even now in Kosovo, so we came here to support them.”

Russia is Serbia’s traditional ally as the two nations share the same Slav origins, Orthodox Christian faith and similar languages. Serbia is also heavily dependent on Russia’s energy and the cash-strapped government in Belgrade has turned to Kremlin to underpin its budget.

The Serbian Chetniks draw their name and traditions from insurgents who fought Ottoman Turks in 19th and early 20th centuries. They gained notoriety in the 1990s, when their units committed atrocities against non-Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, a former Serbian province dominated by ethnic Albanians which won independence in 2008.

Roadblocks were erected along key roads in Crimea last week when men in green uniforms, bearing no national insignia, appeared outside Ukrainian bases, taking control of naval and military installations in the peninsula.


The checkpoint manned by Zivkovic’s men was also controlled by masked men in camouflage fatigues armed with shotguns, who described themselves as Cossacks. A group of policemen in Ukrainian uniforms, all carrying machine guns, stood aside, ceding control to the Serbian volunteers and Cossacks.

Zivkovic said his men were willing to fight to ensure the peninsula’s ethnic Russian majority won the right to secede and join Russia. But they were there, he said, to prevent violence.

“Every possible incident that might occur will be extinguished swiftly,” he said. “We are hoping that even if it comes to fighting and armed conflict, it will be very short, because the population is Russian and the peninsula is Russian.”

As the queue of cars and trucks approaching the checkpoint lengthened, one middle-aged truck driver, who identified himself only as Oleg, said he was gratified by Serbian solidarity.

“This is great. They are helping the guys,” he said. “This is how it should be. We have to help each other.”

Others were angry.

“Who are they helping? I don’t understand that. I don’t need any help, no one is bothering me here,” said Denis, a driver from Simferopol.

“The (Serbs) are occupiers, genuine occupiers. I have no other names for them,” said Asan, another driver.

Posted in Russia, UkraineComments Off on Serbian paramilitaries join pro-Russian forces in Crimea

Russia to consider Ukrainian civilian requests for protection from radicals – Moscow



Russia has received numerous requests from Ukrainian civilians to protect them from radicals, including those from the Right Sector group, and has promised consider them, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement says.

Gunmen, including those from the far-right group Right Sector, continue their rampage in Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday, March 15.

“We are getting alarming reports that a column with armed mercenaries from Right Sector has left Kharkov for Donetsk and Lugansk. Right Sector leaders have declared the opening of the ‘eastern front’ and one of the clothing factories is hurriedly sewing Russian military uniform,” the ministry said.

“Russia is receiving many appeals from peaceful citizens who are asking for protection. These appeals will be considered,” the ministry said.

Kharkov: arms, cartridges seized from arrested radicals after deadly clashes

Firearms and cartridges were seized from a group of radicals arrested early on Saturday after clashes in Kharkov the previous night claimed two lives and left five people injured, the mayor said on Saturday. “Three sawn-off shotguns, three hunting guns, one combat rifle, and two pistols adjusted for combat cartridges were seized from them. This is information from the Interior Ministry. Quite a lot of ammunition was found for the weapons they had,” Gennady Kernes told reporters.

The radicals arrived in Kharkov from Poltava, Ukraine, barricaded themselves in the local headquarters of Right Sector and opened fire, but later surrendered to police with Kernes’ mediation. The wounded included one policeman.

“I believe that today there need to be combined efforts to put an end to the riots and fatalities that are taking place,” Kernes said.

Moscow urges Kiev to neutralize and punish extremists

Moscow believes that, now that a group of extreme right-wingers who opened fire in Kharkov last night, killing two people, has been arrested, Kiev should move to punish extremists in Ukraine. “The arrest of a Neo-Nazi fighter in Kharkov should pave the way for large-scale moves to neutralize and punish the extremists who have got out of hand”, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Konstantin Dolgov tweeted on Saturday.

“No one has cancelled Ukraine’s international commitments to counter racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. Ukraine should therefore meet these commitments”, Dolgov points out.

Radical militants in Kharkov detained, hostages freed – Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine

An operation for the detention of militants from the Right Sector (radical Ukrainian group), who started a fire fight and seized hostages in Kharkov, has been completed, head of the Regional Department of Internal Affairs Anatoly Dmitriyev said.

About 30 people were detained, the exact number would be released later. Their identities had yet to be established as they carried no passports. Fingerprints would be taken from the guns left in the building, Dmitriyev said.

The detained persons are being held in custody at a district police station. Kharkov defenders opposing Right Sector nationalists are standing outside the building to prevent the militants’ release. “We fear they will be released,” one of city residents said.

Earlier, after negotiations by Kharkov Mayor Kernes with the militants, one of the three hostages was released. “As a result of the negotiations, one hostage was freed. About 40 radicals remained in the building. Two people remained with the militants as hostages, one is a policeman who entered the building to negotiate,” Kernes said.

Two people died and two, including a policeman, were wounded in clashes between Kharkov residents and Right Sector militants. Submachine gun fire came from the Right Sector headquarters, and stun grenades and Molotov cocktails were used.

Two people dead and two injured in Ukraine’s Kharkov clashes

Two people died and two were injured in a conflict between Kharkov residents and militants from the Right Sector, Mayor of Kharkov Gennady Kernes reported today.

An Itar-Tass correspondent reports that 40-50 militants are in the building hosting the Right Sector headquarters. The police have cordoned off the building, and a special operation is underway. The mayor is holding talks with radicals.

A representative of the local movement against Maidan protests told an Itar-Tass correspondent earlier today that clashes were underway between Kharkov residents and militants reportedly from western Ukraine on Rymarskaya Street (in downtown Kharkov).

The activist said Kharkov defenders were standing against militants, presumably from the Right Sector, who were firing assault rifles. Reports also said fire was delivered and stun grenades and Molotov cocktails thrown from the windows of the right sector building.

Maidan is the name for downtown Kiev’s Independence Square, which is the symbol of Ukrainian protests. The word “Maidan” is also used as a collective name for anti-government protests in Ukraine.

Right Sector activists were reportedly involved in clashes with police in Ukraine’s anti-government protests that started in November 2013 when the country’s authorities refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.

The Ukrainian protests led to a coup in the country in February. President Viktor Yanukovich had to leave Ukraine citing security concerns. Yanukovich told reporters in south Russia on Tuesday that he remained the legitimate Ukrainian president despite “an anti-constitutional seizure of power by armed radicals.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Russia to consider Ukrainian civilian requests for protection from radicals – Moscow

Shoah’s pages


March 2014
« Feb   Apr »