Archive | June 9th, 2015

Diaspora Jews must fight with ‘Israel’ (as ordained in the Torah)


deuteronomy HQ



The great medieval Jewish poet and philosopher Judah Halevi wrote a poem about the Land of Israel, which begins with this line: “My heart is in the East, yet I remain (physically) in the furthest point West.”

This sums up how I feel about Israel. This feeling has intensified over the last few weeks as Israel faces some of the most serious challenges of its short life span. The question I have asked myself over and over again is: What can I do to help?

The Torah is clear about the fact that we all have an obligation to fight for the Land of Israel. In Numbers (32), Moses was deeply upset with the Tribes of Reuben and Gad which wanted to settle in Jordan rather than take land inside of Israel proper. Moses suspected that they were shirking their responsibility to the rest of the nation of Israel to fight alongside them for the Land.

The Tribes of Reuben and Gad assured Moses that they would fight with their brethren. Moses then warned in the following manner: “But if they (the tribes of Reuben and Gad) do not cross over with you armed (for battle), they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan (rather than in the Jordan)” (Number, 32:30).

According to the commentators, Moses was telling them that if they chose not to fight with the rest of the Nation of Israel for the Land of Israel, they would nonetheless have to live there, but they would forfeit their place in the Diaspora.

This is a powerful statement. We Jews are part of one nation and are eternally connected. Even if we think that somehow what is going on in Israel does not affect us and we say to ourselves that this is not our fight, we need to understand that there are consequences to that attitude.

Simply put, our security in the Diaspora is dependent on our support for the people in the Land of Israel. If we do not support them, our stability outside of Israel will be challenged and, in the end, we will all be forced to move to Israel anyhow.

Thus, the message is clear, supporting Israel for us as Jews in the Diaspora is not only an obligation but it is the conduit through which we gain security in the places we live outside of Israel. This can be understood on a very practical level.

For us as Jews, a strong Israel is a protection against anti-Semitism and the type of persecution that we experienced prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

No longer do Jews have to rely on America or the Allies to “bomb the tracks.” No longer will we Jews be turned away from country after country if we have to flee for our lives in the face of an evil dictator or regime. We will always have a home in Israel to return to. Israel will always be there to protect Jews all around the world, and therefore act as a deterrent to countries that would like to oppress us.

But what can we Diaspora Jews do to fight with Israel in its time of need? Some think that all that is required is to attend a rally or give a donation to the local federation’s Israel Fund. It seems to me that at this point, Israel with its booming economy does not need our money as much as it needs our voices.

We Diaspora Jews have a responsibility to talk out in support of Israel’s moral right to defend herself. Do it on social media, do it on comments on news sites, do it by writing to your elected officials, do it by talking to your friends and colleagues.

We have an ability to counter all the terrible misinformation, lies and hatred that are spread about Israel. This is something that is vitally needed and which our brothers and sisters fighting in the Israel Defense Force cannot do, but we can. This is our unique part in the fight for Israel, and not only is doing so our biblical obligation, it is in our own personal security interest as well.

May God be with the nation of Israel knowing, to quote Martin Luther King Jr., that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Diaspora Jews must fight with ‘Israel’ (as ordained in the Torah)

Rabbis’ war on non-kosher phones reaches synagogue




The rabbinical battle against the Internet has reached the synagogue: A synagogue in Jerusalem’s Bukharan Quarter recently announced that a person who owns a cellular phone with Internet access or text messages will be banned from serving as a cantor or reading the Torah.

According to an announcement made by the Musayof Synagogue, which is considered a Shas stronghold in the neighborhood, the synagogue manager and the great sages of the generation, led by late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, “A person in possession of a non-kosher phone cannot serve as a leader in prayer.”

While the ultra-Orthodox leadership has been radicalizing its attitude towards haredim who use cell phones that have not been authorized by rabbinical committees, Rabbi Yosef Cohen publicly expressed his negative opinion about the strict rabbis last week.

“It’s not true what all the rabbis say, that one must not possess a non-kosher phone,” he said. “Everything in the world can be exploited for kashrut purposes. I don’t have an iPhone, and I don’t know how to use one, but I have heard from God-fearing people that they are blocked and can’t commit any offense with it,” the rabbi stated in his weekly lesson at the Bukharan Quarter.

During the lesson, which was quoted by the Haredim 10 website, Cohen lashed out at Ashkenazi rabbis, accusing them of being greedy. “Everyone must have a kosher number. Why? Because the Ashkenazi rabbis have to steal people’s money? Where is it written? They go to rabbis who don’t understand what a phone is and how to speak on a phone – and they are lured into taking a kosher cell phone. It’s wrong,” he said.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Rabbis’ war on non-kosher phones reaches synagogue

‘Sauna’ rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt responds to N.Y. Times story




Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt asserted his innocence in his first public comment since the publication of a New York Times article about his practice of inviting young males to join him for naked heart-to-heart talks in the sauna.

In a letter sent Thursday to congregants of his Orthodox synagogue, the Riverdale Jewish Center in New York, Rosenblatt said he never did anything unlawful, does not agree with the accusations and attacks against him, and regrets if his conduct inadvertently offended anyone. He did not acknowledge any inappropriate behavior.

“If any of you feel that my behavior, even if innocent, was inappropriate, I apologize to those affected,” he wrote.

Earlier in the week, the board of the Riverdale Jewish Center sent a letter to congregants saying that Rosenblatt was not involved in any “misconduct.”

The story published last Friday on the Times website focused on Rosenblatt’s custom for decades of inviting male congregants or students, some as young as 12, to play squash or racquetball, then join him in the public shower and sauna or steam room, often naked. No one cited in the story accused Rosenblatt of sexual touching, but several expressed their discomfort with the practice and described the behavior as deeply inappropriate for a rabbi and mentor. At various times, Rosenblatt was told by rabbinic bodies or his congregation’s board to limit such activity.

This week, the Bronx District Attorney’s office said it was looking into whether Rosenblatt broke the law and urged any victims to come forward.

“I know that many of you are sharing the anguish that I and my family have been experiencing,” reads the opening of the letter to congregants from Rosenblatt, who is on a sabbatical from his pulpit in the Bronx. “I know that many of you, even some who are very close to me, feel bewildered and abandoned by my silence in the face of the onslaught of public accusations and attacks. If my silence has been construed as my agreeing with my accusers, nothing could be further from the truth.”

Rosenblatt said his lawyer, who has been identified in other reports as Benjamin Brafman, advised him not to respond publicly to the substance of the accusations.

In the letter, Rosenblatt said that he deeply regrets the humiliation that the articles in the press have caused him and his community, and that he “regret[s] if my conduct at any time inadvertently offended anyone” during his many years of service to the synagogue.

“I want to assure you however that it was never my intention to cause any harm, nor did I ever do anything that was unlawful,” Rosenblatt wrote.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on ‘Sauna’ rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt responds to N.Y. Times story

How Reagan’s Propaganda Succeeded


Image result for reagan photos

By Robert Parry 

In the 1980s, CIA propaganda experts and military psy-war specialists oversaw the creation of special programs aimed at managing public perceptions in both targeted foreign countries and the United States, according to declassified documents at Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Library.

These documents – discovered in 2010 – buttress previously disclosed evidence that President Reagan’s CIA Director William J. Casey played a key behind-the-scenes role in pushing this political action initiative, which recruited well-heeled private-sector conservatives to subsidize the secretive government operations.

The documents show that Casey used a senior CIA propaganda and disinformation specialist named Walter Raymond Jr., who was placed inside the National Security Council in 1982, to oversee the project and to circumvent legal prohibitions against the CIA engaging in propaganda that might influence U.S. public opinion or politics.

Though Raymond formally quit the CIA after going to the NSC, documents from Raymond’s personal NSC files reveal that he often passed on recommendations regarding the propaganda initiative after meetings at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, or after conversations with Casey himself.

In one Nov. 4, 1982, “secret” memo, Raymond described Casey reaching out to right-wing mogul Richard Mellon Scaife, who was already working with other conservative foundation executives to fund right-wing publications, think tanks and activist groups seeking to shift U.S. politics to the Right.

Raymond told then NSC advisor William P. Clark that “Bill Casey asked me to pass on the following thought concerning your [scheduled] meeting with Dick Scaife, Dave Abshire [then a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], and Co.

“Casey had lunch with them today and discussed the need to get moving in the general area of supporting our friends around the world.”

Besides a desire to “invigorate international media programs,” Casey wanted to help U.S.-based organizations, such as Freedom House, that could influence American attitudes about foreign challenges, Raymond said.

“The DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] is also concerned about strengthening public information organizations in the United States such as Freedom House,” Raymond told Clark.  “To do this we have identified three overt tracks:

“–enhanced federal funding;

“–the Democracy Project study (although publicly funded this will be independently managed);

“–private funds.”

“A critical piece of the puzzle is a serious effort to raise private funds to generate momentum. Casey’s talk with Scaife and Co. suggests they would be very willing to cooperate.”

(In the following years, Freedom House emerged as a major recipient of funding from the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy, which was founded in 1983. Freedom House became a fierce critic of Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government, which Reagan and Casey were seeking to overthrow by covertly supporting Contra rebels.)

Returning from Langley

Dec. 2 note addressed to “Bud,” apparently senior NSC official Robert “Bud” McFarlane, described a request from Raymond for a brief meeting.  “When he [Raymond] returned from Langley, he had a proposed draft letter … re $100 M democ[racy]  proj[ect],” the note said.

While Raymond passed on Casey’s instructions, the CIA director told White House officials to play down or conceal the CIA’s role.

“Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, urging creation of a “National Endowment” that would support “free institutions throughout the world.”

On Jan. 21, 1983, Raymond updated Clark about the project, which also was reaching out to representatives from other conservative foundations, including Les Lenkowsky of Smith-Richardson, Michael Joyce of Olin and Dan McMichael of Mellon-Scaife.

“This is designed to develop a broader group of people who will support parallel initiatives consistent with Administration needs and desires,” Raymond wrote.

In the late 1970s and through the 1980s, those and other conservative foundations poured millions of dollars into right-wing think tanks, media outlets and anti-journalism attack groups that targeted American reporters who challenged the Reagan administration’s propaganda.

The early planning papers also indicated a desire to use this relatively overt system to funnel money to pro-U.S. trade unions in Asia, Africa and Latin America in support of a variety of political operations, including setting up television stations and funding print publications.

Some examples were $150,000 to a Bolivian trade union; $50,000 to Peru as a “direct counter to Soviet funding”; $50,000 to Grenada “to the only organized opposition to the Marxist government of Maurice Bishop (The Seaman and Waterfront Workers Union). A supplemental to support free TV activity outside Grenada”; $750,000 to Nicaragua “to support an array of independent trade union activity, agricultural cooperatives”; and $500,000 for “Central America labor publishing house and distribution center for printed materials – TV materials, cooperatives, land reform, etc. – to counter Marxist literature.”

The document’s reference to money being spent to counter Bishop’s government in Grenada adds weight to long-held suspicions that the Reagan administration engaged in propaganda and destabilization campaigns against Bishop, who was ousted by internal rivals and killed in October 1983, setting the stage for the U.S. invasion of the tiny Caribbean island.

The invasion of Grenada, though condemned by much of the world as an act of U.S. aggression, proved popular in the United States, an important step in readying the American people for larger military adventures ahead.

Taking Shape

Eventually, Casey’s concept of a global initiative led to the founding of the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983 ostensibly for the purpose of promoting foreign democratic institutions. But the NED also created a cover for the United States to funnel money to pro-U.S. groups in hostile countries. And it subsidized Washington’s growing community of neoconservatives who wrote op-ed articles in leading newspapers and went on TV news shows advocating an aggressive U.S. foreign policy.

Since 1983, NED has been involved in numerous controversies, including allegations that it helped buy the Nicaraguan election in 1990 by spending some $9 million, including $4 million poured into the campaign of U.S.-backed candidate Violeta Chamorro.

NED’s hand also has been detected in “velvet revolutions” staged in Ukraine, Georgia and other eastern European nations. NED has been active, too, in Iran, fueling government suspicions there that its opposition, which took to the streets after the June 2009 presidential election, represented another U.S.-backed scheme to achieve regime change.

Though many of Raymond’s documents at Reagan’s Library in Simi Valley, California, remain secret, the material discovered in 2010 – and some of the previously released documents – offer a panorama of how the administration’s perception management campaigns evolved, from the early days of Casey prodding the process forward to later years when Raymond’s apparatus grew increasingly powerful and even paranoid.

According to a secret action proposal that Raymond submitted on Dec. 20, 1984, to then national security adviser McFarlane, Raymond wanted an even greater commitment of manpower.

“I have attempted to proceed forward with a whole range of political and information activities,” Raymond wrote. “There are a raft of ties to private organizations which are working in tandem with the government in a number of areas ranging from the American Security Council to the Atlantic Council, to the nascent idea of a ‘Peace Institute.’”

Among the examples of his “specific activities,” Raymond listed “significant expansion of our ability to utilize book publication and distribution as a public diplomacy tool. (This is based on an integrated public-private strategy). … The development of an active PSYOP strategy. … Meetings (ad hoc) with selected CIA operational people to coordinate and clarify lines between overt/covert political operations on key areas. Examples: Afghanistan, Central America, USSR-EE [Eastern Europe] and Grenada.”

‘Active Measures’

Another part of Raymond’s domain was “the Soviet Political Action Working Group.” This group discussed what it regarded as “Soviet active measures” and worked on “themes” that soon resonated through Washington, such as the argument regarding “moral equivalents.”

Raymond reported that the “moral equivalents” theme was discussed at the working group’s Dec. 15, 1983, meeting. The idea of “moral equivalents” involved U.S. government officials upbraiding journalists and opinion leaders who tried to apply common moral standards to pro- and anti-U.S. groups.

Reagan administration officials would insist that human rights crimes by the pro-U.S. side of a conflict should not be criticized as severely as similar crimes by the anti-U.S. side because that would apply a “false moral equivalence,” suggesting that the United States was no better than its enemies. To take such a position was regarded as unpatriotic or disloyal.

Along those lines, one of Raymond’s sub-groups, “the Active Measures Working Group,” met “to develop an action plan to turn Soviet active measures back onto the Soviets, i.e. take the offensive.”

Attendees included Raymond and another CIA operations veteran, Ray Warren, a Casey favorite who was placed inside the Pentagon; Herb Romerstein, a former investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities; and Robert Kagan, a prominent neoconservative who was an aide to Elliott Abrams at the State Department and later led the Office of Public Diplomacy on Latin America.

The Active Measures Working Group brought in from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and U.S. Special Forces, personnel who specialized in psychological operations, such as a “Col. Paddock (OSD/PSYOP),” a “Mr. Hunter (1st PSYOP Bn)”; a “Colonel Dunbar (1st PYSOP Bn),” and “Lieutenant Colonel Jacobowitz (DOD/PSYOP).”

In previously disclosed documents, Lt. Col. Daniel “Jake” Jacobowitz was listed as the executive officer inside the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy on Latin America, where the White House also placed five psychological warfare specialists from the 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The main job of these psy-ops specialists was to pick out incidents in Central America that would rile the U.S. public. In a memo dated May 30, 1985, Jacobowitz explained that the military men were scouring embassy cables “looking for exploitable themes and trends, and [would] inform us of possible areas for our exploitation.”

The June 19, 1986, minutes of the working group stated that “Colonel Paddock reported that OSD/PSYOP has been working on some unclassified publications, mainly on Central American issues, in cooperation with State’s Office of Latin American Public Diplomacy.”

At the working group meeting on July 31, 1986, Col. Paddock passed out copies of a joint Pentagon/State Department publication, “The Challenge to Democracy in Central America,” which was then being disseminated to members of Congress, the Washington press corps and the American public.

The publication sought to portray Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government as a state sponsor of terrorism, a major propaganda theme that the Reagan administration was using to justify its covert support of the contra rebels, who themselves were infamous for acts of terrorism, including extra-judicial executions and attacks on civilian targets.

Chastising the Enemy

Despite the evidence that it was the Reagan administration that was knee-deep in propaganda, the psyop official, “Mr. Hunter” – whose fuller identity remained classified in the meeting’s minutes – briefed the group on what he described as anti-U.S. “disinformation campaigns,” including “charges of immoral conduct by US troops in Honduras.”

In the world of Raymond’s psyop meetings, nearly every negative piece of news about U.S. activities in the world was dismissed as “Soviet active measures,” presumably even the fact that some U.S. troops operating in Honduras engaged in what surely could be called “immoral conduct.”

Bureaucratic deception was also part of the secret operations inside the NSC. In the mid-1980s, I was told by one senior NSC official that a key early document laying the groundwork for raising money for the contra war in defiance of a congressional prohibition was marked as a “non-paper,” so it would not be regarded as an official document (even though it clearly was).

Similarly, Raymond sent one Nov. 28, 1986, memo to an unnamed CIA officer reminding him to attend what Raymond called “the next non-group meeting.” So it appears that Reagan’s NSC sought to get around requirements for safeguarding historical records by circulating “non-papers” and meeting in “non-groups.”

Raymond’s domestic propaganda activities were explored by congressional Iran-Contra investigators in 1987. However, their findings faced fierce internal opposition from House and Senate Republicans.

In a bid for bipartisanship, House Democratic committee chairman Lee Hamilton agreed to a compromise in which a chapter on Raymond’s operation was dropped while a few segments were inserted elsewhere in the final report.

That meant, however, that the American people never got to read the chapter’s stunning conclusion: that the Reagan administration had built a domestic covert propaganda apparatus managed by a CIA disinformation specialist working out of the National Security Council.

“One of the CIA’s most senior covert action operators was sent to the NSC in 1983 by CIA Director [William] Casey where he participated in the creation of an inter-agency public diplomacy mechanism that included the use of seasoned intelligence specialists,” the chapter’s conclusion stated.

“This public/private network set out to accomplish what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might attempt – to sway the media, the Congress, and American public opinion in the direction of the Reagan administration’s policies.”

Tracing the Origins

The 84-page “lost” chapter, entitledLaunching the Private Network,” traced the origins of the propaganda network to President Reagan’s “National Security Decision Directive 77” in January 1983 as his administration sought to promote its foreign policy, especially its desire to oust Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government. [There appear to have been several versions of this “lost chapter.” This one I found in congressional files.]

The chapter also cited a Jan. 13, 1983, memo by then-NSC Advisor Clark regarding the need for non-governmental money to advance the cause. “We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding,” Clark wrote.

However, what the newly discovered documents from Raymond’s files make clear is that the initiative dated back to 1982 and was pushed more by Casey and his CIA associates than by the NSC advisor.

The “lost chapter” does explain how Reagan administration officials soon began crossing lines that separated an overseas propaganda program from a domestic propaganda operation aimed at U.S. public opinion, the American press and congressional Democrats who opposed contra funding.

“An elaborate system of inter-agency committees was eventually formed and charged with the task of working closely with private groups and individuals involved in fundraising, lobbying campaigns and propagandistic activities aimed at influencing public opinion and governmental action,” the draft chapter said.

The draft chapter doesn’t initially use Raymond’s name – presumably because his work at the CIA remained classified – but its description of the CIA officer in charge of the NSC-run propaganda operation clearly refers to Raymond.

According to the draft report, the CIA officer [Raymond] had served as Director of the Covert Action Staff at the CIA from 1978 to 1982 and was a “specialist in propaganda and disinformation.”

“The CIA official discussed the transfer with [CIA Director] Casey and NSC Advisor William Clark that he be assigned to the NSC [in June 1982] and received approval for his involvement in setting up the public diplomacy program along with his intelligence responsibilities,” the chapter said.

“In the early part of 1983, documents obtained by the Select [Iran-Contra] Committees indicate that the Director of the Intelligence Staff of the NSC [Raymond] successfully recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental network to promote and manage a public diplomacy plan designed to create support for Reagan Administration policies at home and abroad.”

Raymond “helped to set up an elaborate system of inter-agency committees,” the draft chapter said, adding:

“In the Spring of 1983, the network began to turn its attention toward beefing up the Administration’s capacity to promote American support for the Democratic Resistance in Nicaragua [the contras] and the fledgling democracy in El Salvador.

“This effort resulted in the creation of the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Department of State (S/LPD), headed by Otto Reich,” a right-wing Cuban exile from Miami.

Stiffing Shultz

Though Secretary of State George Shultz wanted the office under his control, President Reagan insisted that Reich “report directly to the NSC,” where Raymond oversaw the operations as a special assistant to the President and the NSC’s director of international communications, the chapter said.

“At least for several months after he assumed this position, Raymond also worked on intelligence matters at the NSC, including drafting a Presidential Finding for Covert Action in Nicaragua in mid-September” 1983, the chapter said.

In other words, although Raymond was shifted to the NSC staff in part to evade prohibitions on the CIA influencing U.S. public opinion, his intelligence and propaganda duties overlapped for a time as he was in the process of retiring from the spy agency.

And despite Raymond’s formal separation from the CIA, he acted toward the U.S. public much like a CIA officer would in directing a propaganda operation in a hostile foreign country. He was the go-to guy to keep this political action operation on track.

“Reich relied heavily on Raymond to secure personnel transfers from other government agencies to beef up the limited resources made available to S/LPD by the Department of State,” the chapter said.

“Personnel made available to the new office included intelligence specialists from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army. On one occasion, five intelligence experts from the Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were assigned to work with Reich’s fast-growing operation. …

“White House documents also indicate that CIA Director Casey had more than a passing interest in the Central American public diplomacy campaign.”

The chapter cited an Aug. 9, 1983, memo written by Raymond describing Casey’s participation in a meeting with public relations specialists to brainstorm how “to sell a ‘new product’ – Central America – by generating interest across-the-spectrum.”

In an Aug. 29, 1983, memo, Raymond recounted a call from Casey pushing his P.R. ideas. Alarmed at a CIA director participating so brazenly in domestic propaganda, Raymond wrote that “I philosophized a bit with Bill Casey (in an effort to get him out of the loop)” but with little success.

The chapter added: “Casey’s involvement in the public diplomacy effort apparently continued throughout the period under investigation by the Committees,” including a 1985 role in pressuring Congress to renew contra aid and a 1986 hand in further shielding S/LPD from the oversight of Shultz.

Casey even monitored personnel changes. A Raymond-authored memo to Casey in August 1986 described the shift of S/LPD – then run by neoconservative theorist Kagan who had replaced Reich – to the control of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, which was headed by Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, another prominent neoconservative.

Oliver North and Friends

Another important figure in the pro-contra propaganda was NSC staffer Oliver North, who spent a great deal of his time on the Nicaraguan public diplomacy operation even though he is better known for arranging secret arms shipments to the contras and to Iran’s radical Islamic government, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal.

The draft chapter cited a March 10, 1985, memo from North describing his assistance to CIA Director Casey in timing the disclosures of pro-contra news “aimed at securing Congressional approval for renewed support to the Nicaraguan Resistance Forces.”

However, the discarding of the draft chapter and the ultimate failure of the Iran-Contra report to fully explain the danger of CIA-style propaganda intruding into the U.S. political process had profound future consequences. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the Casey-Raymond media operations of the 1980s helped bring the Washington press corps to its knees, where it has remained most of the time through today.

To soften up the Washington press corps, Reich’s S/LPD targeted U.S. journalists who reported information that undermined the administration’s propaganda themes. Reich sent his teams out to lobby news executives to remove or punish out-of-step reporters – with a disturbing degree of success.

In March 1986, Reich reported that his office was taking “a very aggressive posture vis-à-vis a sometimes hostile press” and “did not give the critics of the policy any quarter in the debate.” [For details, see Parry’s Lost History.]

Though Casey died in 1987 and Raymond in 2003, some U.S. officials implicated in the propaganda operations remain important Washington figures, bringing the lessons of the 1980s into the new century.

For instance, Elliott Abrams – though convicted of misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair and later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush – returned as deputy advisor to George W. Bush’s NSC, where Abrams oversaw U.S.-Middle East policy. Oliver North landed a show on Fox News. Otto Reich was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008 (and was a foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012).

Kagan writes influential op-eds for the Washington Post and was a senior associate at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace (before moving to the Brookings Institution. Kagan also co-founded the Project for the New American Century, which advocated for the invasion of Iraq, and he is the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014). [See’s A Family Business of Perpetual War.”]

Oliver North landed a show on Fox News. Otto Reich was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008 (and was a foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012).

Beyond the individuals, the manipulative techniques that were refined in the 1980s – especially the skill of exaggerating foreign threats – have proved durable. Such scare tactics brought large segments of the American population into line behind the Iraq War in 2002-03.

It took years and many thousands of deaths before Americans realized they had been manipulated by deceptive propaganda, that their perceptions had been managed.

In his book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, Bush’s former White House press secretary Scott McClellan described Iraq War propaganda tactics that would have been familiar to Casey and Raymond.

From his insider vantage point, McClellan cited the White House’s “carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval” – and he called the Washington press corps “complicit enablers.”

The documents in Raymond’s files at the Reagan Library offer a glimpse at how these manipulative techniques took root.

[For more recent document discoveries at the Reagan Library, including the recruitment of publisher Rupert Murdoch,’s Murdoch, Scaife and CIA Propaganda” and “How Roy Cohn Helped Rupert Murdoch.”]

Posted in USAComments Off on How Reagan’s Propaganda Succeeded

Goldberg predicts ‘civil war’ between American and ‘Israeli’


‘Israeli’ Jews as ‘Israel’ is ‘defined as an apartheid state’


David Rothkopf of Foreign Policy has done a very interesting interview with Jeffrey Goldberg about Goldberg’s interview with President Obama about Israel/Jews 2 weeks ago. And if that sounds inside-Jewish-baseball, well it is. Which is one of the takeaways from the exchange.

Here is the main quote. Israel is destroying itself, Obama isn’t destroying it, Goldberg says:

I probably share a lot of [Obama’s] analysis of Israel’s core dilemmas. To put it crudely, the basic split on Obama is this: Is he destroying Israel, or is Israel destroying Israel? I go more with the latter than the former at the moment. If you believe the former, you despise him. If you believe the latter, you can’t quite believe that a) Israel’s government is carrying out policies that will eventually lead to the country’s dissolution, or wholesale isolation; and b) that more Israelis don’t understand that an African-American president who speaks feelingly about the moral necessity of Zionism is a friend, not a foe.

The idea that Obama might be destroying Israel! And Rothkopf doesn’t challenge him on that point.

There is a lot of Jewish narcissism in the interview. Like this part:

I’ve argued that Obama is in many ways the most Jewish president we’ve ever had. I don’t want to rehearse all of my proofs right now, but in essence, no president has been shaped to the degree that Obama has been shaped by exposure to Jewish mentors, Jewish teachers, Jewish fellow community-organizers, Jewish advisers, Jewish political supporters, Jewish writers, and Jewish thought. On the Jewish right, of course, Obama is thought of as something approaching an anti-Semite. He’s not, of course. What he is, is a philo-Semite. And this comes with its own set of problems and challenges. If you read between the lines, you’ll see that Obama is asking Israel (pleading with Israel, in fact) to be — not to put too fine a point on it — more Jewish, to live up to what he understands to be Jewish values. Obama’s impatience with Israel, and his dislike of Netanyahu, is rooted in the fact that he is a very specific kind of Jew – an intellectual, Upper West Side, social action-oriented, anguished-about-Israel liberal values Jew. This happens to be a common American Jewish archetype, more common, in fact, than the Sheldon Adelson archetype.

As a person who so closely identifies with this Jewish archetype, Obama sometimes forgets that he is not, in fact, Jewish. It is remarkable, the degree to which he holds Israel to standards he doesn’t apply to other American allies. Doing this isn’t particularly fair, but it is particularly Jewish. You and I both know the argument — the Jewish people didn’t wait 2,000 years for a country so that it could be better than Syria. Obama holds Israel to high standards in part because he’s learned from [those] Jews who hold Israel to hold standards.

That’s an absurd analysis. Obama came into office hammer-and-tongs on the Palestinian question not because he believes he’s Jewish or holds Israel to a higher standard, but because the settlements are illegal and the colonization project and special relationship are hurting the United States across the Middle East. It has nothing to do with Jewish values. Obama by inclination respects universal human rights; he gave his first interview to an Arab news organization and five months into his presidency spoke to an Arab audience about the “daily humiliations –large and small — that come with occupation.” He soon learned to shut up about that.

More happy horseshit about Jewish values:

What drives [Obama’s] passion is, as I’ve mentioned, a deep-seated belief that Israel should be better than it is.

My theory of the Netanyahu-Obama relationship is that Obama looks at Netanyahu and asks himself, “What kind of Jew is this?” He’s accustomed to liberal American Jews, the anguished, over-intellectual types. For his part, Netanyahu looks at Obama and see.… I don’t know. Eldridge Cleaver? Jimmy Carter? Is the belief that Israel should be better, and more refined, than its enemies, given that it is a Jewish state, unrealistic and unfair, given both the neighborhood and the nature of Israel’s enemies? Maybe. Is it also a feeling that many American Jews share? Yes. You can see that in the reaction to his [May 22] speech at [Washington synagogue] Adas Israel, which, by the way, is not some Birkenstock-y, Woodstock-y counterculture outpost. Adas Israel is mainstream and establishment, and some of the president’s biggest applause lines last Friday had to do with the necessity of a two-state solution and the moral case for Palestinian independence.

Good; let’s stop talking about the president’s mind and talk about Jews. Goldberg is spot-on here:

If current trends continue, a civil war is coming. It will be a very civil, civil war, but it will be a civil war nonetheless, between an American Jewry that has been nurtured on the values of the Civil Rights Movement, and an Israeli Jewry that has been taught, harshly, that the Middle East is not a place of mercy. Many American Jews are probably too rosy in their understanding of the possibilities of peace and reconciliation; many Israelis, particularly those who believe that the settlement project on the West Bank is a moral success, rather than a disaster of epic proportions, don’t understand that their country is slowly growing unrecognizable to American Jews, and to would-be members of the tribe — including the one in the Oval Office — as well.

But why will it be a civil civil war? I am afraid it won’t be. The precedents in history for this sort of untethering of interests– Algeria, Ireland, the Civil War — suggest violent not peaceful reactions. Look what the revisionist Zionists did to Arlosoroff when he was going off the reservation. Look what happened to Rabin.

Goldberg says the two-state solution can be achieved, with Israel setting the terms; but Israel is getting the reputation as an apartheid state.

What Obama sees — and what frustrates him (and a large number of American Jews) — is an Israel that is burying its head in the sand. There is still time to arrange the birth of a Palestinian state in an orderly fashion, in a manner that allows the Israelis to set many of the security terms of this new state’s creation. No good can come of this continued waiting. There is a tipping point ahead — one day soon, Israel will be defined across most of the world as an apartheid state, unless it steps away from the status quo. So, to the question of whether Obama doesn’t understand Middle East reality, I would answer that, in the case of Israel, he is grappling with some of the core challenges to its existence, challenges Netanyahu is avoiding.

That’s an excellent answer. And by the way, Israel has done nothing to step away from the status quo. It is only solidifying the status quo.

The answer is of a piece with Goldberg’s observation four years ago, that the left doesn’t have an idealistic view of Israel, and the left is winning.

Now the right, of course, believes that settlements are an expression, not a corruption, of [the righteous Zionist] cause. The left, on the other hand, believes that settlements are a manifestation of Zionism’s true nature. I disagree with that argument strenuously. But I will say this, though: The left position on this question has the wind at its back.

Again, that was four years ago. A lifetime in politics. The left has taken giant steps since then, tragically aided by another Israeli massacre in Gaza, which goes unmentioned in the Rothkopf Goldberg exchange.

I wish Rothkopf had been more assertive, had expressed his view that Zionism is “exactly the wrong” response to history. Is he also destroying Israel? But Rothkopf seems a bit overawed by the glib Goldberg (who moved to Israel because of his fears of anti-semitism in the U.S. and served in the Israeli army before coming back here to prosecute his career).

Lastly, Goldberg should pay for this comment. He says “we tend to forget” that Americans die in wars for which “we” craft the policy.

Something that is not happening in the Middle East right now is that American soldiers are not dying. For the American people, this is of paramount importance, and this should count as an important Obama success. We tend to forget about this one when we discuss American policy in the Middle East. The American voter seems to be exhausted by the Middle East and its unsolvable problems, and Obama is under virtually no pressure domestically to dive further in to the mess.

I never forget this, and neither do people I know. And a lot of Iraqis died too, in the war that Goldberg pushed.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Goldberg predicts ‘civil war’ between American and ‘Israeli’





There are the Takfiri Satan-worshiping liars and the Salafist hypocrites who constantly point to the “Alawi” or “Nusayri” character of the Syrian government.  And there are some confused academics who have made a life theme, or even a cottage industry, out of what they erroneously believe to be the core issue in Syrian society: sectarianism.  But, let us now uncover all their lies.  Let us make their lying fester like an open wound unwilling to close so its fetid odor lingers in the walls of the sinuses like the smell of rotting sardines.

Let’s start out with facts so that people like Pat Buchanan never make the same mistake again; so that they will know the truth.  Here is the Syrian government:

Dr. Bashar Al-Assad – of Alawi descent and is known to be secular

Asmaa` Al-Akras-Al-Assad,   First Lady – SUNNI

Dr. Najaah Al-‘Attaar – Vice President – SUNNI

Waleed Al-Mu’allim – Foreign Minister – SUNNI

Dr. Faysal Miqdaad – Deputy Foreign Minister – SUNNI

Maj. Gen. Muhammad Ibraaheem Al-Sha’aar – Interior Minister and heads 3 security services –  SUNNI 

Lt. General Fahd Jaassim Al-Furayj – Defense Minister – SUNNI

Lt. General Talaal Tlaas – Deputy Defense Minister – SUNNI

Dr. Waa’il Naadir Al-Halaqi – Prime Minister – SUNNI

‘Abdullah Al-Ahmar – Deputy Secretary of the Ba’ath Party Pan Arab Command – SUNNI

Lt. General ‘Ali ‘Abdullah Ayyoob – Chief of the Syrian General Staff – ALAWI

Dr. Bashshaar Al-Ja’afari – Syrian Permanent Delegate to the U.N. – SUNNI

Muhammad Jihaad Al-Lahhaam – Speak of the Parliament – SUNNI

Maj. General Muhammad Mahalla – Director of Military Intelligence  – SUNNI

Maj. General Nazeeh Hassoon – Director of Political Security – SUNNI

Lt. Gen. Ali Mamlook – Special National Security Adviser to the President – SUNNI

Dr. Buthayna  Sha’baan – Special Advisor to the President on Foreign Affairs and the Palace spokeswoman – ALAWI


Dr. Najaah Al-‘Attaar is only one heart-beat away from the presidency. She is a woman and a SUNNI Muslim.

Well, folks: how do you like the lies?  And what, by the way, does it mean when an Alawi is called a Nusayri?

Alawis are sensitive to the word “Nusayri” for no good reason.  Historically, it’s a reference to Muhammad Ibn Nusayr Al-Nameeri who is believed to be the founder of the denomination we call today ‘Alawi.   When the wretched Satanist liar Ibn Taymiyya was pronouncing his idiotic fatwas and condemning minorities to extermination, it was the Nusayris who got most of his venom.  All this hatred is based on a complete misunderstanding of the tenets and doctrines of Alawitism.  I will be writing an essay on the Alawis of Syria soon, so, this is not the best forum to present the paper to my readers.  Let’s cover, however, some of the salient points which differentiate Alawis from the fake Sunni Salafists and Takfiris.

Alawis, like the Muwahiddeen (Druze) believe in reincarnation.  They don’t deny it.  They differ from the Druze is some ways as to how the soul transmigrates.  Alawis have a belief not dissimilar to old Canaanite mythology and teleology: the soul can return as anything.  Contrast the Druze males who believe a Druze only returns as a Druze male.

Alawis have an in-built liberalism and tolerance. They just don’t care about your religion unless you’re going to use it to hurt them.  Other than that, Alawis intermarry (contrast the Druze) regularly. Note Dr. Assad’s wife, Asmaa`, is a Sunni originally from Homs.  Dr. Assad’s brother, Maj. Gen. Maaher Al-Assad, is married also to a SUNNI.

Alawis have adopted the Shi’i belief in twelve imams.  They do not believe ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib is God!  This accusation originally leveled against the founder, Muhammad Ibn Nusayr Al-Nameeri, was the reason he and his followers escaped from Mesopotamia under threat and accusation of blasphemy and settled in the mountain fastness of the coast of Syria where people didn’t bother him.  What happened after that is a miracle of fusion.

Alawis never eat pork.  But, like many Syrians, they do enjoy an occasional bat-ha of ‘Araq (Ouzo) or a liter bottle of their national beer: Al-Sharq.  Contrast that to the Saudis, whose Wahhabist heresy bars the consumption of alcohol, but, who shame themselves everywhere with behavior so slovenly and shabby the only reason they’re not 86’ed in every restaurant is the dissolute manner in which they squander their nation’s wealth.

Of course, Alawis are known not to have this insatiable appetite to waste their money on mosques.  Unlike the Saudis, who are constantly building these mosques to some Wahhabist Satan in order to propitiate him, the Alawis prefer to pray at home or anywhere on this earth where prayer is valid.  Their religion is natural – not forced or insistent on conformism.   This does not mean they don’t have mosques.  It’s just that they have another agenda with God that doesn’t involve hypocrisy or the meaningless display of wealth.

I will have more to say on this subject in a forthcoming essay.  I just hope my readers will respond to the lies about the Alawi character of the Syrian government with more knowledge and confidence now.






syrian-air armyAl-Jaanoodiyya:  The Syrian Air Force, flying Sukhoi bombers shellacked Al-Qaeda and killed a reported 43.  The rat terrorist propaganda outlets in England are claiming civilians were killed even though we know the citizens of Al-Jaanoodiyya were evacuated or had escaped long before the Al-Qaeda rodents came in. In any case, the mostly Chechen packs of vermin were vaporized by the SAAF.

Al-Sanqara Village:  A nest of rats was set upon by our eagles and nebulized, all 12 rodents inside now a puff of atoms carried by the wind.

Kinsafra:  SAAF again, and free to rain death on the slinking rodents as they fly undaunted from the Abu-Dhuhoor Airbase.  No details about rat-stats.

Abu Dhuhoor:  The SAA unleashed a maelstrom of fire from Howitzers and mortars as Nusra/Alqaeda rodents were gathering for their next abysmal and nihilistic attack on the airbase’s perimeter.  Their carcasses were seen, at times, flying upward like beads of hot oil in a pan, misshapen and grotesque,

The Syrian Air Force conducted over 70 sorties in Idlib Governorate and struck each one of these sites in preparation for the Big Push to Jisr Al-Shughoor and Idlib City:  Basanqool, ‘Ayn Al-Baarida, Muhambal, Al-Raami, Bishlamoon, North Al-Tayyibaat, Kafr ‘Uwayd. 


Main063The Syrian Army and its allies have begun large operations in these areas. There is a news blackout so don’t believe the made-up stories of Western lie machines:

Al-Inshaa`aat, Al-Lijj, Umm Jareen, Umm Mareer, Al-Tur’ah, Bizayt, Bishlamoon, Shaaghooreet, Al-Nabi Ayyoob Summit, Al-Basheeriyya, Areehaa, ‘Ayn Al-Hamra, Al-Marj, Ma’raata, Talab, Al-Buwayti, Hallooz








أنباء عن فرار الإرهابي أبو مالك التلي إلى داخل بلدة عرسالThe Christian-hating rat Alqaeda “Ameer” (commander) of the Qalamoon, Abu Maalik Al-Talli, and 2 other field commanders jumped their sinking ship last night and found temporary haven in ‘Arsaal.  The Lebanese Security Services have pinpointed the location of one of the commanders and is planning to take him into custody.  

North Tallat Sadr Al-Bustaan:  SAA-MI have counted 62 rat carcasses after a disastrous confrontation with the Syrian Army and HZB here.  The fighting was to the death and the professionalism of the SAA and the HZB was the dominant factor as our troops engaged in hand-to-hand fighting with the infidel Satan-worshiping Zionist-supported rodents.  Here are the names of the only Syrians in the regiment-sized Al-Qaeda pack:

Basheer Al-Jallaad

Ahmad Siraajeddeen

Zuhayr Hussayn Al-Shaamaat

Talaal Muhammad Kurd

Majdi Mutafaa Al-‘Aa`idi

Muhammad Mudarris

‘Abdul-Ameer Al-Shaaghoori

‘Ali Shihaabeddeen Mustafaa Al-Kilaawi

Mahmoud Burhaan Al-Aaghaa

The rest were all foreigners. Many Jordanteezians.

Harf Al-Dabbool and Tallat Sadr Al-Bustaan Triangle in Lebanon:  In a separate battle, HZB tore into Al-Qaeda killing 22 rodents and liberating this entire area.

Qurnat Al-Tannoor Summit:  HZB now controls this commanding view of ‘Arsaal’s foothills after a brilliantly executed assault on remaining Al-Qaeda positions.  This summit overlooks several tactically significant sites: Waadi ‘Uways, Waadi `Atneen, Waadi Al-Khayl, Waadi Al-Qusayr.


VERY IMPORTANT:  THE SYRIAN ARMY AND HZB HAVE TAKEN OVER CONTROL OF BOTH SIDES OF THE AL-HAMRAA/AL-QUSAYR CROSSING.  This pathway connects Faleeta and the Qalamoon Mountains to ‘Arsaal.  It is now over.  There can be no more smuggling weapons or rats into Damascus from Lebanon. MAJOR, DECISIVE TRIUMPH FOR THE SYRIAN ARMY AND THE LEBANESE RESISTANCE.

Magharra Al-Meer east of Bayt Saabir:  The latter was the subject of an SAA victory 2 days ago which we reported.  Now, the escapees from that battle dug in for their swan song and were annihilated.  The entire pack was killed by the SAA after surrounding them and pounding them with mortars and artillery.

West ‘Ayn Al-Bustaan north of Sa’sa’:  Fighting with the SAA advancing through the area.

Khaan Al-Shaykh:  Rat defenses tenacious here because they know there is nowhere to go.  SAAF actively pummeling their tunnels and fortifications.  It’s only a matter of a short time before they collapse and the pleasurable act of exterminating Al-Qaeda will start in earnest.


الجيش السوريAl-Manqoora Well:  Skirmishing with no details.

Bahr Quarry:  Armored cars destroyed and pieces of artillery with it. Rats abandoned positions leaving all equipment behind.  Monzer writes that 17 rodents carcasses were counted.


Naziyahu angry at silence over Gaza rocket attacks

A Palestinian security officer closes the gate under Palestinian control at the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and the southern Gaza Strip, south of Rafah on June 7, 2015.  SAID KHATIB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Zio-Nazi prime minister on Sunday slammed the international community’s silence over recent rocket attacks from Gaza and warned that a strong reprisal could be forthcoming.

Naziyahu said he hasn’t heard a word of condemnation from the world about three rocket attacks from Gaza over the past two weeks. The rockets did not cause any injury or harm but disrupted the quiet in southern Israel that has mostly prevailed since last summer’s war between Hamas and Israel.

“It will be interesting to see if this silence continues when we use all our strength in exercising our right to defend ourselves,” Netanyahu said at his weekly Cabinet meeting. “It should be clear: the hypocrisy that is sweeping the world will not chain our hands from defending the citizens of Israel.”

Nazi leader has condemned recently what he describes as “international campaign to blacken (Israel’s) name.” The international community disproportionately singles out the Jewish state for condemnation while remaining silent on major conflicts and human rights abuses in other countries, he said.

“We are in the midst of a great struggle being waged against the state of Israel, an international campaign to blacken its name. It is not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence. It does not matter what we do; it matters what we symbolize and what we are,” Naziyahu said.”I think that it is important to understand that these things do not stem from the fact that if only we were nicer or a little more generous – we are very generous, we have made many offers, we have made many concessions – that anything would change because this campaign to delegitimize ‘Israel’ entails something much deeper that is being directed at us and seeks to deny our very right to live here,” he said.

Nazi military carried out an airstrike in the Gaza Strip early Sunday in response to the latest rocket attack from the Hamas-ruled territory. The projectile landed in an open area and there were no injuries or damage reported from the rocket attack or the airstrike.

A local jihadi organization that supports the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks. The group is mired in a struggle with Hamas and has said its recent attacks are in retaliation for a Hamas crackdown.

Nazi regime considers Hamas responsible for any attacks that originate from Gaza, and announced Sunday that its crossings into Gaza will be shut down in response to the latest incident.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Naziyahu angry at silence over Gaza rocket attacks

GAZA: Children try to smash down the doors of the Bank of Palestine


Image result for INTERPAL LOGO

Dozens of children demonstrated in protest of the bank’s decision to freeze the accounts of more than 200 charity associations on the strip.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, GazaComments Off on GAZA: Children try to smash down the doors of the Bank of Palestine

Shoah’s pages