Archive | December 23rd, 2015


The body of 22-year-old Mohammad Shamasneh from 
Jerusalem, was returned to his family with missing 
eye cornea's. He was tortured to death by a mob of 
terrorist Jewish Nazi settlers in mid-October, who had 
tied him down and beat him to death in the streets of 
Jerusalem. The Jewish Nazi settlers were not arrested or punished. 
By Ariyana Love
The Palestinian Ambassador to the United States (UN) announced in October, through a report, that Israel is once again harvesting the organs of it’s Palestinian victims, killed by the occupation soldiers or by terrorist Israeli settlers.
Riyad Mansour said in a letter addressed to UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon November 4th that the bodies of Palestinians are “returned with missing corneas and other organs, further confirming past reports about organ harvesting by the occupying power.”
“A medical examination conducted on bodies of Palestinians returned after they were killed by the occupying power found that they were missing organs.”
He also pleaded concerns of Israel’s brutal “persistent aggression against the Palestinian people” over the past month and the Israeli Ministry’s “insistence on use of violent force and oppressive measures.”

Israel’s History of Organ Theft


Organ theft by the Israeli Zionist regime first came to light in a 2009 report by Sweden’s most highly-circulated daily news, Aftonbladet, in an article titled “Our Sons Are Plundered of Their Organs”
After being exposed to the public, the head of Israel’s Abu Kabir forensic institute, Jehuda Hiss, had admitted to harvesting organs in 2010, stating that they are no longer committing this criminal act. And in 2013, Israel agreed to return the stolen organs of dead Palestinians.
The New York Times said in an August 2014 report that transplant brokers in Israel have pocketed enormous sums of money. If this was an isolated incident, involving the occupied victims of Palestine, that would be one thing. But Israel’s organ harvesting extends outside of Palestine and on a global scale.
44 of the filthiest criminals were arrested in 2009, including three U.S. city mayors and two state legislators along with rabbi’s in New Jersey. Bribery, money laundering and organ trafficking was all linked back to Israel. The money and organs were laundered throughIsrael. In the court testimony from one of the rabbi’s, he was quoted as saying this was “payback for the holocaust.”
It took the FBI 10 years to bust this organ trafficking ring and it’s the biggest bust of it’s kind in world history. Why did it take the FBI 10 years to bust this ring? Why is Press TV the only news agency to write an article about Mansour’s recent report to the UN? And why am I only the second journalist who found this news worthy?

New Israeli policy, withholding the bodies of Palestinians killed

The 28 Palestinian bodies were being held at the Abu Kabir Forensic institute in Tel Aviv, in October. This is the exact same Forensic institute where the Israeli doctor harvested organs and body parts from Palestinian bodies without seeking permission from their families and was caught for it in 2009.
Salwa Hammad, from the Palestinian national campaign to retrieve martyrs, said that a letter was sent to the Israeli military governor in the Bet Il settlement north of Ramallah to release the bodies of the Palestinians killed in October, but received no response. It was estimated at that time that Israel is withholding 268 bodies. The bodies include Iraqi, Jordanian and Moroccan fighters.
These Zionist war crimes are torturous for the family of the martyred victims. It’s customary in Islam for a burial ceremony to be performed within 24 hours after death. The ritual is accompanied by washing and dressing the body in customary cloth and saying loving prayers for his or her soul’s redemption and transition from this world. The burial ritual is also therapeutic in helping the living relatives cope with the reality of a departed loved one.

organ 620

In some cases, Israeli authorities summon the families to identify the bodies of their sons or daughters, and are told that this is the last time they will see them. The bodies are usually stripped of clothes on the scene and placed in black body bags, as reported by Middle East Eye.
Sometimes the bodies of victims are returned in the middle of the night and armed soldiers force the family to bury the loved one immediately, at gun point and in the dark.
To profit from another human beings organs, is a criminal act so vile that most people cannot conceive that it could really be happening, especially when mainstream media will not report it.


Need for Genuine Interfaith Dialogue


Image result for Interfaith Dialogue LOGO


By Sajjad Shaukat

During a visit to Italy’s largest military cemetery of World War I, on November 14, expressing

his grief over the November 13 terror attacks in Paris, Pope Francis called them a “piece of a

piecemeal World War III…war is madness…even today…fought with crimes, massacres,

On September 25, this year, at the UN General Assembly, while indicating the unjust global

order, Pope Francis, condemned the global financial institutions, calling on them to ensure that

countries “are not subjected to oppressive lending systems which, far from promoting progress,

subject people to mechanisms which generate greater poverty, exclusion and dependence.”

Earlier, addressing the US Congress, Pope Francis said, “No religion is immune from forms of

individual delusion or ideological extremism…we must be especially attentive to every type of

fundamentalism. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a

religion, an ideology or an economic system…every life is sacred.”

Taking note of America’s non-acceptance of the Syrian refugees, Francis reminded the law-

makers by pointing out that the United States “is part of a larger whole one America in the

Americas, where immigration is a deeply rooted part of history…we, the people of this

continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners.”

Pope Francis also warned of globalization, and said, “Keep in mind all those people around us

who are trapped in a cycle of poverty.” He emphasized upon the need of “creation and

While calling for an end to the arms trade by the arms dealers, Francis explained, “Deadly

weapons…for money are being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals

and society…money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”

He further added, “If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it

cannot be a slave to the economy and finance.”

However, owing to his religious status, Pope Francis did not openly elaborate his views. In other

worlds, he indicated the double games, secret strategies of the rulers, politicians, their

collaboration with the arms dealers, creation of a crisis, exploitation of peoples’ feelings etc., and

manipulation of the Syrian war at a critical time when the brutalities, committed by the Islamic

State group (ISIS) are being blamed by the US-led western entities on the religion of Islam and

Muslims. But, the Pope has clarified that it is not in Islam only, such extremism or

fundamentalism can infect any faith like Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism which contain

extremists who commit crimes in the name of their faith.

In this regard, the double games and secret strategies in relation to the interfaith dialogue needs

Just after the September 11 tragedy inside the United States, chauvinism and extremism

developed not only in Americans, but also in the media and high officials of the Bush

Administration. President Bush used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers”, adding to the

perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim

Brushing aside the Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians, American unity was projected with such

force as to allow no questioning of the US policy. Under the cover of the 9/11 catastrophe,

preplanned strategy of the neo-conservatives started a fake global war on terror. For the purpose,

Israel was given a free in the occupied territories of the Palestine, where every sort of state

terrorism was practiced on the innocent persons. Besides, various anti-Muslim developments

such as employment of coercive diplomacy, occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, employment of

state terrorism by special military operations, extra-judicial assassinations and heavy aerial

bombardment, CIA-FBI-military torture cells, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, sectarian violence

(And division on Shia-Sunni basis) etc. resulted into the killing of more than two million

President Obama has also continued the same dual strategy. Apart from air strikes on funerals,

marriage-ceremonies and mosques in Afghanistan, overthrow of the elected government in

Egypt, creation of more collapsed states such as Libya, Syria, Yemen etc., CIA support to the

mercenaries and ISIS terrorists, including Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front in fighting against the

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi regime are part of the covert policy of the neo-

conservatives to fulfill the unfinished agenda of the Zionists and Israel.

Meanwhile, taking cognizance of the growing threat of terrorism which had been dividing the

western and Islamic nations on cultural and religious lines, both President Bush and President

Obama orchestrated the drama of interfaith dialogue in wake of phony global war on terror. In

this respect, with official backing, many conferences were held in America and Europe, and

various countries in which scholars from Islamic states and other western countries also

participated with a view to creating cultural understanding among major religious communities.

In this connection, a four day conference of Muslim and Christian intellectuals held on August 1,

2008 at the Yale University Divinity School of America for promoting interfaith dialogue, but

ended without discussing any issue of religious fundamentalism in relation to state terrorism.

Another conference of Muslims, Christians and Jews was held in July, 2008 at Madrid, arranged

by the efforts of Saudi King Abdullah. Afterwards, these meetings continued from time to time.

However, on the one side, behind the interfaith dialogue, the main aim of Bush and Obama was

to pacify the Muslims, Americans and western public, while, on the other to continue the Israel-

led state terrorism of America and the US allies on the Muslims.

Despite the so-called interfaith dialogue, blasphemous acts like reprinting of the caricatures

about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and release of a Dutch film against the Holy Quran and the

burning of a copy of the Holy Quran by Pastor Wayne Sapp in a Florida church continued by

Zionist plotters against the Christians, Americans Muslims and the peace-loving Jews.

But, the US and Israeli frustration by the recent developments such as Russian airstrikes on the

ISIS targets in the northern Syria, its coalition with Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon-based

Hezbollah in support of President Assad culminated in terror attacks in Paris which were also

part of the Zionist conspiracy against the Muslims, Christians and loyal Americans—the west

In the post-Paris attacks phenomena, the US succeeded in getting the assistance of its western

allies against Russia. Now, as part of the ambivalent approach, American jet fighters and those of

its western coalition are targeting the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria. But, there is also danger of

nuclear war or what the pope Francis warned of World War III in wake of anti-Muslim

statements of irresponsible politicians and Zionist-controlled media.

In this context, scholars of international affairs agree that “foreign affairs are too foreign” to the

citizens of a country. Renowned scholar Prof. Hoslti opines that “issues and situations” have

“influence on public opinion” which in turn “influences the objectives and actions.”

In fact, fault can not be laid on the ordinary citizens who are swayed by emotions, stereotypes

and prejudices created by the political leaders who keep on manipulating any crisis for their own

self-interests with the sole aim of getting their sympathies to increase their vote bank. There are

equal strong pressures from religious and nationalist forces in wake of global war on terror

which is dividing the world on religious lines.

Like the drastic aftermath of 9/11 tragedy, rulers and politicians of the US-led western countries,

especially of Europe are again misguiding their general public by creating chauvinism against

the Muslim World by exploiting the critical situation, after the Paris disaster and the shooting at

San Bernardino, California. In one way or the other, the Muslims are being persecuted in the US

and other western countries, particularly in Europe.

Anti-Islamic policy of their politicians could be judged from the statement of US Republican

presidential front-runner Donald Trump who recently called for a ban on Muslims, entering the

United States in response to the San Bernardino shooting. He stated, “We have no choice…more

Sept. 11-style attacks if stern measures are not taken.”

Nevertheless, instead of projecting the so-called threat of Islamophobia which is rapidly dividing

the world on religious lines, the US-led western governments must conduct genuine interfaith

dialogue among Muslims, Christians, Hindus and non-Zionists Jews.

For the purpose, first of all, by discarding the clandestine strategies of the past theorists like

Hobbes, Machiavelli, Morgenthau and Kissinger, leaders of the major powers should resolve the

Syrian crisis through negotiations (Or through points agreed upon in the recent Geneva meeting).

Then, under the auspices of the UN, a broader alliance of all the stakeholders must be concluded

to fight against the ISIS terrorists. And especially, the US must abandon its double game

For the success of interfaith dialogue, some American and western political leaders should stop

irresponsible statements by equating the war on terror with war on Islam, and acts of Al Qaeda

and ISIS with all the Muslims. Their media should also be brought under control through

appropriate legislation or law, as freedom of expression does not mean the introduction of

dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by dividing world politics on cultural and

religious lines with the negative projection of Islam which is a religion of peace, and prohibits

any kind of terrorism like other religions.

Moreover, responsibility also lies on the rulers of the Muslim countries including opposition

parties and media to refrain from manipulation of the present chaotic situation.

Furthermore, it is suggested to all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who use

social media or Internet for controversial debate, must share it for creating religious harmony

which is essential for world peace, their economic development and prosperity. On the occasion

of this Christmas, they must pledge selfless global unity in their messages.

Returning to our earlier discussion, instead of the orchestrated drama of the past, there is an

immediate need to conduct the genuine interfaith dialogue, before the world enters into a major

war of “all against all” in the sense of Hobbesian state of nature.


Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,
Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in WorldComments Off on Need for Genuine Interfaith Dialogue

Is the UN resolution on Syria a positive initiative?

Image result for UN CARTOON
The Syria Solidarity Movement welcomes the UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and political settlement in Syria.  It is a hopeful initiative for three main reasons.
First, if it is true that the US and its allies no longer seek to overthrow the legal government of the sovereign nation of Syria, this is a very positive step that demonstrates respect for international law and the UN charter prohibiting military action or interference in the internal affairs of other countries except in response to an act of aggression.
Second, if the resolution also results in a sincere and united front against foreign forces that are violating Syrian sovereignty, this is also a major positive step that can help restore a secure Syria that allows its people to return to their homes and rebuild their communities.
Third, if the countries that supported the resolution are serious about respecting the right of the Syrian people to choose their own government and leadership without outside interference or trying to decide what is right for Syria, this is to be encouraged by all.
These intentions can be inferred from the language of the resolution. However, not everyone agrees that these are the right inferences to draw, and even if they are, to what extent all of its backers are committed to those intentions.
We note, for example, that of the foreign nations that are currently conducting military operations in Syria, only Russia is doing so with the authorization of legally constituted Syrian government.  All the rest, including the US, France and Turkey, are operating in violation of the UN charter, and are committing aggression against the sovereign nation of Syria.
We also note that the US and its allies make an artificial distinction between the terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIL/Daesh on the one hand and Ahrar al-Sham and similar groups, on the other, while the differences are only skin deep.  These groups need only change their names to legitimate themselves, a convenient fig leaf for maintaining the status quo and continuing the aggression.
Will the US, France and the UK enforce upon Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other nations a requirement to use the arms sold to them only in self defense and not transfer them to other parties without the permission of the manufacturing country, as stated in the End User Agreements that are a condition of sale?  Will they stop providing weapons to fighters considered terrorists by the manufacturing nations?  Will they put an end to the indoctrination and financial and logistical support to terror groups inside Syria and Iraq?
All of this is very uncertain, based upon the language of the resolution, The sincerity of the countries that agreed upon this language therefore remains to be seen.
Despite these reservations, we welcome this action by the UN Security Council for its potential. Let us hope and advocate for this resolution to mark the beginning of the end of the conflict in Syria. Let us work for this to be the first step in rebuilding a safe, secure, stable and peaceful Syria for generations to come.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Is the UN resolution on Syria a positive initiative?




One of the most fascinating aspects to the post-9/11 “war on terrorism” is the fixation of American statists on Muslims, Islam, and the Koran. “The Muslims are coming to get us,” they cry. “The Muslims have been trying to conquer the world for centuries. They’re determined to establish a worldwide caliphate, one in which everyone will be forced to convert to Islam. They want to replace America’s common-law legal system with Sharia law. The Koran mandates that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and other infidels and, therefore, we have no choice but to kill them before they kill us.”Yet, deep down American statists have to realize that all this just a crock. The war on terrorism is not about protecting America from the threat of a worldwide caliphate. The war on terrorism is all about imperialism and interventionism. It’s about control. It’s about whether the U.S. Empire is going to be able to impose its will on people and governments throughout the world.

Was any American statist expressing concern about Muslims, Islam, the Koran, or Sharia law during the 45 years of the Cold War?

Nope! Back then, the big bugaboo was communism, especially Soviet communism but also Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, Chilean, and Vietnamese communism, not to mention the U.S. Communist Party. At no time did any American statist exclaim against the Muslims or decry that they were coming to get us as part of their supposed centuries-old plan to establish a worldwide caliphate.

Even more revealing, American statists overwhelmingly supported the U.S. government’s support of radical Muslims in Afghanistan during the Cold War, when it was the Soviet Union, rather than the United States, that was doing the invading and occupying.

When people who were suffering the ravages of U.S. imperialism and interventionism in the post-Cold War period, most of whom happened to be Muslims, began retaliating with strikes against U.S. troops in their homelands or with terrorist strikes against civilians, that’s when American statists began exclaiming, “Oh, they just hate us because we’re free and because we’re Christians rather than Muslims. It has nothing to do with the fact that our government has invaded their homelands and killed, tortured, maimed, humiliated, or incarcerated countless numbers of them or bombed or otherwise destroyed their homes and businesses.”

When the U.S. government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to effect regime change in those two countries, Americans cheered and ardently supported the troops notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. government installed into power official Islamic regimes in both countries.

Did you ever hear any American statist express even mild criticism or concern for the U.S. government’s having brought two official Islamic governments into existence?

Nope, not a peep!

In fact, it’s even worse than that. During the U.S. occupations of both countries, which lasted for more than 10 years, U.S. troops were killing anyone who resisted their imperialism and interventionism or resisted the brutal and corrupt Islamic regimes that U.S. officials had installed in their countries. They called resisters to their imperialism and interventionism “terrorists.”

Throughout the time that U.S. troops were protecting these two official Islamic regimes, Americans were supporting the troops, enthusiastically. “Thank you for your service in Iraq and Afghanistan” was a popular refrain during the entire period of the occupations.

Now, wouldn’t you think that people who are concerned about an Islamic conquest of the entire world would be a bit concerned about two official Islamic governments being established in Iraq and Afghanistan and being defended and protected by U.S. troops?

Yet, not only no criticism but effusive praise instead.

Here’s another hint that the caliphate fears of American statists are nothing but a bunch of hooey: Notice that none of them are going out and killing American Muslims. Why not? If we’re at war against Muslims and Islam — if the Koran commands Muslims to kill us, as American statists maintain — then why aren’t these Americans out there defending our country by killing the people in our midst who are secretly conspiring to kill us?

There is a very simple reason why they’re not killing Muslim-Americans as part of what they say is a religious war: They know that as soon as they killed even one of the “enemy,” they would be arrested by state law-enforcement officers and charged with the state crime of murder. And they also know that if they were to try to use their ludicrous religious-war rationale as a defense in their murder trial, the judge would instruct the jury to disregard it. They know that they’d end up on a death-penalty gurney or with life in prison for killing an innocent American Muslim.

So, why do American statists remain fixated on the caliphate-Koran-Muslim-Islam-Sharia law rationale for supporting the “war on terrorism”?

The reason is a religious one, but not in the way that statists view the situation. The problem is that American statists are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually unable to confront the fact that their very own federal government, especially the national-security component of the government (i.e., the military and the CIA) — is at the root of America’s foreign-policy woes.

That’s because American statists, including Christians, Jews, and atheists, have elevated the federal government to the status of a god, one who watches over his people, takes care of them with sustenance, educates their children, provides their healthcare, gives them welfare, and keeps them safe. For American statists, the federal government is their friend, their daddy, their Big Brother, and their protector. It is also a god who commands unswerving allegiance and loyalty, unconditionally.

Consider the Christian churches of America, where since 9/11 church ministers have exhorted their members to “support the troops, especially those in harm’s way.”

Has any minister ever asked his congregation to support the victims of the troops — the people who are being killed or maimed or having their homes or businesses bombed or otherwise destroyed?

Are you kidding? That would be heresy! When Christian ministers here in the United States exhort people to pray for the troops, the thought of questioning or challenging what the troops are doing or why they are doing it doesn’t even enter their minds. God is not supposed to be challenged. The troops could be killing the unborn with abortions or the born with bombs and bullets, and the assumption is that it’s all good, it’s all moral, it’s all okay. After all, “National security is at stake! Support the troops!”

Or consider this prayer that is heard in Christian churches: “Let us pray for peace and an end to terrorism around the world.” Translation: “Let us pray that people in foreign lands that are invaded by our troops will not resist what our god wills for them and that they instead peacefully submit to the will of our god.”

Consider the reaction among statists to what Edward Snowden did. He revealed dark secrets of the Empire to the world, disclosing acts of illegality. Where was the statist ire directed? No, not at the Empire for illegally spying on the American people. It was directed at Snowden for daring to reveal the secrets of the great statist god, who is just trying to keep its children safe.

Wouldn’t it be nice if at this time of year — Christmastime — the American people were to revisit the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” That would be a good first step to restoring a free, harmonious, moral, and prosperous society to our land.


White Terror Matters


by Mike King


As the media and state response to the recent attacks in San Bernardino have illustrated, premeditated political violence in the U.S. today only gets labelled and responded to as ‘terrorism’ if the alleged perpetrators are Muslims. White, far-Right political violence is however persistent and intensifying despite consistent efforts to downplay, ignore or depoliticize it. The intensification of anti-Muslim violencethat has followed the San Bernardino attacks further illustrates this wave of violence, as the leading Republican candidate calls for an outright banon all Muslims entering the country.

This recent spate of anti-Muslim terrorism – armed vigilantes stalking mosques, random attacks on Muslim women on the street, the fire-bombing of businesses by Neo-Nazis – are part of an unending chain of white terrorism which is much deeper and broader. Radicalized white resentment has been the biggest terror threat in the U.S. in the last decade, emboldened and intensifying through the state’s failure to contain it, while the underlying backlash politics fueling this violence has been mainstreamed – from the Tea Party to the cartoonish candidacy of Donald Trump. The outward violence of the disintegrating American empire is presently being matched by the internal political violence launched by a variety of militias, white nationalists, and an assortment of lone wolves wound up to the breaking point by Fox News, Republican politicians, and the demonstration effect of a litany of heavily-armed, self-conceived white victims putting rhetoric in to action and ‘taking back their country.’

The murder of three people and the shooting of nine others at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs Saturday November 28th, by a man reciting Republican talking points about “no more body parts” following the shooting of five Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis five days prior by white nationalists, are the violent actualization of a white, Christian fundamentalist politics that has become increasingly mainstreamed since the onset of the Tea Party movement in 2009. From Dylan Roof’s murderous attack on Black parishioners this past summer, the subsequent Ku Klux Klan efforts to save South Carolina’s slave flag, and the spate of arsons targeting Black churches throughout the South in recent months, the similarities to white vigilantism in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement are both stark and foreboding. The racial epithets and crystal-clear meaning behind the shouts that “All Lives Matter!” which were blurted between kicks to Mercutio Southall’s chest on the floor of a Donald Trump rally a week before the Colorado mass shooting, and Trump’s subsequent comments that he “deserved to be roughed up” should perhaps be read as a harbinger to the bullets put in five unarmed black bodies on November 23rd in Minneapolis at a demonstration responding to the police killing of Jamar Clark, an unarmed Black man. The vigilante attack on the Black Lives Matter protest last Monday night, for which four men are now facing merely second degree assault and/or rioting charges, was followed by the snide jeering of the police at the scene that night who told the protesters that ‘this is what you asked for’ as they reportedly maced those who remained.

A core political figure in the recent political attacks on Planned Parenthood, Carly Fiorina, has been quick to label any efforts to trace the Planned Parenthood massacre to the lengthy demonization of the organization in the second Republican Presidential Debate in September as “Left-Wing Tactics” – despite the fact that the shooter, Robert Dear, was reported to have said “no more baby parts” as he was taken into police custody, referencing the misleading video which sparked the recent surge in political attacks against Planned Parenthood. Not to be outdone, Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz’ avoidance of the obvious link between his and Fiorina’s rhetoric and Saturday’s violence was peppered with a healthy dose of transphobia – claiming that Dear was a “transgendered leftist activist.” These violent vigilante actions – explicitly targeting both a vibrant, persistent, and long overdue social movement effort to forge racial equality and a longstanding bastion of women’s reproductive rights and health – need to be seen and treated as what they are, as acts of terrorism.

The Police Executive Research Forum, a non-profit policing think tank, surveyed almost 400 police departments who reported Right-wing extremists as almost twice as much of a terrorist threat as “Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations.”  The New York Times reported in June that “[R]ight-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.”  A telling vignette in relation to law enforcement and right wing terrorism is that of a leaked 2009 Homeland Security report detailing the real and increasing threat of far-Right domestic terrorism.  The leaking of the report created a political controversy through which the domestic terrorism unit within Homeland Security was attacked by leading Republicans. This attack lead to the scuttling of the report and to that Homeland Security unit being disbanded, leaving one domestic terrorism expert remaining at HLS, according to Daryl Johnson, a former Homeland Security official and co-author of the 2009 report. In contrast to the perpetual surveillance, infiltration and entrapment schemes that mark the state’s standard response to movements like Occupy or the Anti-War movement, the far-Right is consistently treated with kid gloves.

Despite the fact that these recent attacks fit the textbook definition of terrorism, and that the perpetrators have substantive connections to networks of armed paramilitary groupings, constituting a, if not the, main source of future domestic terrorist attacks according to local and federal police agencies, they are not treated as terrorists. This is not a matter of terminology or political hyperbole. It speaks to very real acts of violence connected to far-Right anti-government vigilante groups, whose insulation from the persistent repression frequented upon social justice movements is illustrative. It highlights not only a longstanding double standard in relation to political violence in this country, but a set of political relationship which need to be publicly scrutinized and materially challenged at every level – from confronting vigilante extremists in the street, to potentially building a radical/progressive base to pressure the state to take action against armed vigilantes who have gained a growing degree of popular legitimacy, which is reflected in its plainest form in the face of the presidential candidates being put forward by the Republican Party.

The attack on the Black Lives Matter movement in Minneapolis on November 23rd was a violent vigilante attempt to maintain the fragmented, truncated version of white democracy that has been challenged for centuries but not yet fundamentally transformed. As the late Joel Olson succinctly put it in The Abolition of White Democracy, “Racial oppression makes full democracy impossible, but it has also made American democracy possible. Conversely, American democracy has made racial oppression possible, for neither slavery nor segregation not any other forms of racial domination could have survived without the tacit or explicit consent of the white majority” (2004, xv). Contemporary white vigilante terrorism is not “an attack on our democratic values and the American way of life” – it is an attempt to maintain the existing racial order, it is an attack on the possibility of constructing a truly democratic social fabric in this society. It is a targeted act of violence against the very people trying to bring that genuine democracy into existence. White terror is neither new nor an aberration, it is the persistent application of violence against vulnerable targets to pursue the political objectives of maintaining white political and economic dominance in American society. Efforts to see this violence as anything less than domestic terrorism is analogous to seeing the lynchings of one hundred years ago as simply depoliticized criminality and isolated incidents.

Identity, Moral Culpability, and Terror: From France to Minneapolis & Colorado Springs

The attack on Planned Parenthood in Colorado, like the attack on the Black Lives Matter movement earlier that week, along with the murder of nine people in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina this past June, and the spate of arsons from North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee to Saint Louis in recent months, was an act of terror – a violent act against a civilian target with the intent of political intimidation and manipulation. Not unlike the recent attacks in Paris, the objective is to inflict violence to make a political statement and to use that violence as a calculated tool towards a political end – a tactic embedded in a broader strategy. Within hours of the Paris attacks the likes of CNN were demanding apologies and mandatory disavowals from Muslims writ large. CNN anchors beratedYasser Louati, a spokesperson from the Collective Against Islamophobia, with a bevy of veiled accusations, asking, “Why is it that no one within the Muslim community there in France knew what these guys were up to?” Even though armed masked men were documented making threatstowards the Black Lives Matter protestors in Minneapolis three days before a group of men showed up and opened fire – CNN would never fathom badgering random white residents with similar questions, or demanding answers from the Minneapolis police as to why these threats were not taken seriously. This speaks volumes about the deeply entrenched white supremacy in the American media in regards to pressing political issues both foreign and domestic.

Why does a terroristic act by a group of people who are (only nominally) Muslim produce an almost automatic, reflexive moral complicity throughout an entire generalized subaltern group while domestic white terrorism in the U.S. is neither considered terror, nor even placed within any broader political context of systemic racial inequality, material deprivation and cultural dehumanization? Why and how can these attacks continue to be seen as isolated, decontextualized tragedies rather than as public acts of war against Black people or against the fundamental human rights of women to have access to reproductive healthcare? White supremacist violence and Christian fundamentalist terror are performed with an explicit and direct political intent that is rarely treated as domestic terrorism within dominant political or media discourse, let alone subject to the type of counter-insurgency tactics to which even entirely non-violent social justice movements are routinely subjected. The broader white public from which these terrorists emerge (and find safe refuge, etc.) is never examined, let alone imagined to be morally and politically culpable. How does the onslaught of cheers and admirationexpressed via social media for Robert Dear’s attack from the good Christians of our fine nation not prompt a long media discussion about the widespread support for terrorism in the U.S.? This avoidance of collective culpability coincides with the absence of the obligatory affective manipulation which is thrust in the face of every racialized group when the perpetrator has dark skin and the victims are white.  There has been a systematic politico-discursive blockage in regards to white domestic terrorism, in spite of its often clear connections to white anti-government militiasand its verbatim reiterations of the talking points of racist, violence-inciting reactionary media pundits.

Beyond any consideration of the extent to which there may be some sort generalizable white or conservative Christian complicity in these terrorist acts (i.e. white social indifference to, or tacit support for, white supremacist terror; persistent politico-legal insulation from criminal profiling and state surveillance of armed white militias and similar groupings) the perpetrators of this violence are themselves not even held fully accountable. Their terroristic attacks are never represented as anything but decontextualized and individualized discrete crimes – isolated apolitical actions. Social responsibility never transcends the level of individual culpability, while these actions are typically even further rationalized and depoliticized as a product of mental illness, or are (re)politicized towards conversations about gun control, rather than towards controlling white-on-black violence or Christian fundamentalists who conceive themselves to be the violent hand of God. As Syrian refugees face blanket criminalization for Paris attacks committed exclusively by European nationals, how does white America continue to avoid demands for allegiance to racial justice and disavowal of white terrorism within the standardized Manichean “us versus them” political framework which is presented to each and every Muslim when something like the Paris attacks occurs?

The Privileges of White Terrorism

At the level of political violence white terrorism is not materially different from any other form of terrorism, but within existing American social, political and historical contexts there are substantive differences. White terrorism seeks to maintain existing social relations rather than pursue a different political order. White terrorism is not only domestic, it is an expression of racial dominance within a political culture that continuously contorts reality to posit a post-racial social order while ignoring or erasing material inequalities rooted in longstanding racial structures. White terrorism is not only as old as the American racial structure itself, it is an intrinsic part of that evolving but persistent pattern of social relationships. White terrorism is culturally, socially, institutionally, discursively, and legally insulated from being seen and treated as terrorism, or even being seen as intrinsically white, by the very political, ideological and social control structures of white supremacy that it seeks to uphold and strengthen.

The American political discursive field has had no trouble in the past two years hyping up imagined black criminality – whether it is giving a platform to police unions to prattle on about an imaginary “war on police” (Minneapolis police made such claims in early November) or spending a full week entertaining the phantasmagoric rantings of white supremacists and the fake black-on-white crime epidemics they promulgated in regards to the knockout game. But when it comes to clear acts of terror directed at a popular and visible social movement we find ideological obfuscation and a range of pertinent questions unasked and unanswered. It is still an open question as to whether the Justice Department and FBI will heed the call of the Black Lives Matter movement or Planned Parenthood to treat these as acts of terrorism (which may include degrees ofpolice collusion in Minnesota) half as seriously as they treat planned gatherings of the Insane Clown Posse. If history is any indication, white terror will once again find safe refuge within official structures which tacitly or actively nurture and foster it in various ways.

Donald Trump, White Terror and the Silent (White) Majority Today

Recent trends in white identity politics – with a majority of whites feeling that they are racially oppressed – would be simply laughable if they did not have an intimate connection with persistent white vigilante violence. A Public Religion Research Institute poll found that 44% of all Americans and 61% of Tea Party supporters in 2010 thought that discrimination against whites was just as great as discrimination against racial minorities. A Pew Research poll taken in August 2014, two weeks after the killing of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO revealed that, “About seven-in-ten whites (71%) expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in local police to treat blacks and whites equally, compared with just 36% of blacks.” A September 2015 PBS poll revealed that, when asked about the Black Lives Matter movement, “59 percent of whites think it distracts attention from real issues.”

The level of white resentment and backlash finds no clearer political manifestation, aside from the recent spate of anti-black violence, than in the caricatured vulgar bigotry of Donald Trump. From immigrant bashing to promoting false statistics about black-on-white crime, Trump has been brazenly and successfully riding this wave of white resentment and backlash politics towards the Republican nomination. In spite of his obvious limitations as a viable presidential candidate – epitomized by his reality-show, bully persona and vacant, eye-brow-shrugging braggadocio – Trump is the historical walking/talking embodiment of modern white resentment. All the better if his claims about immigrant rapists or Black crime are clearly fabricated, so long as he does not waver from that bad faith bigotry in his clear and simple pursuit of reinforcing the existing racial order.

The Obama years have featured a litany of contrived far-Right attacks on everyone from ACORN to U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod – concocted media frenzies which got recruited up from the Breitbart News’ minor league into the Fox News starting line-up, to then dominate national headlines in more respectable media outlets. As with the moral panic which surrounded a similar far-Right propaganda video two years ago which brought ‘the knockout game’ to great prominence, the Planned Parenthood video is decontextualized and fundamentally premised on a false claim, as was the attack on ACORN and Sherrod before that.  Just as there had been no significant spike in random black-on-white knockout attacks two years ago, Planned Parenthood was not selling fetuses for profit, but donating tissue for research. Carly Fiorina responded to any effort to connect Saturday’s mass shooting at Planned Parenthood to the very public and inciting condemnations featured in the September Republican Debate: “This is so typical of the left to immediately begin demonizing a messenger because they don’t agree with the message.”  The message delivered out of Robert Dean’s rifle this past Saturday was simply an extension of the distorted anti-choice message Fiorina helped launder into mainstream political discussion two months ago. When Colin Flaherty, the author of White Girl Bleed a Lot, where the ‘knockout game’ story originated, was asked about the impetus for his fake expose of “black mob violence,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, he told the host of the Neo-Nazi radio show on which he was interviewed: “‘I’m just a guy that likes to write… I just have my eyes open. My attitude is, I’m going to tell you what’s happening now, and if you want to freak out about it, I really don’t care.’” It’s too bad Carly Fiorina, Trump, and company don’t share the same political integrity as Colin Flaherty.  Maybe he should make a run for President.

There has been growing discussion, including among other leading Republicans at this point, as to whether Trump or his campaign, with its overt mobilization of white resentment and use of racialized scapegoats to explain deep, widespread economic strain, potentially constitutes a slide into fascism. Despite some glaring similarities between Trump and a historical figure like Mussolini, not to mention Trump’s own infatuation withAdolf Hitler, I share Chip Berlet’s assessment that to argue that Trump is an American fascist is grossly ahistorical. This “slide into fascism” argument glosses the stark politico-legal and well as socio-economic formations of racial inequality that have persisted throughout this country’s history, with upsurges in demands for racial justice being countered by jingoist nativism that bolsters corporate power and white supremacy within and throughexisting political structures. In reality Trump is more akin to a vulgar modern incarnation of Richard Nixon, remobilizing a white working class base into a corporatist political block that is already well established. White nativism and the conscious and unconscious protection of white structural dominance and privilege has consistently defined American democracy, while reproducing structures of white supremacy. As Joel Olson has put it, “Whiteness, then, does not simply exclude some persons from enjoying democratic rights. It does much more: it produces a particular conception of democracy that not only denies active participation and social equality but cannot even imagine them” (2004, 63). We ignore our history and imperil our own future by substituting amorphous, alarmist claims of ‘fascism’ for an honest assessment of the founding contradiction of American society as it pertains to race and democracy.

Black Protest, White Terror and the Battle for American Democracy

While it is always difficult to appreciate the true historical significance of the present tense, we clearly sit within a period of heightened political contestation and possibility. The formation of a coherent national movement opposing racialized police violence and fighting for true racial equality and full social democracy has finally emerged in the past two years, after several fits and starts over the previous decades. The material gains the movement has already fostered are evident, if still in flux. In the past two months the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission decided torelease 50,000 Federal drug war prisoners early, as Congress moves to (at least somewhat) roll-back draconian drug laws, following a call by over 130 major police chiefs, sheriffs and city prosecutors, many of whom made their careers in large part off of that War on Drugs, arguing that we need to move away from using mass-incarceration as a mechanism for warehousing poor Blacks and Latinos. Efforts to coopt the movement into the Democratic Party or existing Non-Profit structures have thus far failed, as direct actions, popular mobilization, campus activism, and widespread grassroots activity persist and expand. History consistently shows that those who cannot be coopted and incorporated are usually violent attacked, by vigilant forces, the state, or in the case of the shootings in Minneapolis on November 23rdperhaps both.

The primary objective of terrorism is to heighten political conflicts while simultaneously drawing a line between two political opponents – and foreclosing upon any middle ground. The objective of white vigilante violence and Christian fundamentalist terror is to intimidate and to manipulate the response of its targets. Aside from whatever steps the Black Lives Matter movement or Planned Parenthood will take to defend and sustain themselves in the face of terrorism, political ground cannot be ceded to masked gunmen who seek to increase the stakes of protest while potentially narrowing and manipulating its terms. The Minneapolis police response on the night of the vigilante shooting – attacking the gunshot wounded crowd with chemical agents rather than immediately moving to arrest the armed gunmen – illuminates the inherent contradictions of pursuing social change in a society whose ‘legitimate institutions’ are wholly complicit with the material grievances demonstrators are seeking to reconcile.

Terrorism inherently draws a line in the sand and forces people to choose a side. Whether white terrorism is or is not publicly labelled as terror, it is not an isolated incident, nor simply the work of a few misguided white extremists, or explained by some political cop-out diagnosis of mental illness. The millions of white Americans who were so quick to “Stand with France” and plaster a French flag over their Facebook profile, and the millions of Christian Conservatives that support an agenda that seeks to turn the U.S. into a reactionary theocratic state, need to be forced to recognize their own persistent failure to condemn the vigilante and state violence that systematically targets Black Americans and women for what it is – material support for terrorism.



Posted in USAComments Off on White Terror Matters

NY Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Turned a Deaf Ear to Palestinian Suffering

Image result for NEW YORK times CARTOON
By Barbara Erickson 

As Jodi Rudoren exits the Jerusalem bureau of The New York Times, she leaves behind a series of gaping holes in coverage of Palestine-Israel, above all in her failure to expose the treatment of the most vulnerable, who suffer disproportionately under the constant brutality of the Israeli occupation.

Readers of the Times have never been told of the international outcry over the abuse of Palestinian children detained by Israeli security forces. They know nothing about the myriad Israeli breaches of the 2014 ceasefire with Gaza, especially the frequent attacks on fishermen and farmers; and they are uninformed of the cruel measures imposed on struggling Bedouin communities in the Jordan Valley and elsewhere.

Rudoren, who leaves her post as Jerusalem bureau chief at the end of this month, replaced Ethan Bronner nearly four years ago. She has written from inside an Israeli Jewish perspective, giving voice to official Israeli spin and omitting the stories that beg to be told.

Thus, although Rudoren visited Gaza, she had nothing to say about the numerous attacks on defenseless farmers and fishermen there, some of whom have died simply trying to do a day’s work. These attacks are in violation of the truce that ended the assault on Gaza in the summer of 2014 (as well as previous agreements), but Rudoren’s reporting from the enclave has strained to deflect the blame from Israel.

Instead of telling the stories we need to hear, Rudoren has written about individual Gazans who are anything but typical—a woman artist who defies the authorities, a man who goes against the grain by advocating for the two-state solution.

In this way she has given us the appearance of entering into Gazan society, of “balance” in covering both Israeli and Palestinian affairs, while she actually provided a smokescreen to avoid looking at the urgent issues.

The Bedouin of the West Bank received even less attention during Rudoren’s term in Jerusalem, but their stories are equally disturbing and compelling. In the Jordan Valley and east of Jerusalem (and also within Israel, in the Negev), Israeli forces often confiscate and destroy the basic necessities of life in these poverty-stricken communities.

The Israeli Civil Administration, a branch of the army, routinely destroys tents, latrines, animal shelters, water pipes, cisterns, wells, houses, solar panels and storage sheds, usually under the pretext that they lack building permits. Many of the confiscated and destroyed items have been donated by the International Committee of the Red Cross or other aid organizations.

The Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem, has documented these acts of destruction and the many times Israeli troops have forced entire communities to leave their homes for hours and days at a time under the pretext of needing the area for “military training.” These live fire training sessions have more than once set the Bedouins’ fields on fire, destroying valuable crops and grazing land.

And yet, as she ignored these depredations, Rudoren chose to write about illegal settlers in the Jordan Valley, presenting them as plucky and determined and ignoring the plunder of indigenous communities in the area.

Although B’Tselem, the United Nations, Amnesty International and other monitoring groups have exposed the contemptible actions and policies of the Israeli government and its security forces, Rudoren has almost totally ignored the reports and even worked to undermine them.

Numerous groups, for instance, have raised alarm over the abuse of Palestinian children in Israeli custody, but Rudoren never saw fit to address the issue in the Times—except for a somewhat oblique attempt to defuse the charges. Thus, she wrote about stone throwing as a rite of passage in one West Bank village, presenting the youthful efforts at resistance and the Israeli response as a kind of game, nothing to be taken seriously.

The story mentions the arrests of children and military interrogations, but readers never learn that Israeli courts and security forces have been accused of serious mistreatment, amounting to torture: beatings, forced confessions, sleep deprivation, threats and more.

Instead, Rudoren says that it can be cold in those infamous interrogation rooms, as if that is the worst of it.

In the latest uprising, marked by a series of lone wolf stabbing and vehicular attacks, Rudoren continued to ignore the reports of monitoring groups, saying nothing about the well-documented charges that Israeli security forces are carrying out street executions of Palestinians who pose no threat.

This kind of news is deemed unfit to print in the Times. Rudoren, who goes on the join the international desk at the paper’s headquarters, played her part well, according to Times protocol, which expects that its reporters will maintain the Israeli narrative of victimhood, suppress anything that contradicts this claim and betray its readers under a camouflage of “balanced” reporting.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on NY Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Turned a Deaf Ear to Palestinian Suffering



1. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies, not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

2. “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2000

3. ” [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

4. “The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” ” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

5. “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

6. “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

7. “There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.” Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

8. “The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972.

9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

10. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : “We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return.” Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. “The old will die and the young will forget.”

11. “We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.” Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

12. “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” – Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI’s cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)

13. “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

14. “We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return” David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

15. ” … we should prepare to go over to the offensive with the aim of smashing Lebanon, Trans-jordan and Syria… The weak point in the Arab coalition is Lebanon [for] the Moslem regime is artificial and easy to undermine. A Christian state should be established… When we smash the [Arab] Legions strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan, too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo.” ” David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

16. “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” Israel Koenig, “The Koenig Memorandum”

17. “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

18. “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’” Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

19. Rabin’s description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters” Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From “The Arabs in Israel” by Sabri Jiryas.

20. “There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:…the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish…with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.” Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.

21. “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

22. “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

23. “Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

24. “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” — Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

25. “We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.” (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

26. “We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

27. “We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not…You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.” (Chaim Weizmann, Published in “Judische Rundschau,” No. 4, 1920)

28. “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” – Israeli prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,” New Statesman, June 25, 1982

29. “Tell me, do the evil men of this world have a bad time? They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don’t suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear us instead of feeling sorry. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear our madness instead of admiring our nobility. Let them tremble; let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a savage country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go wild, that we might start World War Three just like that, or that we might one day go crazy and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East. Even if you’ll prove to me that the present war is a dirty immoral war, I don’t care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more. And do you know why it is all worth it? Because it seems that this war has made us more unpopular among the civilized world.We’ll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality. No more talk about a unique people being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance.” –Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

30. “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.” -Yuri Slezkine, Professor of History at University of California, Berkeley, “The Jewish Century”; Princeton University Press

31. “What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the shortsightedness of our military leaders. They seem to presume that the State of Israel may or even must-behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle- -the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and so many clashes we have provoked;” – From Diary of Moshe Sharett, former Primer Minister of Israel in Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism published 980

32. Hebrew essayist Achad Ha-Am, after paying a visit to Palestine in 1891: “Abroad we are accustomed to believe that Israel is almost empty; nothing is grown here and that whoever wishes to buy land could come here and buy what his heart desires. In reality, the situation is not like this. Throughout the country it is difficult to find cultivable land which is not already cultivated.”

33. The Balfour Declaration to Baron Rothchild, on the 2nd of November, 1917: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

34. Lord Sydenham, Hansard, House of Lords, 21 June 1922: “If we are going to admit claims on conquest thousands of years ago, the whole world will have to be turned upside down.”

35. Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923: “Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power independent of the native population – an iron wall, which will be in a position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is our policy towards the Arabs…”

36. Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism (precursor of Likud), The Iron Wall, 1923: “A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”

37. David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985: “We must expel Arabs and take their places.”

38. Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department in 1940. From “A Solution to the Refugee Problem”: “Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries – all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

39. Israeli official Arthur Lourie in a letter to Walter Eytan, director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry (ISA FM 2564/22). From Benny Morris, “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-49”, p. 297: “…if people become accustomed to the large figure and we are actually obliged to accept the return of the refugees, we may find it difficult, when faced with hordes of claimants, to convince the world that not all of these formerly lived in Israeli territory. It would, in any event, seem desirable to minimize the numbers…than otherwise.”

40. David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben- Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978: “We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.”

41. David Ben-Gurion, one of the father founders of Israel, described Zionist aims in 1948: “A Christian state should be established [in Lebanon], with its southern border on the Litani river. We will make an alliance with it. When we smash the Arab Legion’s strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo… And in this fashion, we will end the war and settle our forefathers’ account with Egypt, Assyria, and Aram”

42. [Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir who were members of the party became Prime Ministers.] Albert Einstein, Hanna Arendt and other prominent Jewish Americans, writing in The New York Times, protest the visit to America of Menachem Begin, December 1948: “Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created State of Israel of the Freedom Party (Herut), a political party closely akin in its organization, method, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

43. Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion on the moral character of the state of Israel with reference to the Arab refugees in March 1949. “We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion; we as Jews, have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora.”

44. Moshe Dayan (Israel Defense and Foreign Minister), on February 12 1952. Radio “Israel.”: “It lies upon the people’s shoulders to prepare for the war, but it lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate object of erecting the Israeli Empire.”

45. Martin Buber, to a New York audience, Jewish Newsletter, June 2, 1958: “When we [followers of the prophetic Judaism] returned to Palestine…the majority of Jewish people preferred to learn from Hitler rather than from us.”

46. Aba Eban (the Israeli Foreign Minister) stated arrogantly. New York Times June 19, 1967: “If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of “Israel” returning to the armistice lines– (pre June 1967 borders) “Israel” would refuse to comply with the decision.”

47. Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairperson of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, and a survivor of the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, Commenting on the Israeli military’s Emergency Regulations following the 1967 War. Palestine, vol. 12, December 1983: “Hitler’s legal power was based upon the ‘Enabling Act’, which was passed quite legally by the Reichstag and which allowed the Fuehrer and his representatives, in plain language, to be what they wanted, or in legal language, to issue regulations having the force of law. Exactly the same type of act was passed by the Knesset [Israeli’s Parliament] immediately after the 1067 conquest granting the Israeli governor and his representatives the power of Hitler, which they use in Hitlerian manner.”

48. Joseph Weitz, Director of the Jewish National Fund, the Zionist agency charged with acquiring Palestinian land, Circa 194. Machover Israca, January 5, 1973 /p.2: “The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel [all the land west of Jordan River], without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point … We must not leave a single village, not a single tribe.”

49. Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Inferring that killing isn’t murder if the victim is Gentile. Jerusalem Post, June 19,1989: “Jewish blood and a goy’s [gentile’s] blood are not the same.”

50. Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989: “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”

51. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service: “The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the Jordan River for future generations, for the mass aliya [immigration], and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.”

52. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000: “If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force….”

53. Ben Gurion: In 1899, Davis Triestsch wrote to Herzl: ” I would suggest to you to come round in time to the “Greater Palestine” program before it is too late… the Basle program must contain the words “Great Palestine” or “Palestine and its neighboring lands” otherwise it’s nonsense. You do not get ten million Jews into a land of 25,000 Km2″. ” The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill — From the Nile to the Euphrates.”

54. Vladimir Jabotinsky (the founder and advocate of the Zionist terrorist organizations), Quoted by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem Juif. (Jewish People or Jewish Problem): “Has any People ever been seen to give up their territory of their own free will? In the same way, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence.”


A Call for Proof on Syria-Sarin Attack

Image result for Syria-Sarin Attack CARTOON
Consortium News 

One reason why Official Washington continues to insist that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “must go” is that he supposedly “gassed his own people” with sarin on Aug. 21, 2013, but the truth of that allegation has never been established and is in growing doubt, U.S. intelligence veterans point out.

MEMORANDUM FOR: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Sarin Attack at Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013

In a Memorandum of Oct. 1, 2013, we asked each of you to make public the intelligence upon which you based your differing conclusions on who was responsible for the sarin chemical attack at Ghouta, outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. On Dec. 10, 2015, Eren Erdem, a member of parliament in Turkey, citing official documents, blamed Turkey for facilitating the delivery of sarin to rebels in Syria.

Mr. Kerry, you had blamed the Syrian government. Mr. Lavrov, you had described the sarin as “homemade” and suggested anti-government rebels were responsible. Each of you claimed to have persuasive evidence to support your conclusion.

Neither of you responded directly to our appeal to make such evidence available to the public, although, Mr. Lavrov, you came close to doing so. In a speech at the UN on Sept. 26, 2013, you made reference to the views we presented in our VIPS Memorandum,Is Syria a Trap?, sent to President Obama three weeks earlier.

Pointing to strong doubt among chemical weapons experts regarding the evidence adduced to blame the government of Syria for the sarin attack, you also referred to the “open letter sent to President Obama by former operatives of the CIA and the Pentagon,” in which we expressed similar doubt.

Mr. Kerry, on Aug. 30, 2013, you blamed the Syrian government, publicly and repeatedly, for the sarin attack. But you failed to produce the kind of “Intelligence Assessment” customarily used to back up such claims.

We believe that this odd lack of a formal “Intelligence Assessment” is explained by the fact that our former colleagues did not believe the evidence justified your charges and that, accordingly, they resisted pressure to “fix the intelligence around the policy,” as was done to “justify” the attack on Iraq.

Intelligence analysts were telling us privately (and we told the President in our Memorandum of Sept. 6, 2013) that, contrary to what you claimed, “the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21.”

This principled dissent from these analysts apparently led the White House to create a new art form, a “Government Assessment,” to convey claims that the government in Damascus was behind the sarin attack. It was equally odd that the newly minted genre of report offered not one item of verifiable evidence.

(We note that you used this new art form “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” a second time – again apparently to circumvent intelligence analysts’ objections. On July 22, 2014, just five days after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, after the media asked you to come up with evidence supporting the charges you leveled against “pro-Russian separatists” on the July 20 Sunday talk shows, you came up with the second, of only two, “Government Assessment.” Like the one on the chemical attack in Syria, the assessment provided meager fare when it comes to verifiable evidence.)

Claims and Counterclaims

Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2013, President Obama asserted: “It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the [Syrian] regime carried out this attack [at Ghouta].”

Mr. Lavrov, that same day you publicly complained that U.S. officials kept claiming “’the Syrian regime,’ as they call it, is guilty of the use of chemical weapons, without providing comprehensive proof.” Two days later you told the U.N. General Assembly you had given Mr. Kerry “the latest compilation of evidence, which was an analysis of publicly available information.” You also told theWashington Post, “This evidence is not something revolutionary. It’s available on the Internet.”

On the Internet? Mr. Kerry, if your staff avoided calling your attention to Internet reports about Turkish complicity in the sarin attack of Aug. 21, 2013, because they lacked confirmation, we believe you can now consider them largely confirmed.

Documentary Evidence

Addressing fellow members of parliament on Dec. 10, 2015, Turkish MP Eren Erdem from the Republican People’s Party (a reasonably responsible opposition group) confronted the Turkish government on this key issue. Waving a copy of “Criminal Case Number 2013/120,” Erdem referred to official reports and electronic evidence documenting a smuggling operation with Turkish government complicity.

In an interview with RT four days later, Erdem said Turkish authorities had acquired evidence of sarin gas shipments to anti-government rebels in Syria, and did nothing to stop them.

The General Prosecutor in the Turkish city of Adana opened a criminal case, and an indictment stated “chemical weapons components” from Europe “were to be seamlessly shipped via a designated route through Turkey to militant labs in Syria.” Erdem cited evidence implicating the Turkish Minister of Justice and the Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation in the smuggling of sarin.

The Operation

According to Erdem, the 13 suspects arrested in raids carried out against the plotters were released just a week after they were indicted, and the case was closed — shut down by higher authority. Erdem told RT that the sarin attack at Ghouta took place shortly after the criminal case was closed and that the attack probably was carried out by jihadists with sarin gas smuggled through Turkey.

Small wonder President Erdogan has accused Erdem of “treason.” It was not Erdem’s first “offense.” Earlier, he exposed corruption by Erdogan family members, for which a government newspaper branded him an “American puppet, Israeli agent, a supporter of the terrorist PKK and the instigator of a coup.”

In our Sept. 6, 2013 Memorandum for the President, we reported that coordination meetings had taken place just weeks before the sarin attack at a Turkish military garrison in Antakya – just 15 miles from the Syrian border with Syria and 55 miles from its largest city, Aleppo.

In Antakya, senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials were said to be coordinating plans with Western-sponsored rebels, who were told to expect an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development.” This, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria, and rebel commanders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Assad government.

A year before, the New York Times reported that the Antakya area had become a “magnet for foreign jihadis, who are flocking into Turkey to fight holy war in Syria.” The Times quoted a Syrian opposition member based in Antakya, saying the Turkish police were patrolling this border area “with their eyes closed.”

And, Mr. Lavrov, while the account given by Eren Erdem before the Turkish Parliament puts his charges on the official record, a simple Google search including “Antakya” shows that you were correct in stating the Internet contains a wealth of contemporaneous detail supporting Erdem’s disclosures.

Mr. Kerry, while in Moscow on Dec. 15, you said to a Russian interviewer that Syrian President Assad “has gassed his people – I mean, gas hasn’t been used in warfare formally for years – for – and gas is outlawed, but Assad used it.”

Three days later The Washington Post dutifully repeated the charge about Assad’s supposed killing “his own people with chemical weapons.” U.S. media have made this the conventional wisdom. The American people are not fully informed. There has been no mainstream media reporting on Turkish MP Erdem’s disclosures.

Renewed Appeal

We ask you again, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, to set the record straight on this important issue. The two of you have demonstrated an ability to work together on important matters – the Iran nuclear deal, for example – and have acknowledged a shared interest in defeating ISIS, which clearly is not Turkish President Erdogan’s highest priority. Indeed, his aims are at cross-purposes to those wishing to tamp down the violence in Syria.

After the shoot-down of Russia’s bomber on Nov. 24, President Vladimir Putin put Russian forces in position to retaliate the next time, and told top defense officials, “Any targets threatening our [military] group or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed.” We believe that warning should be taken seriously. What matters, though, is what Erdogan believes.

There is a good chance Erdogan will be dismissive of Putin’s warning, as long as the Turkish president believes he can depend on NATO always to react in the supportive way it did after the shoot-down.

One concrete way to disabuse him of the notion that he has carte blanche to create incidents that could put not only Turkey, but also the U.S., on the verge of armed conflict with Russia, would be for the U.S. Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister to coordinate a statement on what we believe was a classic false-flag chemical attack on Aug. 21, 2013, facilitated by the Turks and aimed at mousetrapping President Obama into a major attack on Syria.

One of our colleagues, a seasoned analyst of Turkish affairs, put it this way: “Erdogan is even more dangerous if he thinks that he now has NATO license to bait Russia — as he did with the shoot-down. I don’t think NATO is willing to give him that broader license, but he is a loose cannon.”


Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)

Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Robert David Steele, former CIA Operations Officer

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on A Call for Proof on Syria-Sarin Attack

Nazi regime has ‘deprived 23,000 orphans of monthly sponsorship’



The Deputy Head of the Islamic Movement in I$raHell, Shaikh Kamal Al-Khatib, said on Monday that I$raHel’s banning of the group has deprived 23,000 orphans from their monthly sponsorship payments, Anadolu has reported.

“The Islamic Relief charity run by the movement,” explained Al-Khatib, “used to pay a minimum of $40 monthly sponsorship for each orphan spread around the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza Strip.”

Nazi government banned the Islamic Movement on 16 November. Any person or group which associates with it officially is now subject to criminal penalties, including arrest. The authorities confiscated property belonging to the organisation and its bank accounts were frozen. Seventeen affiliated organisations, including charities, were closed down.

The sponsorships, explained Al-Khatib, were donated by Palestinians. He suggested that a solution for the problem is for wealthy Muslims to take over the orphan sponsorships and pointed out that efforts are being made in this regard, although, understandably, he gave no details.

The Palestinian Islamic Relief charity was established by the movement in 1988 and its main activity was sponsoring orphans; it has no connection to the UK-based Islamic Relief or Islamic Relief Worldwide. The charity has been closed by the Israeli authorities several times. “Israel seeks to crack down on all projects which lie behind the persistence of the Palestinians,” added Al-Khatib. He stressed that the charity’s accounts have always been subject to Israeli monitoring.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi regime has ‘deprived 23,000 orphans of monthly sponsorship’

No Matter Who Becomes President I$raHell Wins


Saban and Adelson should register as foreign agents

By Philip Giraldi 

The next American president will almost certainly be bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby. Hillary Clinton has already declared that that when she is elected president she intends to take relations with Israel “to the next level” and has also promised to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit on her very first day in office. It is difficult to imagine what the next level might actually be in America’s already servile deference to Israeli interests so she should perhaps be careful regarding what she commits herself to do. Netanyahu just might feel empowered to remain in the Oval Office on his visit, possibly also moving the Knesset to Washington so it will be closer to the U.S. Treasury if Israel’s budget comes up a bit short as well as just across the river from the Pentagon and all those nifty weapons that can be used to kill Palestinian children.

Hillary’s pledge of fealty to Israel took place at a meeting of the Saban Forum, which is an annual dialogue between American and Israeli leaders from across the political and social spectrum, hosted by the Brookings Institute, which also has a Center for Middle East Policy, formerly also named after Saban. The eponymous Saban is Haim Saban an Israeli who has made his billions of dollars in the United States in the television and entertainment industry. His best known brand is the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. He is consistently one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party, contributing $10 million in 2001-2, whose stated formula for influencing American politics is to donate to politicians and parties, establish think tanks and control the media message. He has worked hard to do all three on behalf of Israel, to include paying for the Democratic National Committee headquarters in DC.

Saban’s dealings with the Democrats have apparently not inhibited his cooperation with Israel’s intelligence service Mossad. In 2009 Congressman Jane Harman was contacted by an Israeli intelligence “agent” and reportedly agreed to attempt to influence a reduction in the espionage charges in the then ongoing trial of accused American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spies Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. In return, Harman’s contact promised to support her bid to become chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. The Israeli, who some suspect was Haim Saban himself, indicated that he would pressure House speaker Nancy Pelosi using threats to withhold political contributions from Saban if Harman were not given the position. Harman was later spoken of as a possible candidate to become Director of Central Intelligence and, without the FBI recordings of her phone conversations, which were made known to Pelosi, she might have obtained either position or possibly both in succession.

Saban has also long been associated with the Clintons and he and a tight group of like-minded donors may indeed constitute the most financially significant part of Hillary’s political base. When Bill was president Saban was a regular overnight visitor at the White House. He has pledged to spend “whatever it takes to elect Hillary in 2016 because “the relationship with the US and Israel will be significantly reinforced.” Saban has repeatedly claimed that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Hillary and Bill appear to agree and one might even argue that Bill has a soft spot for money coming from Israeli spies, witness his pardoning of fugitive Marc Rich in 2001. So put it all together if you will and if you think that the wag the dog relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv is bad now, just wait because it will be moving “to the next level” if Hillary is elected.

So who is standing up for the interests of the American people? Nobody, apparently. Senator Ted Cruz has no less than 69 press releases on his web site pledging support for Israel. Jeb Bush has pledged to ban the pro-Palestinian Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement in the U.S. which most people would consider to be free speech. Every Republican candidate also continues to pander directly and personally to Benjamin Netanyahu, including Donald Trump who planned to drop in on Bibi but had to cancel the trip because of the reaction to his comments about Muslims. Trump had also caused somewhat of an uproar by telling a Jewish Republican audience in New York City that they wouldn’t support him because he didn’t need their money. Imagine the cheek of Trump to link Jews with money with buying influence! In any event, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL),determined that Trump’s comments were not anti-Semitism because they had been misinterpreted and I for one am relieved that we have a brave and enlightened organization like the ADL to keep us on our toes when it comes to potential hate speech.

George Washington could not have envisioned the manner in which money has corrupted American politics. Congressmen complain that much of their time is spent fundraising and, in such a system, it is inevitable that the most generous donors are able to position themselves for favors from the political class. Some become Ambassadors even though they are completely unqualified. Others choose to push certain legislative agendas, to include tax breaks and bailouts that enrich them personally.

But now we have something that goes way beyond that in the new breed of mega-rich, colossally wealthy multi-billionaires who are well positioned to use their resources to support a political candidate willing to accept the money and sell out his or her principles to someone advancing the interests of a foreign country. We are now on the verge of having a Manchurian Candidate president.

Last November an organization called the Israel-America Council (IAC), which ostensibly represents expatriate Israeli citizens residing in the United States, hosted an inaugural bash in Washington. Present were Saban and Sheldon Adelson sharing a stage. Adelson, the principal funder of IAC, was born in the United States and lives in Las Vegas but also has a home in Israel and presumably has Israeli citizenship. His wife is Israeli and he has said that he regrets serving in the US Army in World War Two while also expressing a fervent desire to have a son who would serve as an Israeli military sniper. Both Adelson and Saban are essentially Israelis who live in the United States for economic reasons. Scott McConnell has described them as having “maximal loyalties to Israel and minimal ones to the United States.”

Adelson is the Republican version of Saban. He believes that the United States should nuke Iran as a “negotiating tactic,” has an estimated $23.8 billion fortune derived mostly from casinos in Las Vegas and in Asia. He is a Republican funder for those prospective candidates who promote unlimited US support for Israel. He bankrolled Newt Gingrich’s bid for the GOP nomination in 2012 as well as Mitt Romney for a total of $150 million and also contributed $10 million to Republican candidates in the 2014 congressional campaign. Newt Gingrich in return repaid the favor by praising Israel in his foreign policy pronouncements, taking a hard line with Iran and describing the Palestinians as an “invented people.”

Adelson and Saban’s “spirited public discussion” at IAC included a number of zingers that have been widely reported in the alternative media. Saban commented that in the event of a “bad” deal between Washington and Tehran over the latter’s nuclear program (bad as being defined by Israel) Netanyahu “should bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.” Adelson noted that “the purpose of the existence of Palestinians is to destroy Israel” before dismissing the possibility of a democratic state including both Arabs and Jews by responding “So Israel won’t be a democratic state, so what?” He added that democracy was not mentioned in the Torah. The two also joked about combing their resources to buy the New York Times by offering to pay “more than it’s worth” to make its coverage of Israel even more favorable than it already is. Saban added that he had even used “threats” to obtain favorable media reporting about Israel. The seven hundred “Israeli-Americans” in the audience reportedly responded to the conversation with “wild applause.”

Adelson and Saban concluded that “there’s no right or left when it comes to Israel” and the conference Chairman Shawn Evenhaim joked at its conclusion that “After the election in 2016 one of you will get me a private tour of the White House.” The jest was on target. At this point it is almost certain that both Saban and Adelson will become the largest single donors for whoever becomes the GOP and Democratic candidates. That will buy them enormous access, as Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated. Given that reality one has to accept the obvious conclusion that the two Israeli billionaires might well be able to substantially define the relationship between Washington and the Muslim world, to Israel’s benefit.

That Adelson and Saban might think privately that they have become political kingmakers is one thing, but stating as much in a public forum defies belief. They should be recognized for what they really are: agents of a foreign government and there is no reason why the Justice Department should not require them to register as such under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Their close and continuing relationships with Israeli government can no doubt be demonstrated, validating the claim and registering as foreign agents would make illegal their funding of American politicians.

And once one starts recognizing foreign advocacy groups for what they are, other organizations like IAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and AIPAC should also be required to register as agents of the Israeli government. And there are many more such organizations, a virtual alphabet soup. Registration would mandate transparency in their funding and end their phony status as educational tax exempt organizations.

It does not require any particular genius to realize that someone living in one country while favoring the interests of another is not a desirable citizen but we retain at least some semblance of freedom of speech and anyone should be able to advocate anything. But it would be nice for a change if our two venerable national parties might for once seize the high ground and act respectably. I would suggest that the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee might consider developing some backbone and combine in issuing a joint statement refusing to take any donations from either Adelson or Saban in the current election cycle. It could remove both considerable influence peddling and Israel itself from the electoral process, which would be a blessing all around. Might it actually happen? Almost certainly not.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on No Matter Who Becomes President I$raHell Wins

Shoah’s pages


December 2015
« Nov   Jan »