Archive | December 16th, 2019


by Jonathan Azaziah

The recent ‘Israeli’ raids on Aleppo, Syria’s economic capital, were typically demonstrative of Zionist brutality and intent to harm Gentile life. Sheikh Najjar Industrial Complex, the neighborhood of Jibrin and a civilian airport were all hit by the usurping Zionist entity’s missiles, which ultimately triggered a blackout, terrorizing the Halabi citizenry. This isn’t the first time that Syria has experienced its lights going kablooey as a result of Zio-Imperialist aggression. In this instance however, it is not WHAT Zion bombed that this is so significant, nor the AFTER EFFECTS of the attack, but rather from WHERE Zion executed the illegal, Syrian-sovereignty-violating bombings.

Dajjal HQ (‘Israel’) attacked Syria’s second city from US-SDF-occupied territory. This has been confirmed by both Western intelligence sources as well as social media military data trackers close to the Syrian Arab Army. Not through Lebanon. Not through occupied Al-Jaulan. Not from the Galilee regions of occupied Palestine. And not from the Syrian-Iraqi border either. US-SDF-occupied territory. The implications couldn’t be more blatant. THIS is why the neocons hammered US ZOG Figurehead 45 Donald J. Trump following his announcement that the United Snakes’ military will be fully withdrawn from Bilad al-Sham. And THIS is why Trump, arrogant and spineless, has ultimately capitulated to this very demand by the Zio-Tumor’s American fifth columnists, keeping hundreds of American occupation forces in Syria. US troops are continuing their illegal presence on Syrian soil as guarantors of ‘Israeli’ aggression. For ‘Israel’ knows that Syria, Iran, Hizbullah and Russia aren’t going to risk WW3 by mistakenly clipping the wings of an American war-jet or sending American soldiers to hellfire when ‘Israelis’ were really the target.

Additionally, when we consider that the SDF is predominantly comprised of Kurdish fighters, this adds yet another layer of credence to the increasingly indisputable truth that the the ‘Israelis’ and Kurds, linked in a cornucopia of different ways from military-intelligence support going back decades to ethnic/historical connections, are working hand-in-glove to keep Syria weakened and balkanized.

Lest we forget last December that Mossad-Aman-connected IOF stenographer Avi Isaacharoff penned a puke-triggering piece for Islamophobic billionaire Jew Seth Klarman’s Times of ‘Israel’, entitled, “In Syrian withdrawal, Trump abandons ‘Israel’ and the Kurds”. Isaacharoff, who has worked with Friends of IOF on several occasions, was once accused by Palestinian protesters of being a Shin Bet operative and is well-known in the Cancerous Blight’s political and military circles, so his words matter and reflect the thinking of the Zionist establishment. ‘Israel’ needs the Kurds for its stratagems and vice versa. Furthermore, just this past February, Diliman Abdulkader, Director of the ‘Kurdistan’ Project, spoke to fanatical, rabbinical colonizer “newspaper” Arutz Sheva about how strategically important Syrian Kurds are to the American ZOG and the Zio-Tumor.

Kurds themselves are spelling it out in plain English what their agenda is, who they work for and how they intend to continue going about it. Two weeks ago in ‘Israel’ Hayom, the mouthpiece of casino magnate, Trump-backer, Iranophobe and Satanspawn Sheldon Adelson, a piece called “Kurds: Golan ‘must remain ‘Israeli”” revealed that Iraqi-Kurdish delegations flocked to the fake Jewish “state” following Washington’s announcement of recognizing ‘Israeli’ occupation, colonization and annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, praising and offering their support for the move. This represents a contradiction in Kurdish media positioning that there is a dichotomy between the “Syrian” and “Iraqi” factions of the Kurdish “movement”. We told you before that Kurds should really be called “Jurds”, didn’t we? That ‘Israel’ bombed Halab almost as if to celebrate Trump’s Al-Jaulan decision shouldn’t be lost on anyone. “Tel Aviv” is flaunting its influence over its American dog as well as the ironclad nature of its bond with the Kurds.

But the Jewish supremacist endeavor is playing with fire. Because just as there is a Mouqawamist infrastructure in Al-Jaulan merely waiting the order from Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad to implement the liberationist directive, over 70 Syrian tribes from Hasakeh, Raqqa and Halab itself announced the formation of a popular resistance unit last June in Deir Hafer. The purpose of this brigade is to fight alongside the Syrian Arab Army against American, Turkish and French occupation forces as well as the SDF. “Direct” force against all foreign interlopers was stressed at this gathering. Bottom line is that ‘Israel’ shouldn’t be too extra with the bluster and get plenty-comfy in Aleppo’s skies. No different than the fate of the Takfiri plot itself, this too shall pass. Syrians don’t kowtow to anyone and this new reality is but a temporary one–a last-ditch effort to stave off ‘Israel’ inevitably admitting that it threw everything at Syria between its own armory along with the armories of its puppets… And it couldn’t get the ouster done. Victory to the Syrian Arab Republic. Prayers for the steadfast people of Aleppo.



by Jonathan Azaziah

The media — in both the alternative and mainstream spheres — has been astir over the last month due to the New York Times allowing a “Venezuelan” woman named Joanna Hausmann to spew anti-Bolivarian regime change hasbara in a completely one-sided video story. The Sulzberger-owned, ever-Zionist “paper of record” failed to disclose the fact that Hausmann is the daughter of Ricardo Hausmann, economic advisor of coupmonger-in-chief Juan Guaido and the architect of the neoliberal shock therapy that ravaged Venezuela in the pre-Chavismo 1980s and 1990s. The producer of the vid, Adam Ellick, defended the omission, and Ricardo Hausmann accused his kid’s critics of sexism. An army of trolls popped up–suspicious in and of itself–to come to Joanna’s defense too. As of this moment, the hasbara-filled, YouTube-sanctioned rant, which calls Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a “brutal dictator” and blames the Bolivarian Republic’s economic woes on “socialism”, not a steady, two-decade campaign of Zio-Amreeki financial warfare, remains up.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find an individual in the “Venezuelan” shadow coup regime propped up by the US and ‘Israel’ viler and more despicable than Ricardo Hausmann–a neoliberal fanatic through and through who derived his economic and political ideologies from Zionist Jew and godfather of neoliberalism, Milton Friedman. Hausmann is also the mentor of Leopoldo Lopez, who has been a fixture of the Trump ZOG’s assault on Chavismo from the opening days of its tenure in the (Blue-and-)White House. The “Latin American Friedman” wants Venezuela invaded Panama-style and then raided by the IMF. Because of this out-and-out pro-Zio-Imperialist stance, Maduro has referred to Hausmann as a “financial hitman” and an “academic hitman” because he uses his Cornell and Harvard degrees as covers for his regime-change-extremism. This persona was honed at a private uni in Caracas called the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración (IESA). Hausmann and his cohorts were referred to as “the IESA Boys” and paved the way for the IMF austerity package that–and we choose this word deliberately–RAPED the poor of Venezuela.

Now with Hausmann back at the forefront of Venezuelan politics as Guaido’s representative at the Inter-American Development Bank, the “pillaging of the poor” platform of the Chief IESA Boy is back too. His neoliberal monstrosities paved the way for what came to be known as “the Caracazo” in February 1989–a massive uprising on the streets of Caracas that resulted in massacres of protesters by the Venezuelan Armed Forces on the orders of huckster Carlos Andrés Pérez. El Comandante Hugo Chavez (rip), by the grace of God, didn’t partake in the military operations that led to the Caracazo because he had come down with a fever from the chickenpox. What was perpetrated in the name of neoliberalism horrified him beyond description and ultimately became, in his own words, the “catalyst” for the Bolivarian movement (“Hugo!: The Hugo Chavez Story from Mud Hut to Perpetual Revolution” by Bart Jones, pages 122-126). An unintended consequence of Hausmann’s madness.

Hausmann would go on to serve in the Pérez regime as a Central Bank board member and Planning and Finance Minister from 1992 to 1993. Hausmann opened the doors for multinational corporations to pilfer Venezuela like fat kids with carte blanche in a potato chip factory and then bounced in 1994 before he could pay for his crimes by taking the chief economist position at Washington’s Inter-American Development Bank–the same place Guaido has installed him today.

It ain’t just Daddy Hausmann in on the anti-Bolivarian gravy train. It’s Mommy Hausmann too. Yes, Joanna’s mother, Ana Julia Jatar, was the executive director of Súmate, a US-backed putschist group founded by none other than Maria Corina Machado, a notorious coupmonger who once plotted to assassinate Nicolas Maduro. Súmate, for the record, took tens of thousands from the NED, a CIA front founded by Zionist Jew Allen Weinstein, and Jatar also worked as a Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, bankrolled by Chevron, the CIA-linked Ford Foundation and USAID, which is overrun with Zionist intriguers and directly connected to subversive ‘Israeli’ group MASHAV. Also to be entered into the record is the haqq about Jatar’s father, Braulio Jatar Dotti, who quite literally wrote the book on eliminating armed revolutionaries who challenged the colonialist-enforced order of the state. Her brother, Braulio Jr., is a shady businessman and extortionist currently imprisoned for fraud. This is the gang of criminals, murderers, interventionists, vultures and neo-capitalists who swear they’re going to bring “freedom” and “democracy” to Venezuela. The gall of these duplicitous gusanos.

And then there is Joanna and the very basis for the title of this essay. In a revealing November 8th, 2015 Times of ‘Israel’ article entitled, “She’s a ‘Jewtina’ and proud of it”, the unfunny and totally repugnant Joanna Hausmann explains her German-Belgian-Ashkenazi stock and demands sympathy from Gentiledom over her grandparents [allegedly] surviving the Holofraud. She then attacks Fidel Castro (rip) and details her family’s academic “achievements” in an exhaustive diatribe. Then comes the Jewcy–we mean, juicy–stuff. She talks of her bat mitzvah and brags about how she read the “Torah” and haftarah before stating matter-of-factly, “I’m the only half-Jewish Hausmann, but I am the most Jewishly accomplished.” Predictably, she goes into a rant about El Comandante Hugo Chavez’s (rip) “anti-Semitism” and how Venezuela became unsafe for its Jews–who now operate as an open fifth column for ‘Israel’— because of the “authoritarian regime” with “no quality of life”. The kicker is the Jewtina regime changer waxing lyrical about visiting the Zio-Tumor twice and “how safe she felt” on stolen Palestinian land.

These bombshells about the Hausmanns’ true identity–i.e. Judaic and Zionist–put a whole new spin on their obsession with toppling Chavismo. Beyond the mere fact that this current unrest is being orchestrated by Zionist bigwigs like Netanyahu, Abrams, Mandelker, Bolton and Mnuchin, the war on Bolivarianism has been Zionist at the root from jump street. This could explain the aforementioned NYT producer Adam Ellick’s staunch and, frankly, odd defense of Hausmann in the face of such a blatant and unambiguous violation of journalistic ethics. It’s all about the Mishpucka, baby! Coreligionist and inter-tribal solidarity, BAY-BEE! Indeed, Ellick is also Jewish and, no less, an “ex”-member of the CFR. His career sheet reads like the very worst Zionist/Orientalist cliche and he was once accused by a Pakistani news anchor of being an American intelligence agent who participated in a terrorist attack on Pakistani civilians in Peshawar. Make of that what you will. But the Jewish-Zionist connection between Ellick and the Hausmanns can’t be denied.

As the IMF withholds $400 million in special drawing rights (SDRs) from the Venezuelan people, thanks to none other than Ricardo Hausmann who says the monies will only be made available when the Maduro government “ends”, we see that the economic assault on the House That Chavez Built isn’t going to halt soon. And knowing who is responsible for it in every aspect makes it all the more infuriating. Turn over a rock, look in a nook, dig in the dirt, peek around a corner, and you find the same gang again… And again… AND AGAIN. Zionist Jews. The Hausmanns are the latest edition to this world-spanning phenomenon. Stop letting them get away with murder. Stop letting them smear YOU as a “bigot” for simply pointing out the FACTS about who THEY are. If you want to defend Chavismo… Name the J. Then do it again… And again… AND AGAIN. Both the Barinas Bull (rip) and Maduro have called out the Pharisees. It’s only proper that we do the same. To hell with the Jewish-Zionist Hausmanns and to hell with their Jewish-Zionist lies. May the Bolivarian Revolution triumph over their conspiracy.



by Jonathan Azaziah

Search for “India” on Mouqawamah Music or Mask of Zion, read just a piece or two, and it won’t take you long to figure out just how much of a devil-regime Hindustan truly is. Especially with the likes of the Hindutvadi BJP and Narendra “Butcher of Gujarat” Modi at the helm. From its aggression against Pakistan to its ruthless occupation and oppression of Kashmir, its always-deepening relationship with the usurping Jewish entity to its brutal war on the Naxalites, all India does is prostitute itself in the name of Global Zionism. Considering this, that there are so many Indian leftists and “anti-imperialists” who think their nation is “resistant” or even “nonaligned”, is mind-boggling. India is an American-‘Israeli’ vassal and true-indeed, it has always been one. And its decisions vis-a-vis Venezuela over the last several weeks drive this point so far and so hard home, that any attempt to deny it in the slightest should lead to one being checked into the funny-farm.

On March 10th, Elliot Abrams, the leader of the coup in Venezuela, told Reuters in an interview that he is “arguing, cajoling, urging” India to cut off ties with the democratically elected, wholly legitimate Maduro government. He told New Delhi outright, “We say you should not be helping this regime. You should be on the side of the Venezuelan people.” As Reuters notes in its piece, “The Indian market is crucial for Venezuela’s economy because it has historically been the second-largest cash-paying customer for the OPEC country’s crude.” Second behind whom you ask? Only the American ZOG. Which means if Venezuela doesn’t have access to the Indian market, total financial collapse very well may be right around the corner.

Just about 48 hours later on March 12th, Bolton and Pompeo joined the threats-party and the Hindu supremacist regime decided to start abiding by Abrams’ orders, issuing warnings against Indian oil companies to stop importing Venezuelan crude. These firms would face “undisclosed consequences” if they didn’t listen to the Modi ZOG.

Information in the media, both in the West and South Asia, was scant over the next 10 days. But then, on March 22nd, the big news came in from Oil Price, the world’s top energy news website: India and all Venezuelan-connected Indian private energy outfits were no longer taking in Venezuelan petrol.

And for the big finish, just about a week following the revelation, Elliot Abrams was back in the news, grinning ear to ear and declaring, “We are very happy to see” the “very considerable amount of cooperation” from India and Indian companies with relation to Venezuela. The Jewish supremacist war criminal was all but in an orgasmic state.

New Delhi has sold Caracas down the river. It cannot be read any other way. And noting just how much money was at stake at this critical juncture for the Venezuelan people, government and economy–tens of billions of dollars at least, perhaps upwards of $100 billion plus–we can rightly say that India is now a party to the US-EU-Zionist war on the Bolivarian Revolution. Just as India is a party to the economic war on Iran. Indeed, India can’t and won’t buy oil from the Islamic Revolution unless it gets a go-ahead from Washington. Thus, if, or better still, WHEN the American ZOG tells Hindutva to break ties with the Iranian nation completely, Modi and the rest of his BJP-RSS-VHP gang most certainly will.

Prior to closing, it must be noted that while India was allowing itself to be commanded like a show-dog is commanded by its trainer, its representatives were laying a heaping dose of praise upon the fake Jewish “state” at the AIPAC conference and inaugurating Indian-‘Israeli’ initiatives in the fields of medicine and artificial intelligence. Obeying the American wing of the Rothschild Imperium on the one hand and increasing friendship with the ‘Israeli’ crown of the Rothschild Imperium on the other. This is India. Now Venezuela, a long-time target of the Hindutvadis’ Zionist partner-in-crime, feels the betrayal that Kashmiris, Dalits, Indian Muslims, Indian Christians, Indian Sikhs, the Naxalites, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis and others have been reeling from for decades. Shameful isn’t even the word. To be honest though… What else is to really be expected from a bunch of fanatics who drink cow urine and hold festivals centered around the throwing of cow dung? Absolutely despicable.



by Jonathan Azaziah

“Why do they hate us?” I pondered to myself the other day, turning the commonly spewed, hasbara-filled question around on the Zionist liars who have been asking it with regard to Muslims and “the West” since the ‘Israeli’ false flag attack on 9/11. Seriously though, I’m wondering in all sincerity. Why is it… That the Jews… Despise Islam so much? It’s beyond a mere phobia–although they are certainly afraid of Deen al-Fitra in a deathly way. It’s an opposition that’s visceral. A hatred that extends back not only an aeon or two, but aeons and aeons beyond that. And the war they are waging is an all-encompassing one: Harming us militarily, both directly and by proxy, including the lands most beloved to Islam, Syria and Yemen; harming us socio-politically, through the attempts to forge a faux Muslim-Jewish alliance and remove militancy from our platforms and stratagems; harming us culturally through the Soros-led injection of LGBTQ “activism” and other forms of degeneracy into our midst; harming us financially through sanctions and the upholding of usurious capitalism in our lands, including Mecca itself; and harming us spiritually through labeling all persons who invoke the righteous opposition to Jewish supremacy expressed by our holiest leaders (like Imam Ali [A.S.], for example) as “anti-Semites”. Again I ask… Why?

Does it come from Reform Judaism’s founder Rabbi Abraham Geiger (L.A.)? His vomit-inducing and hubristic “Judaism and Islam”–reprinted on a heavy amount of anti-Islam websites and zines–does in fact accuse the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) of “borrowing” from the “Yahwehite” cult masquerading as a religion; engaging in “intentional misrepresentation” as well as “distortion” and “mutilation” to make “accusations” against the Jews; and seeking to ingratiate himself with Arabia’s Jewish controllers. La2 sama7 ALLAH! A3ouzoubillah min al Yahoud al khabeeth! (God forbid; I seek refuge in God from the filth of the Jews!) Perhaps partially it does, as Geiger is, to repeat, the founder of Judaism’s Reform sect and held in high esteem by Jews of many other sects too, but no, we must look deeper.

Does it come from Maimonides (L.A.) then, a figure known as “haNesher haGadol (the great eagle)” and considered to be the greatest “sage” in all of Judaism? He called the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) a “maniac” and penned contempt-filled laws against Muslims which requires the Jew to diminish and destroy them (“Judaism Discovered: A Study Of The Anti-Biblical Religion Of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition And Deceit” by Michael A. Hoffman II; Chapter: Maimonides And Islam, Part II; Pages 491-492). While inserting many escape clauses into his work and presenting a great deal of decoy texts to convince the Goyim that he solemnly respected Muslims, the “chosenites-only” writings of Maimonides (L.A.) were nothing short of homicidal towards Muslims, with the most poisonous tidbits reserved for Rasoulallah (S.A.W.W.) himself (Hoffman II; Chapter: The Legend Of Maimonides The Humanitarian, As Told By The New York Times, Pages 501-502). What is most revealing of Maimonides’ (L.A.) feelings on Islam is that behind the hatred and incitement is an abyssal fear of it, as he swore in his “Epistle to Yemen”, chilling indeed, “Islam is the cruelest and most implacable enemy that the Jewish people have faced in their entire history (Hoffman II; Chapter — Maimonides And Islam; Page 484).” Despicable to be sure, but not quite the root. Although Maimonides (L.A.) does bring us one step closer as he referred to Ahmad al-Habib (S.A.W.W.) in his “Mishneh Torah” as “that Ishmaelite”.

What about the Kabbalah? Can we find answers there? This is a satanic book after all, one which has a “mitzvah (commandment)” that mandates Jews worship Satan before and after a meal, offer prayers to Satan and make sacrifices to Satan so he remains so busy with tormenting Gentiledom — who he is the ruler of according to Judaism — that he leaves Jews and their “Godhead” alone (“Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” by Israel Shahak, Pages 32-34; Page 107). Also within the pages of the Kabbalah–Zohar III 282a to be specific–we see the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) and Nabi Jesus the Messiah (A.S.) titled “dead dogs” who are buried in the realm of demons with worms, donkeys, dirt and vermin all around them (“Judaism Discovered: A Study Of The Anti-Biblical Religion Of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition And Deceit” by Michael A. Hoffman II; Chapter — Pulsa D’Nura; Section – Jesus In The Kabbalah; Page 791). This too tips the scales of vileness but alas, we’ve yet to touch the origin point.

We return briefly to Maimonides’ description of Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) as “that Ishmaelite”. Through this, we can confirm that Judaism’s Anti-Islam stems from opposition to and hatred for Isma’il/Ishmael (A.S.) What’s the connection between the two? Simple. Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) is the great descendant of Isma’il/Ishmael (A.S.) and the direct heir and standard-bearer of his legacy, bloodline and spiritual linkage to ALLAH (SWT).

As Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (R.A.) reveals on the very opening pages of his majestic “Hayat al-Qulub Vol. 2: The Life and Religion of Muhammad”, the lineage of Muhammad al-Moustafa (S.A.W.W.) is as follows, “Muhammad was the son of Abdullah, the son of Abdulmutalib, the son of Hashim, the son of Abdaminaf, the son of Kasy, the son of Kalab, the son of Merrah, the son of Lovay, the son of Ghalib, the son of Kaher, the son of Malik, the son of Alnazar, the son of Kananah, the son of Hezeemah, the son of Mudrakah, the son of Ilyas, the son of Muzer, the son of Nazar, the son of Mad, the son of Adnan, the son of Ad, the son of Ader, the son of Alyesa, the son of Alhamgesa, the son of Salaman, the son of Albinet, the son of Hamel, the son of Kaydar, the son of Isma’il (A.S.), the son of Ibrahim al-Khalil (A.S.)…” This goes on until it reaches all the way back to Prophet Adam (A.S.), the father of mankind. Case in point: Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) is of 100% “Ishmaelite” (and pure, prophetic) stock.

But we ponder still! If not the Kabbalah, Maimonides (L.A.) or Geiger (L.A.) then from whom or from where? Perhaps the Judaic exegetical texts (Midrash/Aggadah/Talmud)? The rabbis in these works declare Isma’il (A.S.) to have a “negative influence” on Ishaq/Issac (A.S.) In “Genesis Rabbah”, they atrociously damn the first-born son of Prophet Ibrahim (A.S.) as the one “who is like thorns that sprout so effortlessly, but are totally worthless.” Apart from his alleged “negative influence” on Ishaq/Isaac (A.S.), the rabbis also rip into his “negative character”, hence why, in Judaism, he is not treated as Ibrahim’s (A.S.) rightful successor. He is further derided by the rabbinical “wisdomites”, specifically in the Talmudic tractate of “Sotah”, as an attempted murderer who tries to kill Ishaq (A.S.) with arrows. The rabbis say he is an “idolater” who builds pagan altars and traps locusts for sacrifices as well as a sexual deviant and a rapist–not so different from the Talmudic condemnation of Christ (A.S.) COHENcidentally enough. The rabbis hate Isma’il (A.S.) so much that they cite “Sanhedrin 74a” of the Babylonian Talmud to justify liquidating him for his “cardinal” behavior. They deem him and his descendants as those who “pose an everlasting danger to ‘Israel’”. This is all critical for sure but lest we forget what Judaic exegetical texts are commentaries on/for: The “Torah” .

Yes, it is the “Torah” from which the Jewish war on Islam is based. The banishment of Isma’il (A.S.) for his “cardinal sins” comes from the “Torah” —as confirmed by The treatment of Isma’il (A.S.) as a “wild man” whose “hand would be against every man, and the hand of every man would be against him” comes from the “Torah” aka “the Jewish Bible”–as confirmed by My Jewish Learning. Chabad’s Menachem Mendel Schneerson–the spiritual architect of the Zionist destruction of the “Ishmaelites” in Iraq–confirms this as well, citing the “Torah” to attribute “rawness” and unruliness” to Isma’il (A.S.), slandering and subverting him as “volatile” and “crude” and “savage”. Indeed, the Jewish Encyclopedia too says that this “savagery” and “idolatry” allegedly practiced by Isma’il (A.S.) comes from the “Torah”. The view that Isma’il (A.S.) is “rebellious” and “wayward” and a “menace” who needed to be expelled comes from the “Torah”–as confirmed by Jewish scholar Fred Ehrman in the Times of ‘Israel’. Do excuse the redundancy, but we bring up various Judaic “schools of thought” and sources so it is understood that across the spectrum of Global Jewry, it is universally accepted and taught that disdain for “Ishmael” and his sons–i.e. the Islamic Ummah–is from the “Torah”. Everything else is mere detail.

In conclusion, with a book that depicts Isma’il (A.S.), the grandfather of Rasoulallah (S.A.W.W.), as a “wild man” and a “savage” and an “idolater” and gives birth to commentaries accusing him of myriad crimes– the same book that treats Isma’il’s (A.S.) father, “Abraham”, as a pimp, and “Abraham’s” wife/sister “Sarah”, as a glorified hooker–is it really any surprise that Jews are the grandsires of the Islamophobia industry? That Jews are the leaders of falsely linking Islam with terrorism and then supplying this fallacious stereotype to all global media outlets (which they own)? That Jews created groups like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra to serve as a) their whacked-out, hateful fantasies about Islam made manifest to deepen the “clash of civilizations” and b) their shock troops to further their planned century-long war on our religion? That Jews desecrate our lands on the birthdays of our most sanctified figures? And that Jews have killed not one, not two, not three, but at least SIX of the Imams (A.S.) of Ahlul Bayt (A.S.)?

No, it isn’t a surprise at all. Someone simply had to say it. Rabbinical hatemongers like Geiger (L.A.) and Maimonides (L.A.), and depraved texts like the Talmud and Kabbalah, are strategically vital to Empire Judaica’s onslaught against Islam, sure. But it all started with that God-damned collection of “chosenite” ravings known as the “Torah”. Don’t forget it.


Jewish terrorists supported Hitler, not Islam, but this racist bus advert is allowed in Philadelphia

Judge Rules Philadelphia Buses Must Run Anti-Islam Ads Featuring Hitler

Anti-Islamic advert on Philidelphia bus. Click to enlarge

A Federal Judge has ordered Pennsylvania buses and trains to display “Stop the Islamic Jew-Hatred” ads that call for ending US foreign aid to all Islamic countries.

US District Judge Goldberg ruled the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) must allow the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) to post anti-Muslim advertisements, showing a photo of Hitler and an Islamic leader.

AFDI, an American offshoot of a European anti-Muslim organization, claimed it has a first amendment right to run bus ads linking Muslims to Hitler.

The judge sided with them on the premise that since SEPTA has run other political speech ads in favor of teacher seniority or opposed to fracking, it opened up its advertising spaces as venues of expression.

“He agreed with us on all the issues,” said AFDI attorney Robert Muise.

Some ads state: “Two thirds of all US aid goes to Islamic countries.”

Others say “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran,” with a picture of Hitler meeting with Muslim nationalist Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was active in pan-Arabism when Palestine was a British territory.

SEPTA rejected the ads, having concerns over portraying Muslims in a negative manner.

The ad “disparaged Muslims because it portrayed them in a way that I believe was untrue and incorrect and false,” the Authority’s General Counsel Gino Benedetti said.

“It put every single Muslim in the same category as being a Jew Hater.”

But Judge Goldberg said that the content of the ad “squarely involves political expression and reflects plaintiffs’ interpretation of a religious text, both of which are protected speech.”

“He found the restriction on our client’s speech to be content based and unconstitutional,” said Muise.

The attorney added his clients hope to run the ad.

Spokesperson Jerri Williams says SEPTA is disappointed, but is evaluating whether to appeal.

AFDI, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classified as a hate group, has filed more than a dozen lawsuits against transit authorities across the country over anti-Islamic ads, and was able to post ads in Washington D.C., New York and San Francisco.

Last year, the group attempted to trademark the phrase “Stop Islamisation of America,” but the Federal Circuit found it too offensive.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish terrorists supported Hitler, not Islam, but this racist bus advert is allowed in Philadelphia

Bolivia’s Five Hundred-Year Rebellion


Photograph Source: Alka Agrawal It appears Gaston Ugangi created the painting – CC0

In 1781, the Bolivian indigenous leader Tupac Katari led a rebellion in which La Paz, the Spanish colonial capital of “Upper Peru,” was besieged for 109 days.The siege ended with the arrival of a Spanish army. Katari was captured, he and his wife, Bartolina Sisa, were gruesomely executed, and thousands of indigenous people were massacred. For many years this was treated as a minor event in history books, but in the latter half of the twentieth century Katari and Sisa have been celebrated as symbols of the resistance to oppression by the indigenous majority, and as martyrs in a national revolution whose time has finally come.

The Five Hundred Year Rebellion: Indigenous Movements and the Decolonization of History in Bolivia, by Benjamin Dangl (AK Press, 2019), is the story of decades of work by organizers, activists, intellectuals, and politicians to turn this story of indigenous resistance to oppression into the symbol of national liberation. It follows the way social movements have related to the question of indigenous identity, and their efforts to organize and focus its power, up to the point of electing an indigenous president. It is a story of decolonization, of people freeing themselves from the mental and political structures that were imposed upon them by imperial powers.

In 1952 the National Revolutionary Movement (MNR) led a revolution that made historic gains with expanded rights for workers, land reform, and national economic sovereignty. It was supported by miners, workers and peasants, but it was led by a white and mestizo middle class who saw the indigenous majority as “primitive,” people who needed to modernized, assimilated, and brought into the economy as workers and capitalist farmers. This implied giving up communal economic forms, traditional clothing, using Spanish, and finding their place in a capitalist society. While peasants welcomed the land reform, cultural change was resisted.

Many indigenous people benefited from improvements in their rights and education, but as their conditions improved they became more aware of how racism was limiting their advancement—it was not just poverty. By the 60’s Aymara, many of rural origin who had got into the university, were forming Katarist circles that promoted a powerful, liberating ideology. In the words Luciano Tapia, a protagonist in the movement, “I understood that, far from feeling as though I were a beggar and foreigner in my own ancestral land, rather, I should instead feel proud of being a descendant of the great and glorious civilizations from this part of the world. From this comes the reason to maintain that beyond being a simple campesino class,we are fundamentally a living historical reality, a people made of flesh and bone, a real Nation.”

Kataristas looked back at a time when Andean people lived in a society that was superior in its values and organization to 20th century Bolivia. That society was not a Utopia, it was a living reality that their ancestors created. Their country had been violently taken from them and they had been enslaved. However, there is a history of resistance to be proud of, not just Katari but many others who are being rediscovered as the stories of the elders are compiled. Dangl tells how indigenous thinkers and activists deepened and popularized these ideas, turning them into a political force.

The revolution of 1952 had empowered a government sponsored peasants’ union, but a series of subsequent coups eroded its gains after a few years. Kataristas went to work to take control of the state-dominated union, using their message to build morale and solidarity. One of their early leaders spoke of analyzing things with ”two eyes,” that is, that exploited campesinos were members of the wider oppressed working class of Bolivia and also exploited as indigenous people. By 1979 they created a new peasants’ union that was affiliated with the Bolivian Workers’ Central (COB), the national union of miners and industrial workers.

Bolivia has relatively few roads, and they run through areas with concentrations of campesinos. Road blockades have been a key tactic for indigenous struggles all the way back to Tupak Katari’s time. Katarist ideology enhanced this strategic asset, raising morale and determination by enabling people to see their actions as part of a historic continuity. Dangl skillfully  embeds these stories of campesino resistance in a concise account of Bolivia’s tumultuous history of those times.

Aymara students at the university in La Paz in the seventies found themselves in an environment in which they were expected to abandon their indigenous identity, even to the point of having to adopt a Spanish sounding surname. They also learned that there was virtually no information at all about the history of their people. Two chapters of the book are devoted to their response: the Andean Oral History Workshop (THOA), a project in which they worked collaboratively with indigenous communities, often the ones they grew up in, to collect memories from elders. They were able to reconstruct historical struggles and biographical information about Aymara leaders who worked for justice, and they turned them into widely distributed books, radio programs other media. The chapters on the work of THOA are a fascinating story of a nation discovering its own history by reassembling the fragments stored in the living memories and family stories of its people.

Ayllus were the basis of pre-Columbian society in the Andes.  They are communities typically consisting of two or more settlements at different altitudes to take advantage of the different ecological zones for a greater range of products. Dangl explains how they function on the basis of reciprocity and mutual obligation, sharing not only produce but also the risks that come with adverse weather, labor parties for tasks like harvesting, and decision making by consensus. Leadership responsibilities rotate routinely among members among members; governance is egalitarian and participatory.

The ayllu is stable enough to have survived long after the conquest in more remote areas, but the Spanish and their creole successors had other uses for allyu lands and populations, and by the middle of the twentieth century they were gone. But in the eighties people began to advocate their revival, and by the nineties a national network of ayllus was well under way. Dangl traces this expanding reconstructive effort and its complicated relationships with successive governments, the campesino union, etc.

This book was written at a time when Evo Morales was nearing the end of his third term. It was clear that while Bolivia’s first president had been in office—since 2005—the county had undergone substantial economic expansion, and that those who had benefited most notably were the poorest, that is, mostly the indigenous. Not only were they better off economically, they had also developed a new understanding of their place in their own country.

The symbols of Tupak Katari and Bartolina Sisa evolved as the MAS, understandably, adopted them wholeheartedly, but more in their role as political leaders and less as revolutionaries. But the MAS government has been criticized for some decisions that are inconsistent with the vision that the Kataristas articulated. As an astute observer, Dangl alludes to some of those contradictions, but to analyze them in depth would be outside the scope of the book.

The Kataristas presented an idealized pre-Columbian society, outlining a socialist vision that many Bolivians would like to make a reality. The ideas of national liberation and communal society have taken root. Benjamin Dangl’s book tells how that came about; it will be a valuable resource in understanding what is to come.

Posted in BoliviaComments Off on Bolivia’s Five Hundred-Year Rebellion

What the U.K. Election Tells Us About Universal Health Care

Across the political spectrum, the British are clear: American-style health care is a terrible idea.

by: Sarah Jaffe

Trump-style politics, and particularly American-style privatized healthcare, are the bogeymen of the U.K. election. (Photo: The Progressive)

Trump-style politics, and particularly American-style privatized healthcare, are the bogeymen of the U.K. election. (Photo: The Progressive)

There are a little under two weeks left before the United Kingdom’s general election, set for December 12, and the perhaps-unexpected star of many campaign trail arguments has been . . . Donald Trump. 

Trump features in story after story about the potential for post-Brexit trade deals—if Boris Johnson is returned to the prime ministership with a majority large enough to force through his preferred hard Brexit. Trump is also featured in a creepy billboard, grinning from behind a surgical mask that he’s peeling away from his face. The billboard warns: “Look who’s coming for our NHS.”

Trump-style politics, and particularly American-style privatized health care, are the bogeymen of this election. The National Health Service, Britain’s universal health care system, is deeply loved across political parties—the rightwing campaign to leave the European Union famously featured buses promising more money for the NHS if the U.K. didn’t have to send money to the European Union.

Even Margaret Thatcher wasn’t able to privatize the NHS, though decades of governments have chipped away at it. Yet leaked documents publicized by the Labour party reveal Trump’s people in conversation with Johnson’s government, demanding “total market access” to the health service. A trade economist warned that U.S.-based tech companies could gain access to NHS patient data. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn pointed to discussions about lengthening drug patents, which he argued, leads to the much higher drug prices in the U.S. system.

The NHS has lasted because it works for people, continuing to serve them despite underfunding.

In response, the Conservative Party rushed to issue denials and is now running Google ads promising “The NHS is Not for Sale.” Trump landed in London for a NATO meeting on December 2 and was immediately asked about the NHS; Conservative Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab was grilled on the radio over a 2011 pamphlet he co-wrote that advocated privatization. An election that was supposed to be about Brexit is now, because of Brexit, becoming a referendum on universal public services.

Labour is running on strengthening existing services and creating new ones; the Tories have to swear they won’t diminish them (although their history suggests they’ll do the opposite). Either way, promising NHS cuts is an election-loser.

An online petition by NHS doctor Sonia Adesara to keep the NHS out of trade deals has garnered more than a million signatures. American actor Rob Delaney, a U.K. resident since 2014, made a video for the Labour party in which he describes “tens of thousands of dollars in bills” he was stuck with when his U.S. insurance company dropped him. He contrasts that experience with the NHS taking “extraordinary care” of his infant son, who suffered from a brain tumor, for twenty-one months. He called the NHS “the pinnacle of human achievement.” The video has had more than 10 million views—some of them, presumably, in the United States. 

Because, of course, the United States is also facing an election hinging on universal health care. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are promising Medicare for All, though they disagree on how quickly to pursue it. Everyone else in the Democratic primary is stuck trying to explain why universal services are a bad thing. Candidates like Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar hem and haw about how people like their private insurance—as if Americans are sitting around cheering for the company to which they pay increasing premiums every month; as if union workers love fighting their bosses over  insurance costs each contract.

The fact remains that universally provided public services are popular. The NHS has lasted because it works for people, continuing to serve them despite underfunding. The system is there, no questions asked, when crisis strikes, serving the rich and the working class alike.

That last bit is the unspoken problem that centrists and the right have with universal services. Campaigning against the promise of free college offered by Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg ran ads complaining that free public universities would serve the children of the wealthy, an argument that inspired massive pushback.

But the fact that the rich would use the same services as the poor is the point of universal services. Health care that is free for everyone at the point of service means everyone gets the same care and the fundamental inequality of life chances created by a privatized, paid system would disappear. Making college free would mean the children of the poor could access the same quality education currently available to children of professors like Buttigieg himself. 

Across the political spectrum, the British are clear: American-style health care is a terrible idea. Boris Johnson faces questions on it wherever he goes. The NHS might be squeezed, but no one wants to get rid of it—no one, that is, who doesn’t stand to profit off its privatization.

But in the United States, we are told that such a system is impossible. We are told that it doesn’t work, that the people who currently have it are suffering.  A glimpse at election news in the United Kingdom proves the opposite: that when you create such a system, the people will fight to keep it.

Posted in Health, Human Rights, UKComments Off on What the U.K. Election Tells Us About Universal Health Care

Indians Shall Not Govern


Photograph Source: Zlatica Hoke – Public Domain

“The Indian is good for nothing. But he represents in Bolivia a living force, a mass of passive resistance, a concrete tumor in the entrails of the social organism…The Indian race and the Mestizo caste will have to perish in the struggle for existence.”

– Nicodemos Antelo, Bolivian writer, circa 1860

It was a fundraiser for Peruvian sick children. Being at the main table, I was seated – uncomfotably- next to a young man who was the embassy envoy, representing one of the most corrupt governments in the Americas. “But it is for a good cause, I shall behave and talk small talk”, I kept telling myself. My good intentions did not last long.

When the music performance was announced I said something to the effect that Latin American music was very romantic but some seem to think we have only salsa. (That was my attempt at small talk.) The diplomat then proceeded to tell me who was and who was NOT Latin American, and pointing to the photo of a needy child which graced every table, he said: “For instance, that child there is not Latin American”. Astonished I asked how can you say that? She is Peruvian! “No, she is Indian. Latin Americans are those of us who stem from Spain and Portugal.” He was not kidding nor making some sort of epistemological statement on the origin of Latin languages. He was unashamedly, sneeringly , racist, making a clear distinction between himself and that poor child. Our conversation deteriorated from then on to reach a point when he said that “those” children got sick because their mothers were too ignorant to know how to care for them. Trembling with disgust, I got up telling him I would sit next to him no more.

Peru and Bolivia, two of the countries of the Americas with the largest indigenous populations share the same racist attitude among much of their ruling white/mestizo middle classes. The “Indian” is apart, but lower, less worthy, ignorant, too backward to be able to really participate in politics, let alone, rule. This attitude is long standing, strengthend by European positivism in the 18th century and a vile distortion of Darwin’s scientific theory[1] . It is demonstrably prevalent in many works of Latin American literature, such as Facundo, Doña BarbaraLa Voragine, in authors from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile or Peru. [2] The Argentinian president Sarmiento, rabid anti-Indian put it quite clearly: “Nothing can compare to the extinction of the savage tribes or else to keep them weakened until they stop being a social danger.” Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (President of Argentina, 1868-74)

The scene painted by these anti-Indigenous writers is invariably one of a struggle between Civilization vs. Barbarism, with the Indian representing that which is barbarous or savage, reinforcing the myth of the treacherous, lazy, worthless Indian. The Black population fares the same fate, being regarded as even lower than the Indian, branded by the stigma of slavery and the myths of devil worship and voodoo. Thus President Hugo Chávez, of mixed Indian and Black ancestry, suffered the visceral hatred of the Venezuelan upper classes throughout his mandate, hatred which the working class mestizo president Nicholas Maduro has fully inherited.

This is at the very root, the very heart, of the passionate contempt of the elites for Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of the región who dared recognize the plurality of cultures and languages in Bolivia, who dared promote and protect the human rights of the majority. Representing the indigenous population with dignity he led a wise and properous political administration. In the recent tumultous political life of Bolivia how could the upper clases admit that The Indian knew how to govern better than any previous white president? He was the antithesis of every prejudice, of every biased attitude and feeling against “Indians” that the elites had held for centuries.

Evo Morales was deposed in a coupd’etat that the USA, Canada and other satellite nations, right wing politicians, crass NGOs, the Ministry of Colonization (i.e. the OAS) and the prostituted mainstream press dared say was NOT a coup, despite the killings, the wounded, the suspension of civil guarantees, the onslought of the armed forces and police, and the outrageous, blatant disregard of the Bolivian Constitution. So often we hear from politician’s mouths platitudes of how they respect the “rule of law”- rule of law , which is only invoked when it suits their economic and political interests.

The men and women who run the large corporations have a most overwhelming stance: that of greed – which in capitalist terms is not a vice, but a virtue, the mandate to accummulate capital and enjoy profits without pesky regulations or governmental interference. If the animosity and desire to depose the Venezuelan government lies basically on corporate longing to fully control the vast Venezuelan petroleum reserves, the desire to topple Evo Morales lies in great part in longing to fully control one of the largest deposits of lithium on the planet that lies in Bolivia. If petroleum is the lifeblood of today’s economies, lithium is the lifeblood of the future economy: batteries to power digital technology, artificial intelligence and state-of-the art aeroplanes and missles. Petroleum and lithium may not be in the hands of democracy, of popular governments, of dark people that dare question corporations’ rights to their natural resources. So the greed of corporations and the racism of Bolivia’s upper clases came together in perfect harmony to destroy Bolivia’s Constitutional order.

So what is to be done? If we could turn back the clock and be there when the Spanish (and later the English in North America) decimated the indigenous peoples of the Americas: Aztec , Mayas, Incas, Carib, and every tribe in between with their gunpowder, mail, horses and diseases, if we had been there as they utterly destroyed their cities, temples and cultivated lands, if we had been witnesses to their human and cultural genocide, would we had done anything to counter it? Would we have been like Fray Bartholome de Las Casas denouncing such human outrage, or would we had been complicit with our acceptance?

We cannot turn back the clock, but cirumstances have brought us to a historic crossroads, so similar in intent, that it is a temptation to say that History is repeating itself. We can reject the racist politicians and usurpers in Bolivia, we can denounce their racism, we can repudiate corporations’ rapacious and malign interference, and we can exert whatever democratic means are at hand to shame the “supposed” democratic countries of the world to stand by the Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia and the Americas, and demand the return of Evo Morales.

This is not only about one man, one Indian, one Evo Morales. If we allow his ouster to stand, the message, the reality, will be that no other such as him will be allowed to govern, no Indian and no Mestizo who dares defy the might of corporations and the governments they control will be aceptable. Decent people should not be willing to live with that.

All is not lost. I had the honour of being invited as an observer to the Encounter of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas that took place in October in Caracas. It was stirring to listen to indigenous representatives from many countries, one by one talk of their peoples, situations amd common threats. I noticed a steely resolve not simply to survive, but to thrive, to exercise their rights, protect their communities, lands and resources from rapacious capitalism. After 500 years of resistance, they are determined to be united in the midst of their distinctiveness and defeat any form of oppression or paternalism.

All is not lost. Despite their outragous and bloody attempts, the USA hegemon and allies have not been able to oust the democratic and popular government of Nicolás Maduro. It endures as a clear sign of the times: Latin Americans are repudiating elite governments in places such as Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, Haiti, that for so long have oppressed the indigenous peoples and the working class, elites that have identified with the empire and turned their backs on their own people, history and culture.


1) Gustav Le Bonn, Auguste Compte, Spencer, Gobineau all presumed superior and inferior races. See Antonio Sacoto, “El Indio en el Ensayo Hispanoamericano” Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 2002 

2) Authors such as: D.F. Sarmiento, Alcides Arguedas, César Zumeta, Agustín Alvarez, José Ingenieros, Carlos Octavio Bunge, Carlos Arturo Torres, Nicodemos Antelo, Romulo Gallegos, among others. 


Maria Paez Victor

María Páez Victor, Ph.D. is a Venezuelan born sociologist living in Canada. 

Indians Shall Not Govern


Venezuela: Disturbing Echoes of History


Bloody Canada: Cheerleading the Lima Group’s Plot to Overthrow the Government of Venezuela


How Reuters Slandered Venezuela’s Social Benefits Card


An Open Letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Venezuela


Who is Afraid of Venezuelan Democracy?


The Opposition in Venezuela: Terrorists or “Rebels”?


Venezuelan Opposition Now Opposes the People


Canada: Trump’s Terrier at the OAS


Fake News: Venezuela Upholds Rule of Law, But Press Calls It Dictatorship


Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Indians Shall Not Govern

The ‘Israel’ Lobby’s Hidden Hand in the Theft of Iraqi and Syrian Oil

By: Agha Hussain & Whitney Webb

IRAQ — “We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers because we’re keeping the oil,” President Trump stated on November 3, before adding, “I like oil. We’re keeping the oil.”

Though he had promised a withdrawal of U.S. troops from their illegal occupation of Syria, Trump shocked many with his blunt admission that troops were being left behind to prevent Syrian oil resources from being developed by the Syrian government and, instead, kept in the hands of whomever the U.S. deemed fit to control them, in this case, the U.S.-backed Kurdish-majority militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Though Trump himself received all of the credit — and the scorn — for this controversial new policy, what has been left out of the media coverage is the fact that key players in the U.S.’ pro-Israel lobby played a major role in its creation with the purpose of selling Syrian oil to the state of Israel. While recent developments in the Syrian conflict may have hindered such a plan from becoming reality, it nonetheless offers a telling example of the covert role often played by the U.S.’ pro-Israel lobby in shaping key elements of U.S. foreign policy and closed-door deals with major regional implications.

Indeed, the Israel lobby-led effort to have the U.S. facilitate the sale of Syrian oil to Israel is not an isolated incident given that, just a few years ago, other individuals connected to the same pro-Israel lobby groups and Zionist neoconservatives manipulated both U.S. policy and Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in order to allow Iraqi oil to be sold to Israel without the approval of the Iraqi government. These designs, not unlike those that continue to unfold in Syria, were in service to longstanding neoconservative and Zionist efforts to balkanize Iraq by strengthening the KRG and weakening Baghdad.

After the occupation of Iraq’s Nineveh Governorate by ISIS (June 2014-October 2015), the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) took advantage of the Iraqi military’s retreat and, amidst the chaos, illegally seized Kirkuk on June 12. Their claim to the city was supported by both the U.S. and Israel and, later, the U.S.-led coalition targeting ISIS. This gave the KRG control, not only of Iraq’s export pipeline to Turkey’s Ceyhan port, but also to Iraq’s largest oil fields.

Israel imported massive amounts of oil from the Kurds during this period, all without the consent of Baghdad. Israel was also the largest customer of oil sold by ISIS, who used Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk to sell oil in areas of Iraq and Syria under its control. To do this in ISIS-controlled territories of Iraq, the oil was sent first to the Kurdish city of Zakho near the Turkey border and then into Turkey, deceptively labeled as oil that originated from Iraqi Kurdistan. ISIS did nothing to impede the KRG’s own oil exports even though they easily could have given that the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export pipeline passed through areas that ISIS had occupied for years.

In retrospect, and following revelations from Wikileaks and new information regarding the background of relevant actors, it has been revealed that much of the covert maneuvering behind the scenes that enabled this scenario intimately involved the United States’ powerful pro-Israel lobby. Now, with a similar scenario unfolding in Syria, efforts by the U.S.’ Israel lobby to manipulate U.S. foreign policy in order to shift the flow of hydrocarbons for Israel’s benefit can instead be seen as a pattern of behavior, not an isolated incident.

“Keep the oil” for Israel

After recent shifts in the Trump administration in its Syria policy, U.S. troops have controversially been kept in Syria to “keep the oil,” with U.S. military officials subsequently claiming that doing so was “a subset of the counter-ISIS mission.” However, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper later claimed that another factor behind U.S. insistence on guarding Syrian oil fields was to prevent the extraction and subsequent sale of Syrian oil by either the Syrian government or Russia.

One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to “keep the oil” was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield. Satterfield was previously the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, where he yielded great influence over U.S. policy in both Iraq and Syria and worked closely with Brett McGurk, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran and later special presidential envoy for the U.S.-led “anti-ISIS” coalition.

Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.

David Satterfield

In 2005, federal prosecutors cited a U.S. government official as having illegally passed classified information to Steve Rosen, then working for AIPAC, who then passed that information to the Israeli government. That classified information included intelligence on Iran and the nature of U.S.-Israeli intelligence sharing. Subsequent media reports from the New York Times and other outlets revealed that this government official was none other than David Satterfield, who was then serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs.

Charges against Rosen, as well as his co-conspirator and fellow AIPAC employee Keith Weissman, were dropped in 2009 and no charges were levied against Satterfield after State Department officials shockingly claimed that Satterfield had “acted within his authority” in leaking classified information to an individual working to advance the interests of a foreign government. Richard Armitage, a neoconservative ally with a long history of ties to CIA covert operations in the Middle East and elsewhere, has since claimed that he was one of Satterfield’s main defenders in conversations with the FBI during this time when he was serving as Deputy Secretary of State.

The other government official named in the indictment, former Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, was not so lucky and was charged under the Espionage Act in 2006. Satterfield, instead of being censured for his role in leaking sensitive information to a foreign government, was subsequently promoted in 2006 to serve as the Coordinator for Iraq and Senior Adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In addition to his history of leaking classified information to AIPAC, Satterfield also has a longstanding relationship with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a controversial spin-off of AIPAC also known by its acronym WINEP. WINEP’s website has long listed Satterfield as one of its experts and Satterfield has spoken at several WINEP events and policy forums, including several after his involvement with the AIPAC espionage scandal became public knowledge. However, despite his longstanding and controversial ties to the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, Satterfield’s current relationship with some elements of that lobby, such as the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is complicated at best.

While Satterfield’s role in yet another reversal of a promised withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria has largely escaped media scrutiny, another individual with deep ties to the Israel lobby and Syrian “rebel” groups has also been ignored by the media, despite his outsized role in taking advantage of this new U.S. policy for Israel’s benefit.

US Israel Lobby secures deal with Kurds

Earlier this year, well before Trump’s new Syria policy of “keeping the oil” had officially taken shape, another individual with deep ties to the U.S. Israel lobby secured a lucrative agreement with U.S.-backed Kurdish groups in Syria. An official document issued earlier this year by the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the political arm of the Kurdish majority and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a New Jersey-based company, founded and run by U.S.-Israeli dual citizen Mordechai “Motti” Kahana, was given control of the oil in territory held by the SDC.

Per the document, the SDC formally accepted the offer from Kahana’s company — Global Development Corporation (GDC) — to represent SDC in all matters pertaining to the sale of oil extracted in territory it controls and also grants GDC “the right to explore and develop oil that is located in areas we govern.”

Global Development Corporation Kurdish Oil

The document also states that the amount of oil then being produced in SDC-controlled areas was 125,000 barrels per day and that they anticipated that this would increase to 400,000 barrels per day and that this oil is considered a foreign asset under the control of the United States by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

After the document was made public by the Lebanese outlet Al-Akhbar, the SDC claimed that it was a forgery, even though Kahana had separately confirmed its contents and shared the letter itself to the Los Angeles Times as recently as a few weeks ago. Kahana previously attempted to distance himself from the effort and told the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom in July that he had made the offer to the SDC as means to prevent the “Assad regime” of Syria from obtaining revenue from the sale of Syrian oil.

The Kurds currently hold 11 oil wells in an area controlled by the [Syrian] Democratic Forces. The overwhelming majority of Syrian oil is in that area. I don’t want this oil reaching Iran, or the Assad regime.”

At the time, Kahana also stated that “the moment the Trump administration gives its approval, we can begin to export this oil at fair prices.”

Given that Kahana has openly confirmed that he is representing the SDC’s oil business shortly after Trump’s adoption of the controversial “keep the oil policy,” it seems plausible that Kahana has now received the approval needed for his company to export the oil on behalf of the SDC. Several media reports have speculated that, if Kahana’s efforts go forward unimpeded, the Syrian oil will be sold to Israel.

However, considering Turkey’s aversion to engaging in any activities that may benefit the PKK-SDF – there are considerable obstacles to Kahana’s plans. While the SDF — along with assistance from U.S. troops — still controls several oil fields in Syria, experts assert that they can only realistically sell the oil to the Syrian government. Not even the Iraqi Kurds are a candidate, considering Baghdad’s firm control over the Iraq-Syria border and the KRG’s weakened state after its failed independence bid in late 2017.

Regardless, Kahana’s involvement in this affair is significant for a few reasons. First, Kahana has been a key player in the promotion and funding of radical groups in Syria and has even been caught hiring so-called “rebels” to kidnap Syrian Jews and take them to Israel against their will. It was Kahana, for instance, who financed and orchestrated the now infamous trip of the late Senator John McCain to Syria, where he met with Syrian “rebels” including Khalid al-Hamad – a “moderate” rebel who gained notoriety after a video of him eating the heart of a Syrian Army soldier went viral online. McCain had also admitted meeting with ISIS members, though it is unclear if he did so on this trip or another trip to Syria.

In addition, Kahana was also the mastermind behind the “Caesar” controversy, whereby a Syrian using the pseudonym “Caesar” was brought to the U.S. by Kahana and went on to make claims regarding torture and other crimes allegedly committed by the Assad-led government Syria, claims which were later discredited by independent analysts. He was also very involved in Israel’s failed efforts to establish a “safe zone” in Southern Syria as a means of covertly expanding Israel’s territory from the occupied Golan Heights and into Quneitra.

Notably, Kahana has deep ties — not just to efforts to overthrow the Syrian government — but also to U.S. Israel lobby, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) where Satterfield is as an expert. For instance, Kahana was a key player in a 2013 symposium organized by WINEP along with Syrian opposition groups intimately involved in the arming of so-called “rebels.” One of the other participants in the symposium alongside Kahana was Mouaz Moustafa, director of the “Syrian Emergency Task Force” who assisted Kahana in bringing McCain to Syria in 2013. Moustafa was listed as a WINEP expert on the organization’s website but was later mysteriously deleted.

Kahana is also intimately involved with the Israeli American Council (IAC), a pro-Israel lobby organization, as a team member of its national conference. IAC was co-founded and is chaired by Adam Milstein, a multimillionaire and convicted felon who is also on the boards of AIPAC, StandWithUs, Birthright and other prominent pro-Israel lobby organizations. One of IAC’s top donors is Sheldon Adelson, who is also the top donor to President Trump as well as the entire Republican Party.

Though the machinations of both Kahana and Satterfield to guide U.S. policy in order to manipulate the flow of Syria’s hydrocarbons for Israel’s benefit may seem shocking to some, this same tactic of pro-Israel lobbyists using the Kurds to illegally sell a country’s oil to Israel was developed a few years prior, not in Syria, but Iraq. Notably, the individuals responsible for that policy in Iraq shared connections to several of the same pro-Israel lobby organizations as both Satterfield and Kahana, suggesting that their recent efforts in Syria are not an isolated event, but a pattern.

War against ISIS is a war for oil

In an email dated June 15, 2014, James Franklin Jeffrey (former Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey and current U.S. Special Representative for Syria) revealed to Stephen Hadley, a former George Bush administration advisor then working at the government-funded United States Institute of Peace, his intent to advise the KRG in order to sustain Kirkuk’s oil production. The plan, as Jeffery described it, was to supply both the Kurdistan province with oil and allow the export of oil via Kirkuk-Ceyhan to Israel, robbing Iraq of its oil and strengthening the country’s Kurdish region along with its regional government’s bid for autonomy.

Jeffrey, whose hawkish views on Iran and Syria are well-known, mentioned that Brett McGurk, the U.S.’ main negotiator between Baghdad and the KRG, was acting as his liaison with the KRG. McGurk, who had served in various capacities in Iraq under both Bush and Obama, was then also serving Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran. A year later, he would be made the special presidential envoy for the U.S.-led “anti-ISIS” coalition and, as previously mentioned, worked closely with David Satterfield.

Jeffrey was then a private citizen not currently employed by the government and was used as a non-governmental channel in the pursuit of the plans described in the leaked emails published by WikiLeaks. Jeffrey’s behind-the-scenes activities with regards to the KRG’s oil exports were done clandestinely, largely because he was then employed by a prominent arm of the U.S.’ pro-Israel lobby.

At the time of the email, Jeffrey was serving as a distinguished fellow (2013-2018) at WINEP. As previously mentioned, WINEP is a pro-Israel foreign policy think-tank that espouses neoconservative views and was created in 1985 by researchers that had hastily left AIPAC to escape investigations against the organization that were related to some of its members conducting espionage on behalf of Israel. AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is the largest registered Israel lobbyist organization in the US (albeit registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act would be more suitable), and, in addition to the 1985 incident that led to WINEP’s creation, has had members indicted for espionage against the U.S. on Israel’s behalf.

WINEP’s launch was funded by former President of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles,  Barbara Weinberg, who is its founding president and constant Chairman Emerita. Nicknamed ‘Barbi’, she is the wife of the late Lawrence Weinberg who was President of AIPAC from 1976-81 and who JJ Goldberg, author of the 1997 book Jewish Power, referred to as one of a select few individuals who essentially dominated AIPAC regardless of its elected leadership. Co-founder alongside Weinberg was Martin Indyk. Indyk, U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1995-97) and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1997-99), led the AIPAC research time that formed WINEP to escape the aforementioned investigations.

WINEP has historically received funding from donors who donate to causes of special interest for Zionism and Israel. Among its trustees are extremely prominent names in political Zionism and funders of other Israel Lobby organizations, such as Charles and Edgar Bronfman and the ChernicksIts membership remains dominated by individuals who have spent their careers promoting Israeli interests in the U.S.

WINEP has become more well-known, and arguably more controversial, in recent years after its research director famously called for false-flag attacks to trigger a U.S. war with Iran in 2012, statements well-aligned with longstanding attempts by the Israel Lobby to bring about such a war.

A worthy partner in crime

Stephen Hadley, another private citizen who Jeffrey evidently considered as a partner in his covert dealings discussed in the emails, also has his own past of involvement with Israel-specific intrigues and meddling.

During the G.W. Bush administration, Hadley tagged along with neoconservatives in their numerous creations of fake intelligence and efforts to incriminate Iraq for possessing chemical and nuclear weapons. Hadley was one of the promoters from within the U.S. government of the false claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.

Hadley also worked with then-Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Lewis Libby — a neoconservative and former lawyer for the Mossad-agent and billionaire Marc Rich — to discredit a CIA investigation into claims of Iraq purchasing yellowcake uranium from Niger. That claim famously appeared in Bush’s State of the Union address in 2002.

What this particular claim had in common with the ‘Iraq meets Atta in Prague’ disinformation, and other famous lies against Iraq fabricated and circulated by the dense neocon network, was its source: Israel and pro-Israel partisans.

The distribution network of these now long-debunked claims was none other than the neoconservatives who act a veritable Israeli fifth column that has long sought to promote Israeli foreign policy objectives as being in the interest of the United States. In this, Hadley played his part by helping to ensure that the United States was railroaded into a war that had long been promoted by both Israeli and American neoconservatives, particularly Richard Perle — an advisor to WINEP — who had been promoting regime change in Iraq for Israel’s explicit benefit for decades.

In short, for covert intrigues to serve Israel that would likely be met with protest if pitched to the government for implementation as policy, Hadley’s resume was impressive.

Israeli interests pursued through covert channels

Given his employment at WINEP during this time, Jeffrey’s intent to advise the KRG to sustain Kirkuk’s oil production despite the seizure of the Baiji oil refinery by ISIS is somewhat suspect, especially since it required that 100,000 barrels per day pass through ISIS-controlled territory unimpeded.

Jeffrey’s email from June 14, therefore, demonstrated that he had foreknowledge that ISIS would not disturb the KRG as long as the Kurds redirected oil that was intended originally for Baiji to the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export pipeline, facilitating its export and later sale to Israel.

Notably, up until its liberation in mid-2015 by the Iraqi government and aligned Shia paramilitaries, ISIS kept the refinery running and, only upon their retreat, destroyed the facility.

In July 2014, the KRG began confidently supplying Kurdish areas with Kirkuk’s oil per the plan laid out by Jeffrey in the aforementioned email. Baghdad soon became aware of the arrangement and lashed out at Israel and Turkey, whose banks were used by the KRG to receive the oil revenue from Israel.

One would normally expect ISIS to be opposed to such collusion given that the KRG, while a beneficiary of the ISIS-Baghdad conflict, was not an ally of ISIS. Thus, a foreign power with strategic ties to ISIS used its close ties to the KRG and assurances that it was on-board for the oil trade, to deliver a credible guarantee that ISIS would ‘cooperate’ and that a boom in production and exports was in the cards.

This foreign power — acting as a guarantor for the ISIS-KRG understanding vis-a-vis the illegal oil economy, represented by Jeffrey and clearly not on good terms with Iraq’s government — was quite clearly Israel.

Israel established considerable financial support as well as the provision of armaments to other extremist terrorist groups active near the border between the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Southern Syria when war first broke out in Syria in 2011. At least four of these extremist groups were led by individuals with direct ties to Israeli intelligence. These same groups, sometimes promoted as ‘moderates’ by some media, were actively fighting Syria’s government – an enemy of Israel and ally of Iran – before ISIS existed and eagerly partnered with ISIS when it expanded its campaign into Syria.

Furthermore, Israeli officials have publicly admitted maintaining regular communication with ISIS cells in Southern Syria and have publicly expressed their desire that ISIS not be defeated in the country. In Libya, Israeli Mossad operatives have been found embedded within ISIS, suggesting that Israel has covert but definite ties with the group outside of Syria as well.

Israel has also long promoted the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, with Israel having provided Iraq’s Kurds with weapons, training and teams of Mossad advisers as far back as the 1960s. More recently, Israel was the only state to support the KRG independence referendum in September 2017 despite its futility, hinting at the regard Israel holds for the KRG. Iraq’s government subsequently militarily defeated the KRG’s push for statehood and reclaimed Kirkuk’s oil fields with assistance from the Shia paramilitaries which were responsible for defeating ISIS in the area.

Iraq ISIS control map

This arrangement orchestrated by Jeffrey, served the long-time neoconservative-Israeli agenda of empowering the Kurds, selling Iraqi oil to Israel and weakening Iraq’s Baghdad-based government.

WINEP’s close association with AIPAC, which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel several times in the past with no consequence, combined with Jeffrey’s long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey’s plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted 77 percent of Israel’s total oil imports during the KRG’s occupation of Kirkuk.

The WINEP connection to the KRG-Israel oil deal demonstrates the key role played by the U.S. pro-Israel Lobby, not only in terms of sustaining U.S. financial aid to Israel and ratcheting up tensions with Israel’s adversaries but also in facilitating the more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that favor Israel.

Yet the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale agreements for Israel’s benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of behavior.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on The ‘Israel’ Lobby’s Hidden Hand in the Theft of Iraqi and Syrian Oil

Former Spy Details ‘Israel’s’ Main Motive Behind Epstein’s Sexual Blackmail Operation

By: Whitney Webb

MONTREAL — In recent weeks, renewed attention has been brought to the allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking and sexual blackmail operation was run on behalf of Israeli military intelligence. Those claims revolve around statements made by a former Israeli military intelligence official turned public relations consultant Ari Ben-Menashe, whose allegations regarding the Epstein scandal were reported by MintPress this past October.

Ben-Menashe’s claims related to Epstein first surfaced in an interview between Ben-Menashe and Zev Shalev of the independent news outlet, Narativ. As detailed in a MintPress summary and commentary of that interview, Ben-Menashe claimed to have seen Jeffrey Epstein in the office of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, several times in the 1980s.

At the time, Ben-Menashe was in close contact with Robert Maxwell regarding their work mutual work with Israeli military intelligence. Maxwell, in addition to heading a media empire and being a one-time member of U.K. parliament, was a longtime operative for Israeli intelligence, so much so that his 1991 funeral was attended by no less than six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence as well as several high-ranking Israeli politicians and prime ministers. 

Maxwell is alleged to have recruited Jeffrey Epstein for Israeli intelligence and later introduced Epstein to Ben-Menashe and another operative, Nicholas Davies. Epstein was introduced to Ben-Menashe as having been pre-approved by leading figures in Israel’s military intelligence directorate, known as Aman.

MintPress recently conducted its own interview with Mr. Ben-Menashe as part of an ongoing investigation on the life and connections of the now-infamous Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein special coverage banner

Part of that interview is provided below with relevant commentary, particularly regarding claims related to the relationship between Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Epstein’s trip to Tel Aviv immediately prior to his first arrest, and the reasons for Israeli military intelligence’s interest in orchestrating and financing a major sexual blackmail operation targeting top U.S. politicians.

“Israel Requested that Epstein Target Clinton”

MintPress News first asked Ben-Menashe about Robert Maxwell, a known asset and operative for Israeli intelligence, having recruited Jeffrey Epstein. Ben-Menashe =confirmed this to MintPress and also noted that, after their initial meeting, Epstein was frequently present in Maxwell’s office in London.

During the 1980s, as MintPress previously reported, Epstein claimed to have been an intelligence operative and so-called “bounty hunter” in the world of shadow finance. During this time, he was known to have developed close relationships with several British arms dealers, particularly Sir Douglas Leese. Thus, Epstein appeared to frequently be traveling between the Middle East and London, which is also supported by Epstein’s now-infamous Austrian passport which he was believed to have carried during this period of time.

Ben-Menashe told MintPress that he had not only met Epstein after Epstein had been recently recruited by Israeli military intelligence, but had seen him on several occasions thereafter as Epstein “used to be in [Robert Maxwell’s] office [in London] quite often” and would arrive there between trips to and from Israel.

In addition, Ben-Menashe revealed his understanding of why Epstein was eventually shepherded into acting as a professional sexual blackmailer on behalf of Israeli military intelligence. Per Ben-Menashe, there were concerns among Israeli intelligence figures that, following the Reagan Era, a new president would push for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians, something those officials sought to avoid by any means necessary.

ABM | Here’s the thing… Mr. Carter… as in President Carter… the Israelis feared that Mr. Clinton, when he was campaigning for President, will be a repeat of Mr. Carter. He wanted to press them for peace with the Palestinians and all that stuff. They feared… Clinton wasn’t that… but they feared he was that… And I think Mr. Epstein was sent early on to catch up with President Clinton.

MintPress News (MPN) | Well, that’s interesting because the first year Clinton was in office, Epstein was already attending donor dinners at the White House and making White House visits as well.

ABM | Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. I believe his biggest client was Mr. Clinton catch, or catch, or whatever, and he had a few other congressmen and what not but Clinton was, was his biggest catch.

Thus, Ben-Menashe argues, when Bill Clinton’s candidacy in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election became clear, efforts were made to target him via sexual blackmail and Jeffrey Epstein was chosen for that purpose. Bill Clinton was eventually blackmailed by the state of Israel and his administration was also targeted by Israeli espionage as part of the “Mega” spy scandal. Epstein’s involvement in the Clinton administration and his visits to the White House date back to Clinton’s first year in office. More information on the Epstein-Clinton relationship can be found in this MintPress report.

In addition, MintPress also asked Ben-Menashe if he was aware of Ghislaine Maxwell being directly involved with her father’s intelligence-related activities prior to his death in 1991. Ben-Menashe noted that Ghislaine accompanied her father so frequently, including on a now-infamous 1989 party on Maxwell’s yacht where Donald Trump and several key figures in the PROMIS software scandal were in attendance, that she was involved in his intelligence-related activities to some extent. However, he stopped short of saying how involved she was or what she has specifically been involved in prior to her father’s death.

When did Epstein really meet Ehud Barak?

One of the more controversial ties between Epstein and powerful politicians is that between Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak has claimed to have only met Epstein in 2002 and, from that point on, their relationship was very public, with Barak frequently visiting and even spending the night at residences owned by Epstein, including apartments where he housed the underage girls that he exploited. Barak also visited Epstein’s now-infamous island and recruited him to help fund the Israeli intelligence-connected company, Carbyne911.

However, there appear to be indications that Epstein and Barak may have met much earlier than Barak has since claimed. Given that Ben-Menashe claimed to have learned of Epstein’s recruitment by Israeli military intelligence in the 1980s, MintPress asked if one of the people involved in his recruitment was Ehud Barak. Barak served as head of Israel’s military intelligence directorate, Aman, from April 1983 to January 1986.

Ben-Menashe could not recall the exact year when he first became aware of Epstein’s recruitment by Israeli military intelligence but stated that it was “most likely” during Ehud Barak’s tenure as the head of Aman. Yet, even if Epstein’s recruitment did not take place while Barak headed Aman, it is highly likely — per Ben-Menashe — that Epstein had met Barak during this time because “Robert Maxwell became buddies with Ehud Barak…and he [Robert Maxwell] probably introduced them, the young man [Epstein] to Mr. Barak” if the two were not already acquainted.

Since the Epstein scandal broke, Ehud Barak has insisted that he did not meet Epstein until the year 2002 and claimed that the two had been introduced by former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Ben-Menashe dismissed the possibility that this claim was true, emphatically stating that he was “sure they had met before” and that he did not believe that their first meeting was in 2002.

Epstein’s 2008 Trip to Tel Aviv

Just a few months before he was sentenced to prison for the first time in June 2008, Jeffrey Epstein had made a sudden visit to the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv. In April of that year, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that Epstein was staying at the Tel Aviv Hilton and quoted an Epstein spokesman as saying that he was “spending Passover, meeting with Israeli research scientists, and taking a tour of military bases.”

Sometime prior to Epstein’s sentencing on June 30 of that year, Alexander Acosta –then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida– signed off on a lenient sentence for Epstein who was charged with soliciting sex from a minor. That legal arrangement has since been nicknamed the “sweetheart deal.” Acosta later told Trump transition officials prior to his nomination for Secretary of Labor that his decision to approve the “sweetheart deal” came after he had been told to back off in the Epstein case because Epstein “belonged to intelligence.”

Though Acosta did not specify from whom he had received this information, former CIA agent Phil Giraldi has made a convincing case that they originated from Epstein’s then-lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a close associate of Epstein with ties to high-ranking Israeli politicians, and Barry Krischer, then-Florida State Attorney for Palm Beach who recently received an award from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for his “outstanding contribution to the legal profession and to the community at large.”

As detailed in a previous MintPress report on Epstein’s ties to Israel published this past August, the ADL’s long-time top funders have close ties to Epstein and his sexual blackmail network, particularly the Bronfman family of Seagrams fame.

Ben-Menashe told MintPress that Epstein’s 2008 Tel Aviv visit was likely “blowing smoke” and involved Epstein “trying to make himself important maybe not to get arrested” and “hoping that the Israelis would help him.” He then added that “At the time they probably did” help Epstein, but added that “the second time around [i.e. 2019], well…it would be a harder sell.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, CanadaComments Off on Former Spy Details ‘Israel’s’ Main Motive Behind Epstein’s Sexual Blackmail Operation

Shoah’s pages