Help Fight Judonia!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Cornucopia of Conspiracy, Corruption, Manipulation
Friday, November 13, 2009
[David Rolde] Goldstone @ Brandeis
It was vile. Goldstone and the sponsoring organizations at Brandeis and the Brandeis administration allowed a representative of the Zionist occupation regime - Dore Gold, the former Zionist regime ambassador to the UN - to speak at the event to rebut Goldstone. Goldstone himself is a self-professed Zionist. His report makes accusations against Hamas and other Palestinian groups as well as against the Zionist regime. Pro-Palestinian students at Brandeis objected in advance to the format of the event and requested that Goldstone be the sole speaker at the event or that a Palestinian speaker be invited as well. These requests were denied.
During his speech Goldstone said that "Israel" was defending itself and had a right to do so and was only guilty of using disproportionate force. Goldstone only spoke briefly about Zionist war crimes in Gaza. He did mention the Zionists' killing of tens of thousands of chickens in the Gaza Strip. Most of Goldstone's speech was about the mandate of his investigation and about his support for "Israel", and he of course did make accusations against Hamas. Goldstone did speak at slightly greater length about Zionist war crimes during the question period. Dore Gold spoke for twice as long as Goldstone and falsely accused Hamas of breaking the truce or refusing to renew the truce (no one corrected him). Gold claimed that "Israel" went to great lengths not to harm civillians. Gold had all sorts of slides and little movies to vilify Hamas. Some pro-Palestinian people inside did disrupt Gold briefly by standing up with names of murdered Palestinians taped to their clothes. But a large portion of the audience were rightwing Zionist and applauding Gold during the question period, a young Palestinian woman managed to ask a question. One of the moderators tried to shut her up after her first sentence saying that it was a comment rather than a question. The moderators had allowed all the other audience questioners to speak at length giving background to their questions. The Palestinian woman then turned it into a question - 'How did Goldstone feel about there being no Palestinian voice speaking at the event' - and the moderator said that that question wasn't allowed because it should really be a question for the organizers of the event rather than for Goldstone or Gold. Goldstone answered anyway and said that he thought there should have been a Palestinian speaker. However Goldstone is the chair of the advisory board of Brandeis' International Center of Ethics, Justice and Public Life. This is the organization at Brandeis that organized this Goldstone event. So I blame Goldstone himself for the format.
I didn't get into the main room. I watched on screen in the overflow room. I had a "Let Hamas Speak" sign.
I would appreciate hearing other people's impressions of the event too.
[Gilad Atzmon] Warm Cuddily Israelis No More
A thorn in the world’s side
Israel in midst of freefall on global front, yet we’re preoccupied with nonsense
I’ve been invited to deliver a lecture about Israel’s economy and society at Oxford University. As it is a short lecture, and a respectable forum, I gladly accepted the offer. The invitation was extended about six months ago. Yet now, as my trip approaches, I feel concern. I’m hesitating.
Published: 11.03.09, 18:19 / Israel Opinion
My acquaintances are warning me: Don’t go. Hostile elements will cause disturbances, protest, shout and interfere. The atmosphere at British universities is anti-Israel to an extent unseen in the past. Israel is perceived as a thorn in the civilized world’s side.
An Israeli professor who quietly left a prestigious British university told me: “My academic and social life there was intolerable. Colleagues stayed away from me as if I was a leper. I was not invited to meetings, which were shifted from university buildings to private residences in order to keep me out. The fact I openly expressed leftist views was to no avail. My objection to the occupation and endorsement of a return to the 1967 borders made no difference. In practice, I became ostracized.”
“Today you are a welcome guest in the British and European academic world only if you reject the very existence of the colonialist and imperialistic creature that methodically commits war crimes, known as Israel,” he said. “Today it isn’t enough to condemn Bibi and Barak; in order to be accepted by academia outside of Israel one must condemn the Balfour Declaration.”
- nineteenth century madoff: bethel strousberg
- taibbi, kol nidre, jewish taqiya
- jewish financial aggression, worldwide economic nakba
- jewish peril 1933 versus 2009
- truth about the katyn massacre?
- [wvns] did hitler want war?
- sarkozy, anti-semitosis and france
- the lies of yiddish studies
- monsters: hillary clinton, samantha power
- haaretz confirms: two separate holocausts
- challenging the holocaust paradigm
- The Pattern of Jewish Genocidalism
- robert lindsay: the jews under stalin
- jewish, zionist war against salvation
- World War: 1939, 2009
- Wilders' Columbia Song and Dance
Plocker is a devoted right wing Zionist. I do not agree with his interpretation of the current events but I am rather cheered by his pessimistic and grave concerns.
He doesn’t see much hope for his little Jewish state. "We are in the midst of a freefall," he says.
Example: Difficulty of Understanding Holocaust
Kasztner engaged is a form of triage in choosing who he could rescue. He did not make an effort to inform Hungarian Jews of German Nazi plans while he was negotiating with the Nazis. Of course, if he had, negotiations would have ceased. After WW2 because of an apparent feeling that he owed a debt of honor, Kasztner provided assistance to some of the Nazis with whom he dealt while they were being tried for crimes against humanity.
Killing Kasztner: The Jew Who Dealt with NazisNovember 5, 2009 Killing Kasztner is a new documentary film that was nearly a decade in the making. The film brings national and international attention to the story of Rezso (also known as Rudolf and Israel) Kasztner, a Hungarian Jew who rescued more than 1,600 people with a train that eventually went to Switzerland in 1944. Kasztner has been vilified for negotiating with Nazis to allow Hungarian Jews to board the train to freedom.
He was a Jew assassinated by a Jew during the post-World War II political turmoil in Israel, where he had resettled. Examining Kasztner's legacy in the documentary are historians, journalists and survivors of the train, including his only child, a daughter, and his three granddaughters. Even his assassin mines the past in conversations with director Gaylen Ross, who filmed mostly in Israel. Survivors of the Kasztner train include Egon Mayer, a prominent sociologist who was a pioneer in outreach to interfaith families and unaffiliated Jews. Mayer was founding director of the Jewish Outreach Institute and published numerous books, including Love and Tradition: Marriage between Christians and Jews (Plenum/1987). Mayer's avocation was the history of Kasztner and his rescue efforts. Early in the film, Holocaust survivors in New York at the Museum of Jewish Heritage contentiously debate Kasztner's legacy. Egon Mayer was a speaker at that June 2001 event, where he said "that a rescue effort by Rezso Kasztner was the single largest successful rescue by Jews during the Holocaust. We also know the accusations leveled against Kasztner and the ultimate price that he paid was leveled against no one else. And so there's a huge question that hangs over this entire story. Why?" | ||
[Click here to read the rest of the article.]
Comparing Psychosis: Hasan, Media, Nation
Islamophobe David Gaubatz claims:
Israel has endured ‘suicide/attacks’ similar to this for many years. Malik Nabal Hasan is a terrorist supporting the ideology of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and yes, CAIR. In Palestine, the leaders send out the young and vulnerable to carry out the murders in the name of Islam. The same is happening in America.Gaubatz is spewing a Zionist "big lie."
In the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the incident most similar to Ft. Hood albeit with some significant differences is the February 24, 1994 Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre in which fanatic Jewish-American West Bank settler IDF Major Dr. Baruch Goldstein slaughtered 39-52 Palestinians during a prayer service.
In Confronting Nidal Malik Hassan's Erstwhile "Martyrdom", Zionist Islamophobe Andrew Bostom tries to argue that Islam encourages Muslims to kill non-Muslims execution-style. The claim seems to be some form of Zionist psychological projection. I know of no case of a Palestinian that has killed Zionist Jews execution-style, but in a famous atrocity former IDF soldier Ami Popper killed seven Palestinians execution-style in 1991.
The US media, in which American Jews are disproportionately involved, has focused obsessively on Hassan's Palestinian and Muslim background. Yet American news organizations are studiously ignoring both the case of American Jewish terrorist and murder Yaakov Teitel and also that of Hijab Murderer Alexander Wiens, who is probably of Russian Jewish extraction.
Just imagine how much coverage a German Turk would have received in the US media if he had brutally killed a young Orthodox Jewish shtirntikhl (Jewish hijab) wearing mother in a German court.
Most of the coverage of the Ft. Hood killings has been nonsense as Salon pundit Glenn Greenwald wrote in "A media orgy of rumors, speculation and falsehoods".
In "The media's silly Fort Hood coverage" Mark Benjamin elaborated Greenwald's point
- by addressing the long standing signs of Hasan's psychological disturbance and
- by explaining with commonsense analysis why Army medicine dropped the ball
Even though former WSJ reporter Asra Nomani usually produces good journalism, e.g., Asra Nomani on Aasiya Beheading, she has contributed to the dysfunctional media coverage. Possibly because of her relationship with the late Daniel Pearl, she has a tendency to confuse piety with extremism.
In Inside the Gunman's Mosque, Asra finds sinister extremism in a fairly typical semantic dispute between a Bangladeshi Muslim scholar and an Arabic-speaking Muslim:
Not long ago, inside the quiet library of the Muslim Community Center here in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., Golam Akhter, a local Bangladeshi-American civil engineer, 67, got into a fierce debate with a young Muslim doctor over how to interpret the concept of “jihad” within Islam. Akhter argued, “Jihad means an inner struggle, fighting against corruption and injustice.”Hasan's explanation seems more like common sense than like extremism.
The young doctor responded. “That’s not a correct interpretation. Jihad means holy war. When your religion isn’t safe, you have to fight for it. If someone attacks you, you must fight them. That is jihad. You can kill someone who is harming you.”
As a point of reference, the Jewish concept equivalent to jihad is milhemet mitsvah, which is literally war by commandment and unlike jihad means holy war in practically all contexts.
A milhemet mitsvah is far harder to interpret metaphorically than jihad is. Since 1947 all Zionist aggressions including the recent Gaza Rampage have been declared milhemot mitsvah (Jewish holy wars) by the Israeli Rabbinate.
Jewish Zionists have drained the concept of extremism of all meaning. Zionists believe that Jews have the right to plunder and to kill with impunity on the basis of an etymological relation between the word "Jew" and the word "Judea." Zionism is so extreme that it is murderously psychotic.
Over the last 10 years extremist Jewish Zionists often motivated by religion are responsible for slaughters numbering millions and expulsions numbering in the 10s of millions.
During the same time period the comparable numbers for "extremist" Muslim groups are approximately 10-20,000 killed and possibly a few hundred thousand refugees (by a very loose definition of expulsion). In many cases the Muslim violence has often resulted from politics orchestrated by extremist Jewish Zionists. (According to Jewish ethical concepts, Jewish Zionists have committed the most grievous sin of "lifnei iver" or putting a stumbling block before the blind.)
Besides enmeshment in Zionist casuistry about extremism, Asra has some confusion about the nature of belief:
It’s critical that we ditch the concept of the “ummah” with a capital “U” and recognize that we are an “ummah” with a small “u,” meaning our religious identity doesn’t have to supersede other loyalties and identities. This attempt to push an “Ummah” is the politics of ideologues of puritanical Islam who want to mollify dissent. Sadly, too many moderates have bought into it. We aren’t monolithic, and we shouldn’t try to be. Look at al Qaeda, the Taliban and Pakistani militant groups: They don’t have a problem with killing Muslims, slaying Muslims in attacks from Amman, Jordan, to Islamabad, Pakistan.A person, who truly believes in God, will obviously put his duties to God before all else, and the American system acknowledges that a citizen may have a religious identity and a national identity. Because God has yet to let us know his position on US national policies, Muslims cannot know for a certainty that their religious identity conflicts with American identity.
Jewish Zionists have poisoned the American system of multiple overlapping identities because they conflate religion with Zionist ethnonationalism and expect Jews treasonously to act on behalf of the Jewish people (and not on behalf of God) even to the detriment of US interests.
Not only have Zionists successfully spread this idea among Jews, but they have even created a new form of Zionism for Jewish and non-Jewish fellow travelers as well as another form of Zionism for useful idiots.
Fellow traveler Zionism is Friedmanism, which combines traditional Eastern European exploitative business practices with Zionist concepts of ethnonational financial warfare.
Useful idiot Zionism is Christian Islamophobia, which creates a morons' crusade against Islam so that stupid Christians can feel good about supporting Zionist genocidalism.
Together the three core forms of Zionism have done tremendous damage to American politics, American foreign policy, the American economy, the American government, the American legal system, and the American media.
Military Veterans and Foreign Affairs Journal Staff Writer Gordon Duff goes right to the the heart of the issue when he writes in SCAPEGOATING ISLAM BECAUSE WE ARE TOTALLY SCREWED UP AIN'T GONNA WORK:
The American system has become a lie. Despite fundamental American ideals, not only does the US government domestically treat Jews, non-Muslim gentiles and Muslims according to different laws, rules, and regulations, but it has also given the State of Israel untouchable "Israel can do no wrong" status while the Zionist state perpetrates ever greater outrages on the native Palestinian population. As a result anti-US hostility is growing throughout the world with potentially disastrous economic consequences while the USA is evincing signs of something like national cognitive dissonance.Today, in Tampa, Fla, a Navy reservist tried to murder a Greek Orthodox priest from Crete as a "terrorist." The reservist claimed the non-Arabic speaking Greek had yelled "Allah Akbar." (God is Great) When arrested, Naval Reservist Jason D. Bruce told police the priest had tried to rob him. Thus, America's honor is defended again. Two idiotic wars, two phony invasions and lots of hate crimes, the number, we will never know. We do know 99% of what we hear is lies. Vietnam was a lie. Iraq was a lie and Americans are dying in Afghanistan over more lies. Perhaps we could spread the hate out a bit. We seem to have so much of it.
American national psychosis will continue and worsen unless subversive Jewish Zionist influence over the US government is purged, a lot of American Zionists go to jail for aid to Zionist terrorism, and the USA begins dealing with the Islamic world on terms of mutual respect and equality.
[YNET] Once Again Germans Supporting Nazism!
Ilan Pappe silenced in Munich
Left-wing groups enraged by Germany municipality's decision not to allow anti-Zionist Israeli historian to speak at governmental institution. Pappe writes to Munich mayor his policy reminiscent of Nazi Germany
Sarah Stricker
| Published: | 11.12.09, 08:59 / Israel News |
- jewish financial aggression, worldwide economic nakba
- nazi-zionist friendship commemorative medal
- jewish peril 1933 versus 2009
- [wvns] did hitler want war?
- World War: 1939, 2009
- nazism, zionism, and nutty hypersensitivity
- followup: nazism, zionism, and nutty hypersensitivity
- money jews, brain jews, politics
- long version: zionizing muslims via interfaith dialogue
- neda, marwa, rachel, suraideh, abir, henryk
- material support for zionist terrorism
- from anti-semitism to islamophobia
Thursday, November 12, 2009
[Gilad Atzmon] From the River to the Sea
Yet I am as impressed as Gilad at Netanyahu's admission of the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and land.
From the River to the Sea by Gilad Atzmon
Let’s once and for all stop getting excited about America mounting pressure on Israel to freeze West Bank settlements. The entire fascination with the topic is a product of Zionist spin. It is there to divert attention from the root cause of the conflict: The robbery of Palestine and Palestinians in the name of a ‘Jewish home coming’. The call to stop Israeli construction in the West Bank is there to leave us with the false impression that the robbery of Palestine started in 1967. The facts are known to many of us, but not to all. The vast majority of Palestinians were expelled from their towns, villages, fields and orchards in 1948.
Sphere: Related Content
Connecting Dots -- Right, Wrong Way
I updated Scaremongering Muslim Interns, Undermining Democracy to make it more forwarding friendly and to address ongoing Islamophobic attempts to link CAIR and Muslim Congressional interns to the Ft. Hood shootings.
What author and pundit Glen Greenwald has described as the "Ft. Hood ... media orgy of rumors, speculation and falsehoods" has at least temporarily covered up the probably more significant story of the attack on Muslim congressional interns and CAIR by four congressmen and David Gaubatz, who co-authored the Muslim Mafia with fellow Islamophobe and Hoover Media Institute fellow Paul Sperry.
In a recent Front Page Magazine Interview by Jamie Glazov, Gaubatz explicitly linked CAIR with the Ft. Hood Massacre:
Expect more. Israel has endured ‘suicide/attacks’ similar to this for many years. Malik Nabal Hasan is a terrorist supporting the ideology of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and yes, CAIR. In Palestine, the leaders send out the young and vulnerable to carry out the murders in the name of Islam. The same is happening in America.
Gaubatz is using a big lie to cover a more subtle insinuation.
In the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the incident most similar to Ft. Hood albeit with some significant differences is the February 24, 1994 Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre in which fanatic Jewish-American West Bank settler IDF Major Dr. Baruch Goldstein slaughtered 39-52 Palestinians during a prayer service.
Gaubatz intends for the false connection of Israel with America to create receptivity to an implicit linkage of CAIR with al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah organizations.
In the Neocon Zionist propaganda of the War on Terror, Hamas and Hezbollah are murderous anti-Israel anti-American terrorist organiztions while al-Qaeda is a vast international jihadist organization at war with the West. The Muslim Mafia, which Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Paul Broun (R-GA), and Trent Franks (R-AZ) publicly endorsed in a Capitol Hill press conference on Oct. 14, extends the mythology to accuse CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) of espionage and of subversive jihad against the USA.
In reality, CAIR is a legitimate 501(c)(3) educational organization with missions of defending the right of American Muslims to practice Islam and of educating American non-Muslims about Islam in order to improve Muslim-non-Muslim relations.
On the basis of The Muslim Mafia, the four Congressmen, whose main support comes from Christian Zionists and the Israel Lobby, accused CAIR of a sinister strategic plan to place Muslim interns into Congressional offices to spy on Congressmen.
The claim is an Islamophobic delusion. CAIR’s strategic plan differed little from those of other educational advocacy and lobby groups including those which are pro-Israel.
When organizations like CAIR serve their constituencies by putting their own people on Capitol Hill so that the voice of their constituency can be heard more clearly, they help the American government serve the American public better.
The Israel Lobby version of this practice is different. AIPAC runs non-partisan institutes throughout the American college and university system explicitly to recruit interns to spy on congressman as an AIPAC recruiter explicitly told a Harvard Kennedy School audience of which I was a member in January 2003.
When Zionist interns acting as spies report back to AIPAC on deviation from pro-Israel orthodoxy, AIPAC -- in a poisoning of the American political process -- springs into action either to intimidate the offending congressman into conformity or to target him for political destruction.
Exactly for whom the four congressmen believed Muslim interns were spying was never particularly clear, and they implied that an American Muslim organization became the equivalent of the most paranoid conceptualization of al-Qaida simply by attempting to educate congressmen about American Muslim interests and issues.
Even if a Muslim intern reported back to CAIR, what could CAIR possibly do? CAIR's effective resources are at least two orders of magnitude less than those of AIPAC.
Because Gaubatz has long been an operative in the Israel Lobby, his perception of CAIR’s activities looks like a form of psychological projection of own activities.
Glen Greenwald has pointed out that Gaubatz has been a major supplier of Neocon disinformatsia, for he is the sole source of delusional right-wing claims that Saddam had WMDs and shipped them out of the country during the disorder of the collapse of Baathist Iraq -- something that George W. Bush does not even believe.
Until recently Gaubatz was closely connected with the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), where he headed the Mapping Sharia project. Here is the project definition:
It is our task to conduct an extensive mapping of all the Islamic day schools, mosques, and other identifiable organizations in the US and to determine which ones teach or preach Islamic law, Sharia
This investigation will also map the leadership of these Muslim organizations and their other affiliations. We will also attempt to uncover any related businesses used or run by the organizations as fronts for money laundering and other illicit activities.
Finally, we will examine and map any potential targets situated near these organizations, such as city, county, and federal government buildings, schools and universities, US military installations, major utility or infrastructure sites (i.e., nuclear installations, pipelines, water supply, etc.), and transportation hubs.
A vigilante effort entailing only invasion of privacy, harassment, and intimidation was not Islamophobic enough for Gaubatz:
I have resigned (effective 15 Mar 2009) as the Director of SANE's Mapping Sharia Project. The Mapping Project is vital as long term U.S. policy and as an educational tool for the American public and law enforcement, but I want to utilize my skills and time ensuring our elected officials implement legal action now against Islamic scholars and their organizations who advocate the destruction of America, as Ahmadinejad (Iranian President) has often stated is what our friends in Israel will face.
Based on hundreds of visits throughout the U.S. to Islamic Centers conducting first-hand research, our country faces a 'grave' national security danger by many Saudi and Pakistani trained Islamic scholars advocating the destruction of America. We have innocent Muslim children throughout America being taught to hate the U.S., our U.S. Constitution, our law enforcement and our military personnel. I do not believe our country has 'years' to wait for policy change within our government. If our leaders do not understand by now, it is highly unlikely they will 'catch on' anytime soon. I will help them. How?
I will conduct CT research in selected cities. The research will be very basic and a type anyone could conduct if they knew who distributes and what violent materials to look for at Islamic Centers for the Muslim children to study (again all children are innocent, it is adults who teach them). I will then focus on the selected city to do everything I can legally (working with local law enforcement) complete investigations are conducted on Islamic leaders advocating the overthrow of our country.
During the research in selected cities I will obtain evidence even an attorney directly out of law school could understand is a criminal offense being committed by Islamic leaders and a danger to the children being taught to kill innocent people.
I ask any U.S. prosecutor (state or federal) this basic question:
"If leaders of a local Baptist church were teaching their worshippers to overthrow (treason and sedition) the U.S. Government and to kill anyone who does not adhere to their beliefs, would you(Prosecutor)seek charges against the person or group? If 'YES' then you owe it to the American people of all races, religions, and cultures to do the same at Islamic Centers.
If you answered 'No', then our country has little chance of defending ourselves from Islamic Jihadists. Respectfully, Dave G.
SANE has proposed arresting Muslims for voluntarily observing of Sharia:
"Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the U.S. Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the U.S. Constitution and the imposition of Shari'a on the American People...It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam." (The last reference to "adherence to Islam" was changed to "adherence to Shari'a" in the final version.)
Like Gaubatz SANE’s founder David Yerushalmi has been active in efforts to prevent Muslims from serving as US government officials. Until CAIR outed his racist and anti-democratic political views, Yerushalmi was a leading activist in Stop the Madrassa, which mobbed-and-smeared Debby Almontaser until she resigned from her position as designated principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA).
Yerushalmi's Stop The Madrassa activities connect him with Daniel Pipes, who scare-mongers the legal Islamist threat and who is fairly closely connected with European Islamophobes like Geert Wilders, Danish Ukrainian Jewish anti-Muslim activist Flemming Rose, and Danish Islamophobe Lars Hedegaard. In addition Yerushalmi has also claimed to serve as attorney for Frank Gaffney, Alex Alexiev and Martyn Burke, the producers of the controversial PBS documentary "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center."
Obviously, people like Gaubatz, Yerushalmi, and Pipes are busy little bees flying all over the place.
Who funds them?
The biography of Yerushalmi on the website of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in Jerusalem provides some information on the money connection:
From the Institute's founding, Yerushalmi took a leading role as a substantial financial contributor, in addition to serving on the Board of Trustees for over a decade and as Chairman for more than five years. In 1991, teaming up with the Institute's policy experts, Yerushalmi was instrumental in establishing the Israel Export Development Co., Ltd., as an entrepreneurial policy tool to initiate radical free market reforms in Israel. Working along side fellow board members and shareholders such as Robert Tishman, Jerry Speyer, Larry Silverstein, Lawrence Tisch, Eugene Grant and Sy Syms, Yerushalmi was appointed the company's CEO and Chairman.
IASPS commissioned leading Neocons to produce A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. When many of these Neocons became senior policy makers in the Bush administration, this document became the blueprint for Bush administration ME policy.
The pattern of stigmatization, marginalization, demonization, and punishment of Muslims and of anyone that does not kowtow to hyper-wealthy Zionists is unmistakable. If extreme Israel advocates succeed in the stigmatization of Muslim interns, yet another category of government jobs will in effect be reserved only to Israel Lobby approved candidates in a gradual process that constitutes a slow-speed coup killing American democracy and putting ultimate control of the US government into the hands of the hyper-wealthy Zionists that fund the Israel Lobby.
If people like Gaubatz, his congressional supporters, his Zionist friends and his Zionist funders have their way, not only will the ongoing political prosecutions of Muslim American leaders expand to include practically all Muslims, but the hyper-wealthy Zionist plutocracy directed by the Zionist intelligentsia will also have veto power over anyone seeking to serve in the US government, and the American way of life will be dead.
Once Zionists have a complete lock on the US government non-American Arabs and Muslims throughout the world will doubtlessly receive even worse treatment than Arab and Muslim American citizens.
Figure 1 PHOTO: Madoff at Yeshiva University's (YU) 79th Hanukkah dinner,. From the left: Bernard L. Madoff, YU's treasurer and chairman, Syms School; Sy Syms, vice chairman, Board of Trustees; and Josh S. Weston, chairman of Boys Town Jerusalem foundation. It should be noted that Sy Syms has long been a director of the Israel Discount Bank, a scandal plagued Israeli bank based in Tel Aviv.
IDF Service == Aiding, Abetting Terrorism
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Probable Jewish Extraction -- Hijab Killer
Current German law treats both Russian Germans and Russian Jews as Träger deutscher Kultur (bearers of German culture).
Perm hosted Russian, Russian German, Russian Jewish, and Bashkir Muslim populations. Historically, these groups have had relatively good relations, and there has been a good deal of intermarriage since the 19th century, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lubavitchers with ties to extremist racist Lubavitcher settler Rabbi Volpe have taken over Jewish education in Perm.
Is Alex possibly the end product of Lubavitcher education? Did he start calling himself Axel in order to fit in with German racists, who shared his values?
On the whole Israeli Jews are intensely racist, but Russian Jews are first among racists in Israel and have also brought their racism to the USA (especially here in Boston).
Kimmelman should have investigated whether Alex W. is a Russian Jew and part of the same phenomenon that has expressed itself in the Yisrael Beitenu party headed by Avigdor Lieberman.
The murder of al-Sherbini might serve as a warning of the Russian Jewish threat both to American Muslims and also to Americans in general.
Is the New York Times involved in yet another cover up of Jewish murderousness?
Coming from Perm with a name like Alexander Wiens, the killer has at least an 80% chance to be of Jewish extraction.
Page last updated at 18:11 GMT, Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Thousands attended Marwa Sherbini's funeral in EgyptA man has been sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of murdering a pregnant Egyptian woman in a German courtroom.
The Dresden state court also ruled that Alexander Wiens would not be eligible for early release.
Wiens, 28, admitted stabbing Marwa Sherbini to death at a court hearing involving them both in July.
The crime sparked outrage across the Muslim world. Egypt said justice had been served with the sentence.
Wiens, a Russian-born German citizen, had argued his action was not premeditated.
But prosecutors at the trial, which took place amid tight security, insisted he was motivated by a "hatred of non-Europeans and Muslims".
'Martyr of the hijab'
The case began with an argument in a playground in 2008.
Ms Sherbini, a pharmacist, is said to have asked Wiens to let her child use a playground swing he was sitting on. He refused and instead called her abusive names.
ANALYSIS
By Yolande Knell, BBC News, CairoThere were alerts on Egyptian state television as news of the verdict broke.
This trial has been extensively covered in the media and many Egyptian journalists travelled to Dresden.
Members of Marwa Sherbini's family and Egyptian lawyers - including a legal team provided by the Egyptian foreign ministry - were also in court.
The case shocked Egyptians and there was outrage at what was seen as the slow response of the German authorities to deal with claims of Islamophobia and to offer condolences.
In July, thousands turned out for the funeral of Ms Sherbini in Alexandria, her home city.
There were small protests afterwards outside the German embassy and in the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo.
Tensions remained during the trial - causing a Dresden orchestra to postpone planned performances in Egypt.She later took the defendant to court and he was fined 780 euros ($1,170; £718) for defamation.
But when Wiens returned to the courtroom for an appeal hearing on 1 July this year, prosecutors say he smuggled in an 18cm (7in) kitchen knife and stabbed Ms Sherbini at least 16 times with it.
The 31-year-old, who was three months pregnant with her second child, bled to death in front of her husband and their three-year-old son.
Her husband was himself stabbed as he tried to protect his wife, and also accidentally shot in the leg by a security guard who initially believed him to be the attacker.
Wiens was also found guilty of attempted murder and causing bodily harm for this attack.
Egyptian Ambassador Ramzi Izz al-Din told reporters outside court that "justice has been honoured".
He said: "Getting the maximum possible sentence, I think that itself says a lot."
Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said in a statement quoted by AFP news agency: "The verdict, the maximum punishment under German law, serves justice and is considered a warning to those motivated by hate."
Many Muslim leaders had accused Germany of Islamophobia following the killing.
They said the country, which has the second-biggest Muslim population in Western Europe, had been too slow to condemn it.
Ms Sherbini, who wore a headscarf, was dubbed "the martyr of the hijab".
Thousands attended her funeral in Egypt, some chanting "Death to Germany", and there were also mass protests in Iran.
On Wednesday, outside the courtroom, about 200 people staged a demonstration calling for the German government to do more to counter racism, particularly on the internet.
[Jihadica] Forums on Fort Hood
Forums on Fort Hood
EditorsNovember 11th, 2009 USA
- Compared to the English-language jihadi forums, there is little discussion of the Ft. Hood attacks on the top-tier Arabic jihadi forums. When there is comment, it is driven by U.S. press reports.
- On Faloja, no one believes there are direct ties between the attacker and al-Qaida. It was either an individual act of conscience brought on by Muslim suffering or someone who had been ideologically influenced by AQ.
- Posters on Shumukh agree. If AQ were behind the attack, it would have been more spectacular. Other posters posit more individual attacks as American troops tire of the war.
- Anwar al-Awlaki, the cleric with whom Hasan had some contact, is not well known on the Arabic forums. For example, this reference to him relies on U.S. reporting and his English-language sermons. However, he is a very big deal in the English-language jihadisphere. Awlaki’s blog is part of the same cluster of blogs that includes Ignored Puzzle Pieces of Knowledge and Iskandari, whose author, Tarek Mehanna, was arrested by U.S. authorities several weeks ago.
[Propaganda Lalaland] Protesting Bibi
by Julia
Islamophobia: the Zionism of Fools
I spoke on Radio Free Mississippi on Monday.
Jim Giles puts on interesting interviews (and has a great radio voice) and certainly is not a dumb Southerner despite his tendency toward self-deprecation.
| | 99.999% of World Jewry are 'Genocidal' Interview Date: 11/09/2009 |
|
Joachim Martillo, Pro-America, Pro-Palestine, Anti-Israel, blogs here, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, (This website and the associated organization of the same name have the mission of providing Jews and non-Jews with the intellectual tools to stand up to Zionist intimidation and manipulation.) |
Universal Jewish "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free" Card
In college I researched a controversy over kosher slaughtering in 19th century Saxony. Except that one set of articles was in German and the other in English I could have been reading the same story. Sphere: Related Content
[wvns] Iran: Israel out to sidetrack UN with ship claim
![]() |
Former war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone |
"We strongly reject such claims. Israel has made this accusation to distract the international community's attention away from the investigating committee's report on atrocities it committed in Gaza," Iran's UN mission said in a statement.
On Wednesday, Israel alleged that it had seized a huge cache of weapons when raiding an Antigua-flagged vessel around 100 nautical miles from its shores.
Tel Aviv said the "hundreds of kilograms of Iranian-made arms" were destined either for Hezbollah or Syria, a claim that quickly drew rejections from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said that contrary to Israel's claims, "the ship was not carrying Iranian-made weaponry for Syria or Lebanon", but was in fact carrying Syrian-made items for consumption in Iran.
As the UN general assembly was busy reviewing the Goldstone report, Israel's UN mission submitted a letter to the Security Council accusing Iran of violating Resolution 1701, which was issued to stop Tel Aviv's 2006 offensive against Lebanon.
Iran's responded to the allegation by reminding the Zionist regime that Tel Aviv has breached "not one but several" UN Security Council resolutions, including that very same motion.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
[wvns] Today's Ancient Warfare: Facts vs. Beliefs
Today's Ancient Warfare: Facts vs. Beliefs

By Jeff Gates *
In unconventional warfare, manipulated beliefs are used to displace inconvenient facts. When waging war by way of deception, false beliefs are an oft-deployed weapon.
Recall Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? Iraqi meetings in Prague with Al Qaeda? Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger?
All these claims were reported as true. All were later proven false or, worse, fabricated. Yet all were widely believed. Only the yellowcake uranium was conceded as bogus before the invasion of Iraq. As the U.S. crafted its response to the provocation of a mass murder on U.S. soil, those widely shared beliefs shaped a consensus to wage war on a nation that had no hand in it.
A similar deception-traceable to the same source-is now working to expand this war to Iran. Based on fast-emerging events, the next conflict could include Pakistan.
The modern battlefield has shifted. Ground warfare is now secondary. Likewise air strikes, combat troops, naval support and even covert operations. Those physical operations are all downstream of information operations. Manipulated beliefs come first. Psyops precede bombs and bullets. Hardware ranks a distant third.
First and foremost are the consensus shapers and thought manipulators who target perceptions and opinions until a critical mass of agreement is reached. Then comes war. Those skilled at such duplicity induced coalition troops to war in Iraq. Knowledge was their target. Manipulate thought and all else was downstream.
Unconventional warfare is waged "upstream" with the assistance of those with the means, motive and opportunity to massage consensus opinion. Where are modern-day battles fought? Not on the ground nor in the air nor on the seas.
The mindset is the primary theater of operations. The first battlefield is the public's shared field of consciousness. The death and destruction come later.
Deceit is not new to warfare. What's new is the reach of the technologies-including modern media technologies-that now enable deception on a global scale.
Military action remains subordinate to politics. Politics, in turn, are subordinate to those skilled at inducing consensus beliefs. Regardless whether command is civilian or military, decision-making is no better than the information on which decisions depend. That's why the Israel lobby has long targeted U.S. lawmakers as a strategic force-multiplier by the Israel lobby. [See: "How Israel Controls U.S." http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=124829&d=24&m=7&y=2009]
With lawmaking dependent on information, those skilled at the manipulation of knowledge can operate atop the chain of command. As a system of law reliant on informed choice, democracy can be dislodged in plain sight by those skilled at inducing a shared mindset-a consensus-by manipulating thought, belief and emotion.
Thus the strategic motivation for media dominance by the Masters of Deceit in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., Germany, India and other key nations that comprise the "coalition of the willing" induced to invade Iraq. Overlay media ownership with member states of this coalition and a common undisclosed bias becomes apparent.
When coordinated across four key areas, such "Information Operations" can displace informed decision-making with an undisclosed agenda. In retrospect, that systemic duplicity explains how the U.S. was deceived to lead this coalition to war in the Middle East. Here's a brief look at each area: geopolitical, strategic, operational and tactical.
Duplicity in Plain Sight
The geopolitical realm is where the "framing" of future conflicts often first emerges. The Clash of Civilizations appeared in 1993 as an article in Foreign Affairs. When this premise was published as a book in 1996, more than 100 non-governmental organizations were prepared to promote its thematic conflict-of-opposites.
That agreed-to consensus facilitated the seamless transition from the Cold War to a perpetual Global War on Terrorism. Thus the fate of the post-Cold War "peace dividend."
This widely shared mindset emerged just as A Clean Break appeared in print with its proposal for removing Saddam Hussein as part of a Colonial Zionist strategy for "securing the realm"-an expanded Greater Israel. Richard Perle, then a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, led the All-Ashkenazi team who prepared that 1996 report for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In 2001, Perle became chairman of the Pentagon's policy board. Strategically, that's a good example of working "upstream" to frame U.S national security issues around a preset agenda-for a foreign nation. Perle left the Board in February 2004 after 17 years of wielding insider influence. When your numbers are small but your ambitions large, what choice do you have but to wage war by way of deception?
Strategically, to evoke a new global war required a plausible Evil Doer linked to a credible provocation. The branding of the Taliban did not emerge in the "field" until March 2001 with their destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan. Widely portrayed in mainstream media as a "cultural Holocaust," that high-profile deed put Afghanistan's previously obscure Taliban on a global Top-Ten list as certifiably evil.
The missing piece in marketing The Clash premise: the mass murder of September 11, 2001. Strongly provoked emotions, as with 9-11, facilitate the displacement of facts with what a targeted mindset can be induced to believe. That process was enhanced by the presence of a pre-staged Evil Doer and pre-staged intelligence that was flawed, false or outright fixed-but nevertheless widely reported as fact by mainstream media.
The capacity to succeed with such an operation is enhanced by the combined presence of: (a) evocation (images of religious extremism), (b) provocation (a mass murder), (c) association (a Doer of Evil), and (d) manipulation-as mainstream media parroted phony intelligence with virtually no investigative journalism.
This psyops campaign was facilitated by plausibly credible political leaders who dutifully read their lines from fear-evoking scripts written by this same insider network of agenda-shapers. That emotional manipulation included not only the "Axis of Evil" framing but also a widely broadcast WMD sound bite: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Mainstream media even reported as credible false accounts of "high-level links" between the secular Iraqi government and the religious fundamentalists of Al Qaeda. Yet anyone familiar with the region knew they despised each other. Truth was not the point. Nor facts. Informed consent was only an obstacle to overcome.
Deception on such a scale required a capacity to sustain a veneer of plausibility and credibility – i.e., believability. Thus the critical role played by mainstream media.
The Power of Association
When waging war on the public's shared mindset, the power of association is one of the most effective weapons. Thus the potent imagery of the peaceful Buddhas at Bamiyan when associated with destruction, violence and religious extremism.
Thus the ease with which evil doing Al Qaeda extremists were associated in the American mindset with the Taliban – and the evil of 9-11 with known Evil Doer Saddam Hussein even though the intelligence was proven false.
Thus too the associative impact of Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 testimony before the U.N. Security Council. His credibility as a globally recognizable military leader (the Powell "brand") was deployed-as a weapon-to lend the appearance of truth to lies about Iraq's possession of mobile biological weapons.
Akin to showcasing the celebrity endorsement of a consumer product, this testimonial by a trusted military leader was broadcast worldwide in the lead-up to war. Powell was not the only "mark" in this operation. So were the U.N., the U.S. military and a global public. Both aggressor and aggrieved became casualties of this duplicitous "field-based" warfare. Meanwhile the source of this deception once again faded into the background.
Operationally, by the time the U.S. was induced to invade Iraq, 100-plus Israeli Mossad agents had been operating in Mosul for more than a decade. Soon after the invasion, several moderate clerics were murdered. Their elimination enhanced the capacity to provoke a conflict-of-opposites between long-warring Shias and Sunnis.
That conflict-within-a-conflict helped catalyze an insurgency that converted a clash into a quagmire. That result was mathematically model-able by an Israeli cadre of game theory war-planners. [See: "How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare." http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/08/20/how-israel-wages-game-theory-warfare/ ]
As Information Operations proceed at the geopolitical, strategic and operational level, tactical deceit and misdirection provide essential support akin to reserve forces deployed on an as-needed basis. Serial provocations are required to sustain the serial conflicts essential to maintain the faux plausibility of the mega-theme: The Clash.
The recurring use of crises to catalyze and maintain instability should be of immediate concern to Islamabad. A long-standing Indo-Israel alliance may well be coordinating the frequency of violent incidents that continue to strain relationships between nuclear-armed Pakistan and its neighbor Iran.
Reflecting similar tactics, the most recent Israeli assault on Gaza was scheduled between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inauguration of a new U.S. commander-in-chief elected on a platform of hope and a promise of change. The timing of that murderous incursion minimized the capacity to criticize. President-elect Obama said nothing.
Meanwhile this serial agent provocateur set the stage with that assault for another delayed reaction from those brutalized by six decades of occupation. And from those in the broader Muslim community outraged at the U.S. for enabling this behavior.
When that reaction emerges-as it will-Tel Aviv will again assert the moral high ground as a perennial victim living in a hostile anti-Semitic neighborhood. By deploying U.S. weaponry, Israeli aggression will again make Americans appear guilty by association-endangering the U.S. while enhancing the plausibility of the narrative: The Clash of Civilizations.
The uncomfortable truth is that the U.S. is guilty-for continuing to condone this treachery-to its own detriment. Meanwhile the only change is in the presidency with no substantive change in U.S.-Israeli policies. And no hope for those most affected by this duplicity-including both the U.S. military and those it was induced to target.
As critics of Israeli policy in Gaza emerged in academia, the Anti-Defamation League and its international network mounted an intimidation campaign to silence a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. By advertising that campaign widely, the ADL silenced thoughtful academics worldwide. [See: "Treason in Plain Sight?" http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/treason-in-plain-sight/and "Education: The Ultimate Battlefield" http://criminalstate.com/2009/08/education-–-the-ultimate-battlefield/]
By Way of Deception
To succeed, Information Operations require both deceit and denial of access to the facts required for informed consent. How else can anyone explain the enduring perception that Israel is a democracy? Even now, a majority of Americans believe that Israel is an ally despite more than six decades of nonstop deceit, spying, treachery and ongoing treason.
Any observer of recent events in Pakistan should be concerned at the duplicitous history of those who have an "existential" stake in sustaining The Clash storyline. With any semblance of stability, an investigation will confirm that the intelligence fixed to induce the U.S. to war originated with a transnational network of pro-Israeli operatives.
Democracy assumes that all of us collectively are smarter than any of us individually. Thus the need for an educated electorate informed by an unbiased media providing the facts required to reason together.
Thus too the strategic need to dominate mainstream media by those with an undisclosed bias who are skilled at waging war by way of deception. We now see portrayed in that opinion-shaping domain a world turned inside out where the victim is cast as aggressor and the predator as prey.
The facts in the recent Goldstone Report confirm a need to investigate dozens of Israeli war crimes in Gaza as well as crimes against humanity. Instead of following the facts wherever they lead-consistent with the rule of law-on November 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 334-36 in favor of a resolution describing the report as "irredeemably biased" and opposing any further consideration.
That resolution was proposed by Howard Berman, Ashkenazim chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, senior Republican on the panel and also Ashkenazim. Meanwhile Nita Lowey, the Ashkenazim chairwoman of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee warned, by implication, that her colleagues in the Congress would jeopardize funding for their projects if "further consideration" was given to the Goldstone Report.
The House vote came one day before the U.N. General Assembly discussed the report. A day later, on November 5th, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, a Muslim, killed 13 and wounded 42 preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. Within 24 hours, more than 250 media personnel appeared at Fort Hood, the nation's largest military base, to report on the event.
Many of them framed the event as confirming The Clash premise and even the on-base presence of "Islamo-fascism." Suggesting the act of a "home-grown terrorist," Jewish-Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, called for Congressional hearings into whether the U.S. military could have prevented it.
Interviewed in Palestine, the grandfather of U.S.-born and educated psychiatrist Nidal Hasan spoke of his grandson's love of the U.S. and said simply, "America made him what he is." While that comment hardly excuses this conduct, that poignant statement includes a point that Americans find difficult to contemplate. Yet we also found it uncomfortable to consider that the U.S.-Israeli relationship was a key motivation behind 9-11 and other attacks on Americans and American facilities.
The Goldstone Report called for an investigation of facts suggesting criminal conduct both by Israelis and Palestinians. Written by an eminent South African Jewish jurist, Richard Goldstone's daughter conceded that her father's findings would have been far harsher had he not been a Zionist.
Yet even the possibility that unfavorable facts could seep into the "field" required that the Israel lobby unleash its compliant Congressional forces in a litmus test of legislative loyalty-regardless of the facts. Or, indeed, because of the facts. It's difficult to imagine a vote more clearly indicative of how a pro-Israeli bias has corrupted the rule of law.
Other disturbing facts also posed a danger of gaining traction, including a November 5th report that the International Atomic Energy Agency found "nothing to be worried about" in Iran's recently revealed uranium enrichment site. That fact was preemptively displaced from the "field" the day before with reports of a well-timed Israeli boarding of a ship in international waters where weapons were found that were allegedly bound for Iran-supported Hezbollah.
When waging field-based warfare, timing is everything. That's particularly the case when, as here, a belief-manipulating adversary is faced with the greatest danger of its six decade life: facts that conflict with the narrative required to sustain The Clash storyline.
Best Story Wins
With consensus beliefs the upstream target, democracy becomes the downstream casualty. When manipulated beliefs displace facts, the rule of law degenerates into a faith-based parody of self-governance. To protect the informed consent essential to freedom requires that those waging war on the public's shared mindset become transparent so that those complicit can be made apparent.
How old is this form or warfare? Answer: How long has behavior been manipulated with beliefs? How long has faith been deployed to displace facts? The form of warfare is ancient; only the means are modern.
Upstream warfare and strategic deceit are only "unconventional" for the target. For Jewish extremists, such duplicity is business-as-usual.
This analysis describes how warfare is waged in plain sight in the Information Age. Without the complicity of mainstream media, this deceit could not have succeeded on such a scale.
In the Information Age, duplicity is how treason can be taken to scale-in plain view and, to date, with legal impunity-both in the U.S. and in the coalition member nations whose citizens were also targeted by those chronicled in this account.
The common source of this deceit remains little known either to the American public or the people in those nations the U.S. led to war. Here in the U.S., the tattered remnants of our system of informed consent are held hostage by this media-induced duplicity-and by legislators more inclined to protect their personal interests than the national interest.
There lies the strategic role for online media free of conspiracy theories that obscure the analytical clarity required to wage this battle with confidence. What's described here is warfare being waged on knowledge by an enemy within. Liberty faces no greater danger than those targeting its foundation of informed consent.
What has been made of the U.S. due to our "special relationship" with this extremist enclave is not the form of governance to which our civilian and military leaders swore their allegiance. With our civilian leadership compromised by the Israel lobby, to whom do U.S. military leaders owe their allegiance-to this latest in a series of corrupted presidencies or to the people whose freedom they took an oath to protect from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
Despite appearances, it is not America that is at war in the Middle East but Americans loyal to this nation who were sent to war by a foreign government imbedded inside what remains of "our" government.
With trans-generational premeditation, Ashkenazim elites and extremists lured the U.S. into an entangled alliance in order to manipulate Americans to wage their expansionist wars and to secure their "realm." Only as the common source of this treason became transparent could those complicit now be held accountable.
For Americans to restore the fact-based rule of law requires sustained pressure from abroad. Our true allies will hold us accountable for what we allowed these extremists to do in our name. As the how of this treason becomes transparent, we Americans will see as our true enemies those who enabled this duplicity-to our long-term detriment. The best way to befriend us is to hold us true to the values we espouse.
* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide; an adviser to policy-makers worldwide; former counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee; and author of numerous articles and books including his latest book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com
[wvns] My Problem with J Street
As readers of Antiwar.com certainly are aware, J Street was created a year and a half ago to serve as an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). J Street supports creation of a viable Palestinian state that would exist side-by-side in peace with Israel. Unlike AIPAC, J Street advocates first negotiating issues rather than dropping bombs and it rejects the view that American Jews should close ranks and reflexively and unconditionally support every government in Israel. J Street targets liberal minded American Jews who are troubled by the Israel Lobby’s right wing-Likud orientation. It promotes itself as pro-Israel, pro-American, and pro-peace, maintaining that it is possible to support Israel without having to endorse all Israeli government actions. It has recently concluded its first Washington conference which attracted a smattering of politicians. General James Jones, President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, was a featured speaker.
J Street has come under attack from the usual suspects, to include the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and assorted individual neocons. Because of the attacks, there has been a "my enemy’s enemy" response and a number of opponents of AIPAC and the neocons have rallied to J Street, in some cases purely because the neocon onslaught suggests that J Street must be a good thing. Some defenders of J Street have pointed out that it is more moderate than AIPAC and therefore must be considered a better lobbying option even if it sometimes has to embrace compromise policies that are imperfect. Others have argued that even when it has to take certain positions tactically it still represents the best hope for a peaceful future in the Middle East.
I have to disagree. I believe that J Street is just another Israel advocacy group with a slightly more progressive and politically correct and therefore acceptable message. J Street wants carte blanche United States support for Israel and, indeed, it might reasonably be described as little more than a spin-off of the existing Israel Lobby to make it more palatable to the liberal Democrats that make up the Obama Administration. It is one more voice pushing the same old agenda with slightly different window dressing. This is not to suggest that AIPAC and J Street are actually acting in collusion but the two pro-Israel lobbies clearly have the same overriding objective: to preserve unlimited American support for the state of Israel, not advancing the interests of the United States except insofar as one assumes erroneously that Tel Aviv’s and Washington’s interests are identical. J Street calls continued massive US military aid to Israel "an absolutely essential aspect of Israel’s security." If it is difficult to perceive any pro-American element to the J Street program it is because it is not about the United States at all – it is about Israel. J Street believes Washington should continue indefinitely in its role as Israel’s patron, security guarantor, and financial supporter.
On many of the specific issues, J Street is AIPAC lite. It accepts an Israeli state based on religion, not on equal rights for all citizens, specifically supporting the apartheid-like right of any Jew to "return" without affording similar rights to Christians or Muslims who resided in Palestine before 1948. Its Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami calls a one-state solution to Israel/Palestine with all citizens having the same rights a "nightmare."
In a recent interview he praised AIPAC and outlined his vision for a continuing American-Israeli special relationship saying, "for instance, the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the essential security guarantee that the U.S. provides, the notion that Israel should always have a qualitative military edge — those are things that have been achieved by lobbying, by what some people would call the ‘Israel lobby.’ J Street is very happy with these achievements, and we support those ends, and we respect and admire much of what groups like AIPAC and others have done over the years."
Ben-Ami also commented on the Mearsheimer-Walt book on the Israel Lobby, saying "I don’t like what Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have written in their book and in their articles. I don’t agree with Stephen Walt." He criticizes their scholarship and labels them as anti-Semites, claiming that the book "essentially says that all of American foreign policy is controlled by this one lobby and this one interest group, to me, personally, this does smack of the kind of conspiracy theories contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Ben-Ami has also recently released a statement on Iran in an apparent attempt to confirm to skeptical would be supporters that J Street is willing to get tough with the Mullahs.
"J Street supports the thoughtful and nuanced approach to Iran sanctions legislation articulated yesterday by Chairman Howard Berman. We agree that it is a vital interest of the United States, Israel and the entire Middle East to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Further, we agree with the Chairman’s stated policy preferences for achieving that objective. J Street’s first choice — as it is for President Obama and Chairman Berman — is to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomatic means. We, too, strongly support the Obama Administration’s efforts to engage Iran and hope for promising follow-through to the first round of talks held in Geneva on October 1. However, should engagement not produce the desired results, we too believe that the United States should seek hard-hitting multilateral sanctions through the United Nations Security Council. If that course of action proves impossible, then the U.S. should work to build the broadest possible international coalition to back such steps. The imposition of unilateral sanctions, without UN approval or the support of allies, should be, as the Chairman himself says, a last resort. J Street supports the Chairman’s intention to mark up the bill on October 28th and to give the President further time to pursue our preferred options. As we have said before, J Street does not oppose the imposition of sanctions per se. We prefer, as do Chairman Berman and President Obama, attempting to achieve the desired result through diplomatic engagement and multilateral action."
Describing Congressman Howard Berman as "thoughtful and nuanced" regarding Iran is, to say the least, generous and many have noted that his House bill is basically an act of war requiring intervention by the US Navy and would devastate the Iranian economy. His bill has 327 co-sponsors and was marked up yesterday in committee so that it can move to a vote in the full house. Supporting "hard-hitting multilateral sanctions" will only end any hopes for a negotiated solution and will strengthen Iranian hardliners, as J Street well knows. There is in fact little practical difference between J Street’s position and that of AIPAC. J Street even supports denying Iran the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, which is basically the Israeli government position, not that of the US.
Ben-Ami does not accept the UN’s Goldstone report that detailed the Israeli war crimes committed in Gaza in January, saying he is against embracing "the Goldstone report and for standing up for the right of Israel to defend itself or for its military aid." He publicly praised President Obama for rejecting the report’s carefully arrived-at conclusions. J Street’s nuanced criticism of the brutal Israeli invasion of Gaza also deserves to be quoted in full because it ignores the murder of 300 Palestinian children by the Israeli Defense Forces and only differs from AIPAC’s position in tone:
"Throughout the recent Gaza crisis, J Street consistently called for strong American and international leadership to reach a cease-fire that ended all military operations, stopped the rockets aimed at Israel, instituted an effective mechanism to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza to re-arm Hamas, and lifted the blockade of Gaza. While the military response by the Israeli Defense Forces may be understood and even justified in the wake of Hamas rocket attacks, we believe that a military response that is disproportionate and escalatory will ultimately prove counterproductive, igniting further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and stability for Israel, the Palestinians, and the whole region. Obviously Israel has the right to employ military force to defend its citizens and interests. The right question to ask, however, is not whether Israel has that right, but whether the specific actions taken by Israel in Gaza actually serve Israel’s legitimate long-term security interests and America’s best interests. In this case, J Street believes they may well not."
There are other examples of allegedly moderate J Street positions actually veering sharply to the right. A J Street sponsored event in mid September featured retired Israeli Major General Danny Rothschild. The general was being introduced around Washington where he openly advocated a two-state solution with the Palestinians because of his belief that it is the best solution for Israel. But he also reiterated standard Israeli talking points about "Islamofascism" and Iran, i.e. that there is no use talking to those people and that Iran intends to develop a nuclear weapon and has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. He claimed, wrongly, that Tehran is rapidly building up its armed forces and advocated a military solution to the Iran problem. One attendee commented afterwards that Rothschild sounded like an Israeli version of Republican Senator John McCain.
J Street might well be sincere in its efforts and if they help bring about something equating to a peace settlement in the Middle East, I wish them success. But it appears to me that J Street’s positions are just a variation on the usual Israel-first policies that have been dominant in Washington for so long. Since its founding, J Street has been drifting closer to the Israeli government positions that it once seemed to criticize and, since I am naturally cynical, I might wonder if that was the intention right from the beginning. One might well question in any event why there should exist a lobby operating in Washington consisting of American citizens promoting the interests of a foreign country — but we live in strange times. The founding fathers might have considered such a schizophrenic world view inappropriate for ostensibly loyal American citizens, a view that I share.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
- A Manifesto for X Street – November 4th, 2009
- The Emperor’s Ear – October 21st, 2009
- Obama at a Crossroads – October 14th, 2009
- Epitaph on Empire – October 7th, 2009
- WMD All Over Again – September 30th, 2009
[wvns] A man humiliated
Financial Times Editorial
November 8 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Step By Step Neocon Return
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 09:11 AM PST From Tamara Cofman Wittes |
This will be my last post on MESH for the foreseeable future. On Monday I will take up new responsibilities that will take me away from the wonderful discussion that unfolds on this page. I’ll be serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, with specific policy responsibilities that include democracy and human rights (and, yes, the Middle East Partnership Initiative) along with public diplomacy.
MESH has done what some thought impossible: built a successful and well-read group blog on Middle East affairs, one that produces a sustained, relatively unpoliticized, thoughtful, and empirically grounded discussion among academics and policy analysts on the politics of the contemporary Middle East. I’ll admit that, at the start, I was skeptical about the project Stephen Peter Rosen and Martin Kramer proposed—but they convinced me to give it a try, and they, along with my excellent colleagues on this blog, have built a rich conversation that brings together multiple perspectives and disciplines in a way that is always fresh, and very often truly enlightening, even for experts in many regional policy topics. I have learned a lot here, and for that I am grateful to Stephen, Martin, and all my smart and dedicated fellow MESH members.
The associated paper series, conferences, and other activities have built on the value of this unique forum and demonstrated the payoff from continued dialogue between the ivory tower and those inside the Beltway over Middle East policy. That’s a lesson I’ll certainly bring with me into the State Department, and I look forward to reading and learning from my MESH colleagues in the months and years to come.
[American Lamentations] America's murderous double standards
The finance industry today in many ways parallels the situation in the Soviet government after Stalin's purges.
Despite the common wisdom, the post-purge Soviet government was more and not less Jewish probably because of the operation of corrupt Jewish social networks within the Soviet bureaucracy and Communist Party.
When several young men attacked an American high school in Columbine Colorado years ago, killing many of their own class mates in a brutal massacre, the media acted in a way that at least appeared responsible. It distracted us from our natural desire to know more about the killers, and to hate them. The media did not dwell upon their religious beliefs or their cultural roots. In respect to the Columbine killings, the media kept our attention focused on the horror of the event, and how bullying and persecution of people can lead to tragic outcomes, like what happened at Columbine.
Very little main street media attention was given to the fact that the Columbine killers had trained, like young men on a mission, seeking proficiency in how to kill human beings with different types of weapons. They even recorded their preparation, and rehearsals as if they wanted to leave a how to book for other tormented souls supposedly seeking revenge against classroom bullies, while spitting into the face of society by killing our children in a coldly calculated, yet gruesome way, then committing suicide, denying society its right to choose to either take revenge or to forgive. The killers judged themselves and executed themselves, leaving the country to wonder who the real victims were, and then to conclude that we were all victims of a tragic set of events that seemingly began with hurt feelings and humiliation based upon a high school social hierarchy that is welcoming only to certain people, and extremely cruel to others.
It was not until several reporters published interviews they conducted with witnesses and parents of surviving victims, that we learned that the there was perhaps more to the Columbine story than what met the eye. As it turned out, the killers did indeed seem to have an ideology and a purpose. As more was learned about the killers, it also seemed that the meaning went far beyond how hatred, powerlessness and resentment can boil over into violent rage. As time passed we learned that the meaning of Columbine perhaps reached back into the religious culture of the killers, a religious culture whose primary feature is the mythical “chosen” status of its adherents, and the supposed gross inferiority, in fact inhumanness of all others.
The victim’s parents, survivors and witnesses told a different story of Columbine than the media. They told a story of heavily armed young men who stalked the halls of the school like mercenaries, questioning victims about their religious beliefs before killing them. One of the survivors said one of the Columbine killers walked up to her and asked “Do you believe in Jesus?” and when she answered “yes,” he shot her. Others said they also heard victims being asked before they were killed, if they believed in Jesus.
From the media we learned that the perpetrators were troubled youths who were victims of bulling and persecution. The media explained to us that these were young people who had perhaps been forced to the fringes of society because of the way they dressed, their choice of music or poor social skills. Listening to the media, it was obvious that its controllers wanted us to feel that in some way, we were as guilty as the perpetrators because we had not as a society acted to end bullying and to address the hazing that is all too common as rights of initiation among our young people, and especially in our high schools. It is also clear that the media did not want us to know that the Columbine murderers were Jewish teenagers who killed non Jews because they believed in Jesus.
Several days ago, an army officer and soldier of the Muslim faith was blamed with carrying out a massacre on a Texas military base. It was a massacre that left 13 American soldiers dead, and 30 injured, some with life threatening injuries. In stark contrast to how the media treated the Columbine story, this event was immediately given a meaning. The media wanted us to know that the alleged perpetrator is Palestinian, that he is Arab and that he is supposedly a devout Muslim. This information was the first and only information that was revealed about the accused shooter, aside from the fact that he was a psychiatrist, and that he was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Immediately following the initial reporting of the incident itself, we were told that the perpetrator was killed and that two other suspects had been detained for questioning. After the FBI arrived, we learned that in fact the alleged perpetrator is still alive, after hours of being mistakenly dead, and that he is Arab, and Muslim. We also learned that the other suspects had been questioned and released, prior to an investigation. Was the real shooter killed, and an Arab and Muslim scapegoat, or rather sacrificial lamb, put in his place?
For hours following the supposed death and later the hospitalization of the alleged Fort Hood perpetrator, the media was saturated with anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic innuendo that while careful not to be too obvious, made it very clear that the media wants us to understand that the meaning of the event is that Islam is a violent ideology that leads its adherents over the top to the commission of violent acts against non Muslims, which is a lie. The tragic incident was also used to make the point that President Obama must send more troops into Afghanistan, that the Patriot Act is still necessary, that it is right for the FBI to send informants to poison the spiritual environment in the mosques, and to entrap young Muslim men into suspected FBI schemes aimed at creating and sustaining fear of Muslims and Islam, and that it was right to kill Imam Luqman. These were all issues our country was



Wednesday, November 11, 2009

