War Without End

Guest

Just saw the following posts about Blair on the "Wake Up America: Your Government is Hijacked by Zionism" message thread which appears nears the top of the Israel message board via the following URL (is this the reason why he is "poodling" with the JINSA Zionist extremist Bush regime of Perle and Wolfowitz?):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/index.php

http://www.iansa.org/news/2002/Jan2002/blair_sharon14102.htm

http://www.iansa.org/news/2002/Jan2002/blair_sharon14102.htm

Blair's Disguised Support For Sharon
And The Zionist Project

By John Pilger

Tony Blair's heroic peacemaking is not as it seems. Take the Middle East. When Blair welcomed Yasser Arafat to Downing Street following 11 September, it was widely reported that Britain was backing justice for the Palestinians. Editorialists drew a favourable comparison with the bellicose Bush administration. Indeed, the promotion of Blair as the steadying influence on Washington has been the main theme of Downing Street spin during the "war on terrorism"... The falsehood of his moderation is exemplified by his betrayal of the Palestinians.

The meeting with Arafat was no more than a public relations exercise designed to placate the Arab world. It served to disguise Blair's support for the Zionist project and his role as Ariel Sharon's closest ally in Europe.

Little of this has been reported in the mainstream media. Shortly after his election in 1997, Blair shamelessly appointed a friend, Michael Levy, a wealthy Jewish businessman who had fundraised for new Labour, as his "special envoy" in the Middle East, having first made him Lord Levy. This former chairman of the Jewish Appeal Board and former board member of the Jewish Agency, who has both a business and a house in Israel and had a son working for the Israeli justice minister, was the man assigned by Britain's Prime Minister to negotiate impartially with Palestinians and Israelis.

Under Blair, British support for Israeli repression has accelerated. Last year alone, the government approved 91 arms export licences to Israel, in categories that included ammunition, bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles, combat vessels, military electronic and imaging equipment and armoured vehicles. In answer to questions from George Galloway MP, the Foreign Office minister Ben Bradshaw said there was "no evidence" that British arms and equipment had been used against the Palestinians. There is abundant evidence, such as Amnesty's report that the Apache helicopters used to attack the Palestinians are kept flying with British parts. (Bradshaw is an active member of Labour Friends of Israel, which has arranged for 57 Labour MPs to visit Israel, the largest number of MPs from any British government.)

The Blair government has also backed the Israeli military-industrial complex by buying bullets, bombs, grenades and anti-tank missiles. The Metropolitan Police and the South Wales police buy Israeli ammunition. An Israeli combat aircraft training system was bought by the RAF. In 1999, a joint UK-Israel high-technology investment fund was established to pump funds into joint research and development.

With no objections raised by Britain, Israel hopes to open an army recruiting office in London - even though it would be recruiting for a war that stems from the occupation of Palestinian territories which the British government says is illegal. This will be in violation of the government's new anti-terrorism legislation, as Israel's attacks on the occupied territories are, by any definition, terrorism. Of the hundreds killed and thousands wounded during the uprising, 90 per cent have been Palestinian civilians, 45 per cent have been under 18 years of age and 60 per cent were shot while in their homes, schools and workplaces.

Blair's most important support for the Sharon regime has not received its due recognition. In May and July last year, the authoritative Jane's Foreign Report disclosed that Britain and France had given "the green light" to Sharon to attack Arafat if the Palestinian resistance did not stop. The British government was shown a plan for an all-out Israeli invasion and reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza "using the latest F-16 and F-15 jets against all the main installations of the Palestinian Authority [and] 30,000 men or the equivalent of a full army".

However, the Israeli plan needed a suicide bomb blast "which causes numerous deaths and injuries. The 'revenge' factor is crucial. It would motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians." What concerned Sharon and his inner circle - notably the author of the plan, Brigadier General Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli chief of staff - was a secret agreement between Arafat and Hamas, the Islamic organisation responsible for most of the suicide attacks, that suicide bombing would be stopped in Israel proper.

Following 11 September, Sharon worried that a Middle East "solution" would be a by-product of America's "war on terrorism", especially when George W Bush blurted out one of his non sequiturs: that he had always had the "dream" of a Palestinian state. On 23 November, Israeli agents assassinated the Hamas leader Mahmud Abu Hunud. Twelve days later, the inevitable response came in co-ordinated suicide attacks against Israel.

"Whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu Hunud knew in advance that that would be the price," wrote Alex Fishman, the well-connected intelligence writer in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot (quoted on Znet by Alexander Cockburn).

"Whoever gave a green light to this act knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority [which was] not to play into Israel's hands by mass attacks on its population centres."

On cue, Sharon's military attacked the occupied territories with unprecedented force, all but destroying the Palestinian Authority and Arafat's political base. Arafat, said Sharon, was now "irrelevant". There was no more loose talk in Washington about the "dream" of a Palestinian state. Blair, the peacemaker, said nothing.

*John Pilger is a well-known British journalist and TV documentary maker. His writings and videos about Iraq in recent years have won international acclaim

Guest

Subj: Daily Telegraph (UK newspaper): Bush Will Attack Iraq without UN Backing
Date: 1/13/03 3:13:31 PM Pacific Standard Time

Pro-Israel lackey Stephen Hayes of the "Weekly Standard" publication (of Bill Kristol who is the editor and is also one of the Zionist extremist chicken hawks who have been pushing Bush Jr. to invade Iraq for Israel for years) was just on with Wolf Blitzer (on CNN) pushing the (JINSA-Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist agenda for an invasion of Iraq. Who was he trying to pull one over on? Uninformed Americans, perhaps..

Zionist planned Iraq 'regime change' before Bush Jr. became President :

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

Here is the "Men from JINSA and CSP" article by Jason Vest (from "The Nation" magazine in the USA) which I had mentioned (as this article is a MUST READ at your earliest convenience):

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011

According to what is mentioned via the following URL, it appears that Mr. Blitzer might be a Perle crony as well (so no wonder JINSA has never been mentioned on any of his CNN programs):

JINSA ZIONIST RICHARD PERLE (AT PENTAGON) DRIVING US TO WAR:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/22/jinsa-zionist-richard-perle-at-pentagon-driving-us-to-war.php

What is interesting about the following is that US public support for an invasion of Iraq (without UN approval) is only at 27 percent according to a CNN poll taken within the last several weeks (as the number is most likely even lower by now!). So JINSA Zionist extremist (and chicken hawk as well) Richard Perle (and his cronies in the US and Israel) has the audacity to mention (in the Daily Telegraph article included below) that the USA will conduct an invasion of Iraq (even without UN approval and with very low US public support to go along with such).

Forwarded:

Subj: Daily Telegraph (UK newspaper): Bush Will Attack Iraq without UN Backing
Date: 1/13/03 1:50:01 PM Pacific Standard Time

Thank you for your time on the telephone this now... The Robert Fisk article (for "The Independent" newspaper in the UK) is included via the following URL:

ROBERT FISK: ISRAELI AT US LOAN TALKS IS IMPLICATED IN MASSACRE:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/12/israeli-at-us-loan-talks-is-implicated-in-massacre.php

The other articles (which I mentioned on the telephone this now as well) are included below in full (after the following URL's):

Zionist Richard Perle : 'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/24/zionist-richard-perle-inspections-or-not-we-ll-attack-iraq.php

Sharon faces coup by his own party (more about this Zionist extremist JINSA agenda can be found via the following URL):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/13/sharon-faces-coup-by-his-own-party.php

The following articles confirm what we already know about Richard Perle who is associated with that JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist agenda which has wanted an attack on Iraq for years (well before the tragic World Trade Center attack):

Bush Will Attack Iraq
'Without UN Backing'

By Toby Hamden
The Daily Telegraph - UK
1-12-3

WASHINGTON, DC -- America will not delay a war with Iraq until the autumn and
is prepared to launch military action against Saddam Hussein without further
United Nations authorization, a senior Bush administration adviser said
yesterday.

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and a hawk
whose views carry considerable weight, rejected suggestions from British
ministers and senior Foreign Office officials that plans for an early war
should be put on hold.

Mr. Perle, who is close to Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. defense secretary, said
he did not expect the UN Security Council to reach agreement on the use of
force but had little doubt that George W. Bush, the U.S. president, would
press ahead regardless and lead a coalition to victory.

"I'm assuming that we will not get a consensus on the Security Council but it
may be possible to get it," he said. "It would be a great mistake to become
dependent on it and take the view that we can't act separately.

Driving force behind U.S. foreign policy

"That would be an abrogation of the president's responsibility." Mr. Perle
stressed that as an outside adviser he could not speak for the Bush
administration. But with Mr. Rumsfeld and his ally Vice-President Dick
Cheney, now the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy, his pronouncements
have taken on increasing importance.

Mr. Perle said inspectors would not find actual weapons in the face of Iraqi
concealment. "If that's the test, we're never going to find a smoking gun,"
said Mr. Perle. He criticized Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, for
his handling of the inspections. He said inspectors had mainly visited
previously known sites.

Mr. Perle suggested that American patience with the UN inspections process
was limited and closely linked to the military timetable that makes it very
difficult to fight a war after March because of the searing heat.

UN resolution useful in producing cover for invasion He said: "If there's no
change in Saddam's attitude I think there'll be a reluctance to continue this
without a clear indication that our patience will be rewarded by a UN
Security Council consensus. "A consensus would be a useful thing, and I
think we'd be willing to wait a little longer to get it but not a long time."

Mr. Perle said America had been right to go to the UN to seek Resolution
1441, passed unanimously in November, because it "produced a consensus in
support of significant demands," but the UN had only a limited role in
dealing with Saddam.

"The question now, of course, is whether the UN having done that [passed
1441] will insist that its demands be met or revert to its previous posture
which was to pass resolutions but not take the actions necessary to ensure
compliance with them."

Claims moral justification for war

He expressed doubt that Tony Blair had asked or would ask Mr. Bush to delay
war until the autumn and accused those who sought such a delay of being
opposed to ousting Saddam in any event.

Mr. Perle said: "There are nations on the UN Security Council against taking
military action, so they will try to slow any movement towards military
action." America and its allies, he insisted, already had the legal and
moral justification for war. "We might be acting without a resolution from
the UN authorizing it, but I think the administration can make a strong case
that Saddam's defiance of a variety of resolutions passed previously could be
understood to justify military action."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-johnson12jan12,0,235=
991.story?coll=3Dla%2Dnews%2Dcomment%2Dopinions

WAR

San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1559346.php.
Print comments.

PILGER: Neocons and their plans for war
by John Pilger ? Friday January 10, 2003 at 02:38 PM

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush
said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have,
alarmingly, come true. : John Pilger :12 Dec 2002

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals
was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years
ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate
much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic
and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September
2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of
ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the
era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were
established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there
was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following
the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along
with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that
have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of
the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when
he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly
dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing
America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are
fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this
talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq...
this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of
the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece
together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will
sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century,
the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald
Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I
Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education
secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are
the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report,
Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new
century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it
recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could
"fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has
happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear
weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said
that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it
is.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed,
in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need
for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue
of the regime of Saddam Hussein." How has this grand strategy been
implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob
Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members
of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the
hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to
Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal
target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was
temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state,
persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against
Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan
Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in
Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last
April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that
Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called
together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to
think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she
compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war. Since 11
September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major
sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is
to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol
on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International
Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover
of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush
regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine
international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a
secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon
and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence
support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action,
information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document
prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker
as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke
terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United
States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is
reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by
his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with
bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification
for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few
months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources
undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. You have to
keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such
as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through
their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of
bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never
known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the
vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that
Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain").
But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and
linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube
station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black
propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists'
dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed
by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at
which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern
imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission
that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps
thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's international
death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous
piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American
fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for
those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
add your comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000-2002 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless
otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial
reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are
those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF IMC.
Disclaimer | Privacy

????????????????????????????????????

Agenda Unmasked

Deposing Hussein was a distant dream for administration officials --
until 9/11.

By Chalmers Johnson
Chalmers Johnson is the author of "Blowback" and the forthcoming book
"The Sorrows of Empire: How the
Americans Lost Their Country."

January 12 2003

DEL MAR -- In the hours immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, long
before anyone was certain who was
responsible for them, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly
asked that plans be drawn up for an
American assault on Iraq. The following day, in a Cabinet meeting at the
White House, Rumsfeld, according to Bob
Woodward, insisted that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first
round in the war against terrorism." The
president reportedly was advised that "public opinion has to be prepared
before a move against Iraq is possible" and
instead chose Afghanistan as a much softer target.

At first consideration, Rumsfeld's early targeting of Iraq seems odd.
Too little was known, too much uncertain. But
the Defense secretary's desire to attack Iraq was neither impulsive nor
reactive. In fact, ever since the first American
war against Iraq in 1991, Rumsfeld and others who planned and executed
that war have wanted to go back and
finish what they started. They said so in reports written for
then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in the last years
of the George H.W. Bush administration, and they continued the push when
they were out of power during the
Clinton years. In the spring of 1997, their efforts coalesced when
Rumsfeld, Cheney and others joined together to
form the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, and began
concerted lobbying for regime change in
Iraq.

In an open letter to President Clinton dated Jan. 26, 1998, the group
called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime from power," and in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to then-Speaker
of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and
then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), they complained that
Clinton had not listened to them and
reiterated their recommendation that Hussein be overthrown. They added,
"We should establish and maintain a
strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that
force to protect our vital interests in the
[Persian] Gulf -- and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

Signatories to one or both letters included Rumsfeld; William Kristol,
editor of the conservative Weekly Standard
magazine and chairman of the PNAC; Elliott Abrams, the convicted
Iran-Contra conspirator whom President Bush
last year named director of Middle Eastern policy for the National
Security Council; Paul D. Wolfowitz, now
Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon; John R. Bolton, now undersecretary of
state for arms control; Richard N. Perle,
now chairman of the Defense Science Board; Richard Armitage, now Colin
Powell's deputy at the State
Department; and Zalmay Khalilzad, former Unocal Corp. consultant and now
special envoy to Afghanistan.

In addition to the letters, the PNAC made its opinions known in reports,
speeches, position papers and books. In
the fall of 1998, Wolfowitz addressed the House National Security
Committee, chiding the Clinton administration for
not mustering "the necessary strength of purpose" to "liberate
ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the
Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein." When George
W. Bush became president, many
core PNAC loyalists found themselves once again government insiders,
returning to important positions of power in
American foreign policy. They expected that the radical changes in U.S.
military policy they favored would have to
come slowly in the absence of, as the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's
Defenses" put it, a "catastrophic and
catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." On Sept. 11, 2001, they
got their Pearl Harbor.

Still, the Bush administration could not just go to war with Iraq
without tying it in some way to the 9/11 attacks. It
instead launched an easy war against Afghanistan, where there was at
least a demonstrable connection between
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime -- although it can be argued that
United States policies contributed more
to Bin Laden's development as a terrorist than Afghanistan ever did.
Meanwhile, the White House launched one of
the most extraordinary propaganda campaigns of modern times to convince
the American public that Hussein
possesses weapons of mass destruction and presents an imminent danger to
the U.S.

Since the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq, and the distinct
possibility that they may come up
empty-handed, Rumsfeld has paved the way for ignoring their findings
with his sophistry that "the absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence." Bush has repeatedly stressed his
willingness to "go it alone" in Iraq -- meaning,
presumably, without either U.N. sanctions or European allies.

And he may well have to. Many of Iraq's neighbors in the region --
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Jordan, to
name some of the most important -- are likely to back away from allowing
the U.S. to use their bases as their
populations become convinced that the U.S., rather than Hussein,
presents the greatest danger.

The Bush administration says that the huge U.S. buildup of weapons,
airplanes, ships and soldiers in the Gulf region
is necessary to demonstrate to Hussein that the U.S. means business.
Officials reiterate frequently that the
preparations in no way mean that war is inevitable. I suspect, instead,
that the war lovers have succeeded in putting
their not-so-secret plan to conquer Iraq into operation and that we will
soon have to live with the consequences of
their adventurism.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting
this article, go to www.lats.com/rights.

After reading the above, could this Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney cabal (with their Likud cronies in Israel) have been involved with 9/11 (especially as such will apparently result in what they have wanted for so long with the coming invasion of Iraq):

9/11 Hijacker Attended US military School:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/9-11-hijacker-attended-us-military-school.php

Again, if the JINSA Zionist extremists (of the Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney cabal) get their way of bringing about "transfer" with their Likud cronies (Netanyahu and company) when the invasion of Iraq begins, the Middle East has the potential to turn into complete turmoil.. I have been in touch with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well, and the staff members (in the Israel department there) didn't even know what JINSA was (despite the following article by Robert Fisk of the London Independent newspaper which one would think someone there would have read when it first appeared):

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011

As you read via the following officials in the US government have conspired with Israeli officials to cover Israeli treachery against America:

USS LIBERTY MASSACRE: ISRAEL'S DIRECT ATTACK ON AMERICA:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/09/uss-liberty-massacre-israel-s-direct-attack-on-america.php

In a message dated 1/12/03 7:34:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, Mik writes:

Subj:Re: Concern of "Tranfer" Increases as Sharon Faces Coup By His Own Party
Date:1/12/03 7:34:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:Mik

So here we have the evidence that Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz
work both in the U.S. Defense Department, and also work in the JINSA
think tank, that is making up these evil plans alongside some of the other
"tips of the iceberg" think tanks made up of people I wouldn't let date
my dog.

Mik

In a message dated 1/12/3 5:24:50 PM, writes:

<< That would be right in accordance with the radical/extremist JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist agenda of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.. Perle has been an advisor to Netanyahu, and that extremist JINSA agenda (which Perle and Wolfowitz follow) calls for all of Palestine to become Israel as I am obviously referring to the West Bank and Gaza here... This is another reason that these JINSA Zionist extremists in the Bush regime have wanted to initiate the attack on Iraq for years (in order to give Israel the opportunity to "transfer"/ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the occupied territories into neighboring Jordan).

However, with the potential of the Labour party candidate (General Mitsna if I am spelling his name correctly here) winning the upcoming election, the "transfer" (ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians (which the extremist JINSA Zionists in the Bush regime like Perle and Wolfowitz along with their Likud cronies in Israel such as Netanyahu would like to see manifest when the invasion of Iraq gets underway) can not really happen in the coming invasion of Iraq because General Mitzna's position is for the Israelis to pull out of the Palestinian territories (in order to create a Palestinian state there).. This is a very serious situation for the Palestinians and for acheiving peace in the Middle East if this Likud leadership change (to Netanyahu who is even more extreme than Sharon) takes place before the election:

The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php

Here is the "Men from JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) and CSP" article by Jason Vest (from "The Nation" magazine in the USA) which I had mentioned (as this article is a MUST READ at your earliest convenience):

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1

Sharon's War:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/28/sharon-s-war.php

Iraqi Minister Claims U.S. (and Israel) Wants War...:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/05/iraqi-minister-claims-u-s-and-israel-wants-war.php

The Israelization of America

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/07/the-israelization-of-america.php

WHY TERRORIST ATTACKS ARE NOT INEVITABLE:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/26/why-terrorist-attacks-are-not-inevitable.php

Scott Ritter's Excellent CALTECH Speech on Nov. 13th, 2002:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/26/scott-ritter-s-excellent-caltech-speech-on-nov-13th-2002.php

Price of Support for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/17/the-price-of-israel.php

PASSIONATE ATTACHMENT TO ISRAEL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/24/passionate-attachment-to-israel.php

Breaking the Silence on the Israel Lobby:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/breaking-the-silence-on-the-israel-lobby.php

Please also keep an eye on the Israel message board via the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/index.php

Guest

Bush Rejects Aid to States but Will Flow Billions to Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/12/bush-rejects-aid-to-states-but-will-flow-billions-to-israel.php

Guest

Palestinians unimpressed by London conference

By Khalid Amayreh

Occupied Jerusalem: 14 January, 2003 (IAP News)

Most Palestinians in the occupied territories have shown little interest in the British-sponsored conference on Palestinian reforms, which convened in London Tuesday.

Palestinian Authority officials, who have been barred from traveling to London for the conference by the Israeli army, urged the world community to “act swiftly to protect the defenseless Palestinians from this slow-motion holocaust,” an allusion to Israel’s two-year-old violent rampage in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

PA official Yasser Abed Rabbo described the conference as “a symbolic step” showing that the world hasn’t forgotten the Palestinian plight.

Abed Rabbo, who, along with other Palestinian leaders, will participate in the discussions via the “video-conference,” said the Palestinian people needed “immediate physical protection.”

“What we urgently need is physical protection because this bloody Israeli regime is killing innocent Palestinians on a daily basis and destroying all the hopes for peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.”

The Palestinian official accused the United States, Israel’s guardian-ally, of conniving with Ariel Sharon in thwarting Palestinian political reforms.

“Israel doesn’t really care about Palestinian reforms. Israel wants only to liquidate the Palestinian cause and crush Palestinian aspirations for freedom, independence and statehood. I’m sure the Americans are aware of this.”

Ordinary Palestinians denounced the conference as a smoke screen aimed at distracting attention from the looming Anglo-American war on Iraq.

“Do you really believe that Britain and America are sincere about Palestinian rights?,” asked Muhammed Ayyoub, a taxi-driver in Hebron, adding that “the first gave Palestine to the Jews and the second has been embracing Jewish Nazism against our people for the past fifty years.”

Another Palestinian, also from Hebron, lashed out at British Prime Minister Tony Blair for accentuating the issue of political reforms in the Palestinian authority.

“ I don’t know how could Blair possibly convince us that the issue of political reforms is more paramount than stopping the ongoing Zionist carnage against a defenseless civilian population whose only ‘crime’ is their desire to be free from foreign military occupation.”

“If Blair was sincere, he would first call on Sharon to immediately withdraw his occupation army from Palestinian population centers and end the Nazi-like siege on Palestinian towns and villages.”

Hamas leaders have also denounced the London conference as a wily ploy to deceive the Arab public opinion while Britain and the United States are preparing for war against Iraq.

One Hamas leader from the Gaza Strip described the conference as “classical British deception.”

“It would be foolhardy to expect from London anything good for the Palestinians. Britain is the origin of all evils, when it comes to the Palestinian people. “

Guest

Guest

Bush Rejects Aid to States but Will Flow Billions to Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/12/bush-rejects-aid-to-states-but-will-flow-billions-to-israel.php

Guest

Prime Minister stands firm in face of party opposition to conflict

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=369678

Guest

Tony Blair's Secret Bank Account - Dollars for Blood:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/01/17/tony-blair-s-secret-bank-account-dollars-for-blood.php

Guest · Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:26 am Post subject: New Crisis, Old Lessons

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/20/new-crisis-old-lessons.php

Guest

The Zionist Wolf of the White House Pushing US to War:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/19/the-zionist-wolf-of-the-white-house-pushing-us-to-war.php

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Why is Blair Poodling with the BUSH (JINSA) Zionists for War