| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:46 am Post subject: Israel's standing as U.S. ally questioned |
| http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Marquette Tribune Featured Article Weather
movietickets.com
Israel's standing as U.S. ally questioned
America hurt by ill-conceived foreign policy
By William Gartland
In the rising criticism of President Bush and the "neo-conservatives" for taking us into the war in Iraq with its nearly 600 dead and 3,500 wounded, one subject is always overlooked: Israel. When 27-year veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern was on Joy Cardin's Wisconsin Public Radio program in July 2003, among many interesting things he had to say was that Israel was the only country that had benefited from the carnage.
Some of the things he made reference to were the following:
1. Israel was given an outright grant of $1 billion in addition to $8 billion in loan guarantees to stay out of the war.
2. Israel has been able to substantially cut its defense spending because Iran and Syria pose much less of a threat than Iraq ever did now that it has been neutralized.
3. Not one drop of Israeli blood has been shed in the war hatched by President Bush and his neo-conservative "graduates" of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
In 1948, Americans could go in peace anywhere in the Muslim world. Today, the opposite is true — courtesy of America's being a lackey of the state of Israel. Retired South Dakota Sen. James Abourezk was certainly right when he once made the observation that "calling Israel an ally is like thanking the arsonist for helping put out the fire."
Gartland is a Rio, Wis. resident and retired businessman who is interested in social justice for the Palestinians, the men of the USS Liberty and the Irish.
Marquette Tribune
April 15, 2004 | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:04 am Post subject: Must Listen Interview with CIA Analyst Ray McGovern |
| This is a MUST LISTEN interview with Ray McGovern (who is mentioned in the above referenced article) as he mentions that the Iraq invasion/occupation was for Israel:
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=8983 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:06 am Post subject: More on the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon Agenda... |
| The link between the JINSA/CSP/PNAC agenda and the economic pillaging of Iraq is Vice President Dick Cheney as he has been associated with JINSA/PNAC and was the CEO for Halliburton as you already know... In addition, George Schultz (who is associated with the Hoover Institute) also was all for the Iraq invasion/occupation and was associated with Bechtel which has also benefitted financially from the Iraq invasion. I very much agreed with what you said at UCLA yesterday (except for when you mentioned that the neocon and Halliburton/imperial exploitation of Iraq could be considered as separate motivation explanations for the Iraq invasion/occupation as they are not-keep in mind that JINSAN Douglas Feith is associated with a law firm that has an office in Israel which has been helping arrange at least some of the business deals in Iraq). The following URLs convey what I have mentioned above about JINSA/CSP/PNAC:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/offsite_snieg_raimondo.htm
Carl Boggs was not quite correct as well when he mentioned that the Evangelical Christians don't have much to do with the JINSA/CSP/PNAC agenda (wording to this effect) as they most certainly do in that they support the 'greater Israel' ideology as well and are the base of the Republican vote for Bush.
This is a very interesting URL to access as well about the Israeli spies (especially the Sunday Herald article by Neil Mackay in Scotland):
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/92910.php
JINSANs like Richard Perle, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen (Cheney has also been associated with JINSA/PNAC as such is why I would not surprised that if it is 'Scooter' Libby who traitorously released the name of your wife) are also associated with PNAC at AEI (as this article by Neil Mackay about PNAC is excellent as well):
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
If this is accurate, it is no surprise to me that JINSA/CAMERA was trying to cover-up/suppress the Israeli spy ring scandal (to include Cameron's series which aired on Fox News Channel) as they have been trying to cover-up the USS Liberty attack for years as well:
http://www.rense.com/general18/JINSA.HTM
Forwarded:
Subj: Re: FW: 2001 fox news series: israel is spying in and on the us?
Date: 4/12/04 1:17:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: MORRIS434
To: joewilson
Hi Joe,
Thanks for sending this to me in full like such as I have only seen links for the various parts via the following URL:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
Also, this article (that appeared in the 'Forward' which is a respected Jewish publication out of New York) mentioned that the Israeli Mossad agents detained on 9/11 were specialists (or wording similar to such) in ordinance and surveillance:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html
I was watching Arnaud De Borchgrave (editor at large for UPI) last Saturday morning on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' as he mentioned that Chalabi is poised to take over as Iraqi Prime Minister on July 1st.. This is right in line with that 'A Clean Break' document which JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremists Richard Perle and Douglas Feith wrote for Netanyahu (in 1996) in Israel (which called for regime change in Iraq, Syria as well as inserting a Hashemite ruler in Iraq-who is Chalabi as he has association with Prince Hasan of Jordan as the JINSA/PNAC cabal had Hasan in mind as well). Chalabi is currently in charge of oil and trade in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister will have all the power according to what Borchgrave mentioned... More on 'A Clean Break' is mentioned via the following URL:
NEOCON WARMONGERS are mostly Jewish Zionist extremists:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/09/neocon-warmongers-are-mostly-jewish-zionist-extremists.php
Looks like the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons are trying to get us to go after Iran next (which is right in accordance with their agenda):
Neocons after More War for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/11/neocons-after-more-war-for-israel.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:13 am Post subject: Iraq in Israel's Grand (Neocon) Strategy |
| Subj: Iraq in Israel's Grand Strategy
Date: 4/7/04 7:15:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Friends,
Iraq in Israel’s Grand Strategy
As this article points out, the US attack on Iraq fits into a Zionist grand strategy of weakening Arab neighbors, which was conceived long before the independence of Israel in 1948. To me this appears like a very logical foreign policy for the Jewish state to hold, though it doesn’t help the US to advance this goal.
The neocon aim for attacking Iraq is now revealed quite openly in the major media--that Bush neocons were targeting Iraq for an attack prior to September 11 and that the terrorist attacks provided the pretext to implement their plans. What is still taboo is the neocon connection with Israel. But the neocons have been closely tied to the Israeli right. The original flagship of the neoconservative movement was _Commentary Magazine_, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, which has as its stated purpose the protection of Jews and Israel. Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser even advised then Prime Minister Netanyahu to attack Iraq in 1996 in their "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" policy paper. [http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm ]
In Israel, a military attack on Iraq had been discussed by Oded Yinon in a 1982 policy paper entitled, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which proposed a plan for the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel’s Middle East enemies. [http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm]
As the following article points out, the idea of weakening and dissolving Israel’s Middle East neighbors was not just a Likudnik idea but has been a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, being promoted by David Ben Gurion himself. "It is against this backdrop that Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and its attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement."
Zionist support for the Kurdish effort to weaken Iraq actually began in the 1930s, before the state of Israel existed, and blossomed in the 1950s and 1960s. "By the end of the 1950s and the early 1960s, Israel became the primary source of arms and military training for the Kurds in their fight against the Iraqi central government. While full details have yet to be revealed, thousands of Mossad agents and Israeli military personnel were located throughout northern Iraq under different covers (military advisors, agricultural experts, trainers, and doctors); Israeli support for the Kurds peaked during the second Gulf War after the Kurdish takeover of strategically important and oil rich Kirkuk. The secessionist movement, however, quickly collapsed after heavy military blows from the Iraqi army before the United States imposed changes that ended control of the centralised government and established an area of Kurdish sovereignty."
Israel’s goal has been not simply to weaken external enemies but to weaken the position of the Palestinians—the internal demographic threat that poses the greatest danger to the Jewish supremacist state. The reason for this is that the Arab states provide spiritual and material aid to the Palestinian cause. Without outside aid the Palestinians would give up hope. The author writes: "Sequential wars with the Arab world have given Israel opportunities to exhaust the Arab world, as well as tipping the demographic and political situation against Palestinians. Even regional wars which Israel has not participated in have benefited Israel and weakened the Palestinian national movement The first and second Gulf War are a few examples." Of course, some of Israel’s wars have involved the expulsion of Palestinians and the occupation of Palestinian lands. Even the US war on Iraq in 1991 had this effect, although Israel was not involved. "Finally, the second Gulf War of 1991 resulted in the expulsion of the Palestinian community from Kuwait, which formed one of the primary arteries of Palestinian income and power in the occupied territories."
With Israel grand strategy in mind, it is apparent that the current war on Iraq has already significantly weakened Israel’s external enemies as well as the Palestinians, even if the US is unable to establish a puppet regime in Iraq.
_____________________________________
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2003/634/op2.htm
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 17 - 23 April 2003 (Issue No. 634)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5325
US Iran Policy
ZNet | Iraq
US Iran Policy
by Sasan Fayazmanesh and Foaad Khosmood; ZNet Iran Watch; April 14, 2004
ZNet IranWatch will be presenting some interviews on US Iran policy in the coming weeks. This interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh, an economist at California State University, is the first of a series.
Foaad Khosmood: Since 2001 there have been mixed signals coming out of Washington regarding Iran. Undersecretary of State for non-proliferation, John Bolton, has suggested possible military action on several occasions, while deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage has taken much criticism for calling Iran a “democracy.” How can the current US policy toward Iran be described? What are the aims and reasoning behind this policy? How has this policy changed from what it was under the Clinton administration?
Sasan Fayazmanesh: This is an important question that requires some historical backtracking. So, if you don’t mind, I’ll answer your question at length.
The contradictory policy of the US toward Iran, or what you refer to as “mixed signals,” has a long history that starts well before 2001. I have analyzed the history of this policy, from its inception in 1979 to the end of the Clinton Administration, in my essay “The Politics of the US Economic Sanctions against Iran” (The Review of Radical Political Economy, Volume 35, Number 3, 2003). As I have argued in that essay, the incoherent and inconsistent policy of the US toward Iran, especially the sanctions policy, and particularly during the Clinton Administration, can be explained by the pull and push of two forces for and against economic sanctions.
The first force, pushing for sanctions against Iran, was Israel and its many lobbies in the US, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliate “think tank,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This force has been basically formulating and implementing much of the US foreign policy toward Iran, particularly the sanctions policy. For example, the first head of the Washington Institute, Martin Indyk—who was at one point the press advisor to Issak Shamir and subsequently went on to occupy powerful positions in the Clinton Administration, including the director for Middle East matters at the National Security Council and the US Ambassador to Israel—initially formulated three reasons for continued US sanctions: 1) Iran’s support for “international terrorism,” which means support for all organizations that are hostile to the Israeli occupation and answer violence with violence, namely, HAMAS and the Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian Territories and Hizballah in Lebanon; 2) opposition to the “peace process” in the Middle East, which, of course, Israel has now opposed itself; and 3) pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction,” which could mean anything, including missiles. These accusations form the backbone of the US foreign policy to this day. The second force, opposing the numerous US sanctions, consisted of the US corporations and their lobbies, particularly those associated with the oil and agricultural industries. These corporations, which, as a result of numerous sanctions had been cut off from lucrative deals with Iran, used their own lobbies, think tanks, and allies in the US government to combat the passage of more stringent sanctions against Iran. In 1997, for example, the US corporations set up a front called “USA*ENGAGE.” According to the website of the organization, this was a “coalition representing American business and agriculture” and having “670 members including 40 National and State Associations and organizations from major sectors of the US economy.” The organization’s list of members was a basic “who is who” of the US corporations, including, among others, the giant oil, agricultural, and aerospace companies. The stated chief objective of the organization was to open “a serious, bipartisan dialogue with the Congress, the executive branch and with governors, mayors and other local authorities about the limited effectiveness of these unilateral measures, their cost to the US economy, and about the importance of engagement” with countries such as Iran. Even though the US corporations made some headway in changing the US policy toward Iran in the second half of the Clinton Administration, their action was not sufficient to nullify the power of the Israeli lobby. As a result, the US foreign policy toward Iran in the last few years of the previous Administration became an incoherent and inconsistent policy, pushed by the Israelis toward confrontation with Iran and pulled by the corporation toward rapprochement with Iran. All this, of course, changed with the arrival of the new administration.
Fkh: Does this contradictory policy, which you say was mostly tilted toward Israel, explain the inability of the oil companies to export the Central Asian oil though Iran?
SF: Yes. After the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the oil companies were engaged in a feeding frenzy to export oil from the former Central Asian Republics, particularly from Azerbaijan’s Baku region. The least costly method of exporting oil from this region would naturally have involved Iran. The oil companies could have either transported oil using a pipeline passing through Iran or simply swapped the oil with Iran. Yet, the numerous US sanctions against Iran, particularly in 1995, prevented the oil companies from adopting either of the two options. As a result, the oil companies were forced to accept the much more complicated and costly way of transporting oil to Turkey’s Mediterranean Port of Ceyhan. This was, of course, one reason why the oil companies and their lobbyists fought tooth and nail to remove the sanctions.
FKh: Let us get back to what was being said earlier. How did the US foreign policy toward Iran change after the arrival of the Bush Administration?
SF: When President Bush “won” the election, the US corporations appeared to be joyous, since three of the top members of the Administration—President Bush himself, Vice President Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice—had all been affiliated with the oil industry. But these affiliations, as well as other aspects of a tentative cabinet makeup, worried the Israelis. The Jerusalem Post, for example, wrote that some “Jewish leaders are worried that many of Bush's father's advisers [Baker, Scowcroft, and Powell], who were not particularly warm toward Israel, will wield extraordinary influence in the administration, while the leaders themselves—many of them accustomed to having Clinton's ear—are worried about losing their own clout” (December 8, 2000). In particular, the paper criticized Powell, because “Powell originally opposed the Gulf War, to the dismay of Israel and the pro-Israel community.” The Jerusalem Post then enumerated friends of Israel in the top echelon of the new Administration. It made references to Wolfowitz and Perle by writing: “Both Perle and Wolfowitz have been especially outspoken critics of Clinton's policy toward Iraq and the peace process. . .
Both Perle and Wolfowitz are the type of candidates the pro-Israel lobby is pushing.” Let me point out that both Wolfowitz and Perle are on the Board of Advisors of the AIPAC affiliated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Perle is also on the advisory board of The Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs (JINSA). Subsequently, in an article entitled “All the president's Middle East men” (1/19/2001), Jerusalem Post prophetically wrote about the Middle East foreign policy makers: “What you will have are two institutions grappling for control of policy.” It then stated that it “is no secret in Washington—or anywhere else for that matter—that the policies will be determined less by Bush himself and more by his inner circle of advisers.” And, once again, after enumerating how many people Israel has in the new Administration, it wrote: “Paul Wolfowitz . . . The Jewish and pro-Israel communities are jumping for joy. . . He has been one of the loudest proponents of a tough policy toward Iraq focused on finding a way to bring down Saddam Hussein's regime.” You can see how informed, insightful and prophetic Jerusalem Post articles were. They pointed out precisely what the so-called neocons, such as Wolofowitz and Perle, were planning to do with regard to Iraq. They also pointed out the divisions between these neocons and others in the Administration, such as Powell. Let me give you one example of this division. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the US State Department, led by Powell, and the Iranian government, led by President Khatami, made some overtures to improve relations between the two countries. Israel was clearly upset by this development and, with the help of the neocons in the Administration, it quickly put an end to any rapprochement between US and Iran. Now I can answer your original question concerning the different attitudes of John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State and the Administration's senior non-proliferation official, and Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, toward Iran. Armitage is a close associate of Powell. Bolton, on the other hand, is a well-known neoconservative. He has served on the board of advisers of JINSA and is also a former senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), another neoconservative think tank. As such, Bolton shares the neoconservative agenda. For example, while in Israel in February 2003, Bolton stated that he had "no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward" (St. Petersburg Times, February 19, 2003). This must have been music to the ears of the Israeli officials. In an article in The Jerusalem Post (1/4/2002), Netanyahu wrote: “American power topples the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the al-Qaida network there crumbles on its own. The United States must now act similarly against the other terror regimes–Iran, Iraq, Arafat's dictatorship, Syria, and a few others. Some of these regimes will have to be toppled, some of them punished and deterred.” Similarly, in an interview with Ariel Sharon, The Times of London (2/5/2002) wrote that according to Sharon, “Iran is the center of ‘world terror,’ and as soon as an Iraq conflict is concluded, [Sharon] will push for Iran to be at the top of the ‘to do list’ . . . He sees Iran as ‘behind terror all around the world’ and a direct threat to Israel.” So the neocons, such as Bolton and Wolfowitz, are merely trying to take care of Sharon’s “to do list.” This agenda, however, is not exactly shared by all the members of the Administration. The result is a new set of incoherent and inconsistent policies that you referred to earlier as “mixed signals” to Iran.
FKh: So are you saying that the accusation that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons has to do with the Israeli agenda of destroying their enemies one after another? Is it not the case that, as the Bush Administration contends, Iran must be pursuing atomic weapons because, as a major energy producer, it has no need for nuclear energy?
SF: I have made this quite clear in a number of essays, especially in my CounterPunch articles “The Weapon of Choice” and “The Saga of Iran's Alleged WMD.” The latter essay, in particular, which simply quotes news reports between July and December of 2003, chronicles how the holy alliance, US-Israel (USrael), is trying to use the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to bring about a “regime change in Iran.” I refer your readers to these articles for details. But let me give a short answer to your question.
As I pointed out earlier, USrael has been using the accusation of Iran developing WMD for a long time to overthrow the Iranian government. The accusation has become more intense in the past few years as the neocons have taken over the US Middle East policy. Richard Perle, for example, was quoted as saying that “the best way to deal with the Iranian nuclear program would be to ‘liberate the Iranian people’” (Reuters, June 16, 2003). Similarly, John Bolton, in his position as the Administration's senior non-proliferation official, has certainly tried his best to “deal” with the “enemies of Israel” by incessantly accusing Iran of developing WMD. The Israelis, of course, have been repeating the same charge. For example, Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, said in an interview with the Russian daily Izvestia that “Iran will possess weapons of mass destruction at the end of 2005 or early in 2006” (Agence France Presse, June 5, 2003). The USraeli accusation is, of course, quite hypocritical. Both countries have nuclear weapons. Both are engaged in research and development in the area of nuclear weapons technology. Both are ready to use nuclear weapons if necessary. The US, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, ElBaradei, is in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (Reuters, August 27, 2003). Israel has never signed such a treaty. Moreover, US and her allies helped the Shah of Iran with its nuclear research and development in the mid 1960s. Ultimately, in the mid 1970s the Shah began building a nuclear reactor in Bushehr. In this effort, the Shah not only had the blessing of US and her allies, but was actually helped and encouraged by them. So the argument that Iran must be pursuing atomic weapons because it has no need for nuclear energy does not make any sense. Why didn’t USrael raise this issue when their ally, the Shah of Iran, was in power? Why is it being raised now?
FKh: The term “Axis of Evil” was uttered frequently by the administration during most of 2002 beginning with the State of the Union speech. What do you make of the term ? Was the expression part of the neoconservative policy? Where does it stand today?
SF: David Frum, a former speech writer for President Bush and a neoconservative colleague of Richard Perle, took credit for coining the phrase “axis of evil” and including it in President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union message. Frum, who currently writes for the neo-fascistic National Review Online, which supports everything Israel does, is one of those fellows that The Jerusalem Post declared to be Israel’s own. The paper also noted that “David Frum [is] Bush's economic speech writer; and arguably the most influential of them all” (January 18, 2002). The expression “axis of evil” was part of the neoconservative agenda of making the world safe for Israel. But given that the war in Iraq has turned out to be a fiasco for the US, the expression has lost its luster and significance.
FKh: Do you see any US military action against Iran in the foreseeable future? If not, what will be the US policy?
SF: Although the Israeli government had Iran at the very top of the US “to do list” even before the US invasion of Iraq, the neocons did not appear to have thought that an all out attack on Iran was militarily feasible or prudent. This is even more so today, given the fact that the US is now stuck in Iraq in one of its most perilous military adventures since the Vietnam War. The neocons—who, in their push for the war, have put the economic future of this country in danger, brought it to the verge of military disaster and caused a great deal of political turmoil already—will not be able, at least in the foreseeable future, to repeat such adventures. This, of course, does not mean that Iran is safe. The US government has not ruled out surgical strikes against some of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Indeed, Israel has repeatedly threatened Iran with such strikes and, with the help of the neocons, is using every opportunity to push the US government in that direction.(1) But, for the time being, the immediate strategy is for the US to pass a resolution in the UN that would declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This might then start a scenario similar to that in Iraq in the early 1990s, namely, the imposition of UN economic sanctions against Iran. We will just have to wait and see how successful the current USraeli campaign is in pressuring the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the UN for violating NPT.
FOOTNOTE (1): As this interview is being conducted, AIPAC is waging a campaign to blame Iran for the US military and political failures in Iraq. It writes on its website: “Sheik al-Sadr is reportedly being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hizballah, who are supplying money, spiritual support and possibly weapons, The Washington Times reported.” The Washington Times is, of course, one of the many mouthpieces of the neocons.
Sasan Fayazmanesh is a professor of Economics at California State University, Fresno.
Foaad Khosmood is the Editor of ZNet's Iranwatch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Analysis: US 'emulates' Israeli tactics **
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/14/analysis-us-emulates-israeli-tactics.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:21 am Post subject: Re: JINSA's statement |
| Subj: Re: JINSA's statement
Date: 4/16/04 3:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
Hey (JINSA-Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), they're running the show.
In a message dated 4/16/04 11:56:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jblankfort@earthlink.net writes:
Subj:JINSA's statement
Date:4/16/04 11:56:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:jblankfort@earthlink.net
JINSA Online, April 15, 2004
April 15, 2004
JINSA Report #405
Sending a Whole New Message
Erase yesterday's JINSA Report, in which we expressed concern that the
President would hold space for the Palestinians. He didn't. Instead he
sent a strong message that they have a lot to lose - and have already
lost a lot - by failing to engage in serious reform, including a change
in Palestinian leadership. Parsing the President's statement following
his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon, the following excellent points
emerge:
The President is talking with everyone but the Palestinians. Not that we
care much for most of those to whom he did speak, but the Palestinians
can't miss the fact the he isn't talking to them about their future. At
the rate they are going, others, mainly Israel, will decide for them
what they were invited in Oslo to
decide for themselves.
The Palestinians, not the Israelis, are on the American hot seat. 'For
more than 50 years, Israel has been a vital ally and a true friend of
America. I've been proud to call the prime minister my friend. I really
appreciate our discussions today.' The Palestinians are still required
to insist on change and on a leadership that is committed to reform and
progress and peace. 'We will help, but the most difficult work is
theirs.' Calling on the Palestinians to 'create the institutions and
habits of liberty'; was a particularly lovely and American formulation.
Time only goes forward and it goes forward inexorably. 'The realities on
the ground and in the region have changed greatly over the last several
decades, and any final settlement must take into account those realities
and be agreeable to the parties...'
There is no so-called 'right of return' 'The United States is strongly
committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state (and...)
a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status
agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a
Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather
than Israel.'
The Oslo era is really, truly over. 'Israel must have secure and
recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the
parties in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338.' Not only no Oslo, but also no Wye River, no Camp David, no Taba,
no Tenet, no Mitchell, and no Geneva.
No Auschwitz borders. 'It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of
final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the
armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a
two-state solution have reached the same conclusion..' The President
commended Prime Minister Sharon for boldness and courage. We commend the
President for the same.
Source: http://www.jinsa.org/articles/view.html?documentid=2452 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:16 am Post subject: Why the US went to war against Iraq! Excerpt |
| Subj: Why the US went to war against Iraq! Excerpt
Date: 4/17/04 9:22:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: nord@famvid.com
To: bilcar80@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
A NOT-SO-NEUTRAL CORNER
By Ciro Scotti *
Senior Editor, Business Week
April 14, 2004
(From) Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11
"THE REAL THREAT"? Philip Zelikow, now the executive director of the September 11 commission, served on the National Security Council, was on the Bush transition team, and was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003. According to the Inter Press Service, he said during a war-on-terror forum at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002: "I'll tell you what the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell."
So to boil all this down, we went to war, sacrificed thousands of human lives, racked up billions in bills, and flouted the rules of international law for three basic reasons: Israel, oil, and the vengeance of a son whose father didn't finish off Saddam and then was targeted for assassination by the Iraqi Horror Show in 1993?
* Ciro Scotti, senior editor for government and sports business, offers his views in
A Not-So-Neutral Corner, only for BusinessWeek Online Edited by Douglas Harbrecht | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:24 am Post subject: Wendy Campbell: The third temple & Zionism |
| Subj: Zionists Are Already Re-Building the Third Temple Offsite and Plan to Destroy th
Date: 4/17/04 7:25:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Wendy Campbell: The third temple & Zionism
Report Back from Syria (and FYI, the Zionists Are Already Re-Building the Third Temple Offsite and Plan to Destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque)
By Wendy Campbell
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/271
I just got back from a fabulous trip to Syria, truly a hidden treasure full of fantastic historical sites going back thousands of years and a delightful place with incredibly friendly and hospitable people, even after finding out that I am an American.
You might be surprised to hear that Syria is a fantastic destination, even for Americans. But think about it. Who has been telling you that Syria is full of terrorists? Of course, it's the Zionist-dominated American media. The very same media that has been embedded as part of our Zionist-dominated war-mongoring government. The very same media that has been beating the drums for war against all the countries that Zionists would like to see the US invade and "democratize". The very same media that when being "risque" may even try to blame the war on "oil". The very same media that goes out of its way to avoid the word "Zionism" or explaining Israel's apartheid regime, or Israel's on-going history of ethnic-cleansing against non-Jewish indigenous Palestinians in Palestine-Israel. The very same media that tries to deny that the war on Iraq has been a war fought on only Israel's behalf.
Yes, THAT U.S. media. That Department of Misinformation.
So, no wonder that I, for one, was not surprised to find out that Syria is actually a friendly, beautiful and fascinating place to visit.
However, I must say, that I was surprised at how incredibly friendly the Syrian people were. We went in with a small group tour, all Christians (mostly Christian Scientists, and a couple Roman Catholics), and one agnostic.
Everywhere we went, even just walking down the street, many of the Syrian people called out "Hello" and "Welcome!" to us, even after they found out we were American, which we were more than a little ashamed to admit since we are all anti-war and detest Bush's policies. We were welcomed into many Syrians' homes for "flower tea" or Syrian or Turkish coffee, into upscale homes, modest city apartments and Bedouin beehive-shaped adobe mud homes sitting on carpets way out in the countryside.
By the way, our tour guide, a Greek Orthodox Christian, said on several occasions to our group that Syrians are not against Jews and Judaism but they are against Zionism. Syrians all know what Zionism is, but Zionist Jews in this country have not gone out of their way to explain to non-Jewish Americans exactly what Zionism is. The typical explanation a Zionist Jew will give to explain to a non-Jew when asked about Zionism is to claim that Zionism is the belief that Jews must have a homeland in Israel, formerly known as Palestine, and that Jews must have self-sovereignty in a Jewish state. They never include the fact that in order for Jews to have a Jewish state, it has always been and continues to be at the expense of the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinian people. Zionists typically put a veil on the ugly way in which Israel was created and Israel’s on-going ethnic cleansing campaign against the indigenous, non-Jewish Palestinian people who are being persecuted and denied equal rights in their own ancestral homeland.
The ethnocentric Jewish state of Israel is also maintained at the expense of the American people with the billions of our tax dollars which our government funnels to Israel every year unconditionally and virtually on demand. On top of that, our government’s political and economic support of the apartheid state of Israel has created anti-American sentiment worldwide and sacrifices our credibility. Palestinians continue to pay the ultimate price for racist Israel with their lives and property, but now Americans are paying not only with their tax dollars and our country’s reputation, but also with American blood in fighting wars for Israel, such as the war on Iraq.
Fortunately not all Jews are Zionists and not all Jews try to hide the truth about Zionism and Zionist Israel. An excellent primer entitled “Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict” written by Jews For Justice in the Middle East can be found at the website www.cactus48.com <http://www.cactus48.com/> . For information about how some Jews believe Zionism to be the exact opposite of Judaism, read about the Neturei Karta, a worldwide organization of Ultra Orthodox Jews, at www.nkusa.org <http://www.nkusa.org/> or order my documentary entitled “Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism” via my website at www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com <http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com/> .
Contrary to what Zionists' would have Americans believe, Syrian women are free to wear whatever they want. In any given street scene or restaurant, the spectrum of clothing that women in Syria wear ranges from Brittany Spears' style skin-tight jeans and teeshirts (but no belly showing) to professional Western-style suits, to wearing a hejab and sometimes a traditional robe to being entirely covered in flowing black, face included (mostly from Iran, I was told). There were no Afghan-style burqas to be found, even in a store, which we had wanted to bring back for a Halloween outfit.
Contrary to what Zionists would have you believe about the Muslim men oppressing their women, we found Muslim men to be very charming, natural and relaxed and even deferential to women. As a woman I felt completely comfortable in communicating with the Syrian men I met. In fact, at one point, my fiance decided to stay with the tour in the museum, and I decided to split to explore the nearby shops on my own. We were in Aleppo, the oldest continuously inhabited by humans city in the entire world. I went into a shop that sold some hookah pipes to photograph them, and a small gathering of men inside the shop kindly invited me to join them in smoking the "hubbly-bubbly" as it is called. I was sincere when I said I would like to but didn't have time. They were most gracious.
By the way, the "hubbly-bubbly" is a recent popular craze at all the Syrian restaurants and cafes. It is just flavored tobacco with apple being the current Syrian favorite, but it is available in other flavors such as mint, cappuccino and more. I tried it twice later, and can attest to the fact that it is very mild tobacco. I did not even get a nicotine buzz! It's just a fun thing to do. It made me think of the hookah-smoking caterpillar in “Alice in Wonderland”. Both men and women smoke it with languid relish. It certainly adds to the exotic mystique of Syrian ambiance.
Yet another common myth is that Jews were chased out of Syria, and that any Jews who remain in Syria are discriminated against. It should come as no real surprise in this age of Orwellian “news” that quite the opposite is true. First of all, many Jews left Syria voluntarily to be in Israel, which as you know gives favored status to Jews. The Jews who have chosen to stay in Syria are among the wealthiest of Syrian society. On top of that, the Syrian government goes out of its way to make sure that Jews are not discriminated against there, and in fact, apparently Jews get preferential treatment in many cases. Just for an example, Jews may get governmental documents speedier than non-Jews in Syria precisely to avoid any charges of discrimination, we were told. We personally met a Jewish man who was managing his antiques shop in Damascus, where he had non-Jewish shop-owners as neighbors. They all seemed to get along together quite well. Once again, another Zionist myth shattered.
**********
It may not come as a big surprise that the Syrian newspapers have many stories about the evils of Zionism, the neoconservatives, apartheid Israel, Israel's Apartheid Wall, the war crimes of Ariel Sharon, and general wrath about Israel's aggression against the Palestinian people. These kinds of candid stories are not what one typically finds in the US media. By the way, there were no Syrian stories dwelling on that red herring of "oil" as the reason for the US-led war on Iraq. Because the Syrians know, along with the rest of the world, that the war on Iraq was the brainchild of Israel and the Zionists, both Israeli and American.
The following revelation most likely will come as a surprise to you, dear readers, as it was even a surprise to me, an expert on Zionism and Palestine-Israel.
As a matter of fact, it is a fact that is not known by many outside of Israel or the Middle East:
The Zionist Jews are already re-building the Third Temple offsite somewhere in the Jewish state of Israel, which they plan to re-locate to the original site of the first two temples in Jerusalem--- on top of the Temple Mount where the Al Aqsa Mosque currently sits. The Zionists are waiting for the right moment to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, which is the third most holy site of the Muslim world, and then re-locate the temple they are currently building off-site. We were informed about this endeavor by a top-level Syrian businessman during our trip over dinner.
According to him there are many Zionist organizations whose sole purpose is to realize this event. Apparently this is common knowledge in the Middle East, yet Americans are certainly not aware of this. This makes it even clearer why Sharon’s visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in September 2000 with 1000 troops sparked off the Second Intifada by the Palestinians. Of course, the Palestinians were already pushed to the boiling point by many factors at that point.
However the military visit to Al Aqsa Mosque was a deliberately provocative act by Sharon to show that he was stepping up the timetable to realize the Zionist dream of rebuilding the Temple on the site of the Al Aqsa mosque, heralding a NEW WORLD ORDER with Jerusalem as the capital of the world. The Zionists have already been digging tunnels underneath the Al Aqsa Mosque. For more information about this, please check out http://www.hoffman-info.com/warren.html and also http://www.templemount.org/tempprep.html.
Of course, the Palestinians reacted predictably violently as Sharon was hoping, to give him an excuse to “retaliate” with even greater force and more deadly violence, since Israel has the fourth strongest army in the world, and the Palestinians have NONE.
Unfortunately for Sharon, the WILL OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE is stronger than all of his weapons. However, the Palestinian people are being sorely tried. It’s up to the American people who have been enlightened about the evil of Zionism to spread the word of this new Nazism, this neo-Nazism, and to stop it by pressuring our government to end its unconditional support of racist apartheid Israel and becoming the media ourselves. We must spread the word NOW. There is still time for JUSTICE to triumph over evil.
As a lone sign at the recent anti-war rally in NYC on March 20th stated: "Second Most Important World Super-Power: American Public Opinion."
If you believe in justice for all regardless of religion, ethnicity or sex, you and me, we've got our work cut out for us.
----------------------follow at the site----------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/271 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
